Understanding the Difference

The deeper we get into this politic season the more real the possibility that Donald Trump may emerge with the nomination of the Republican Party for the Presidency of the United States. Despite all of the pronouncements of the talking heads populating cable news and social media, the momentum that Mr. Trump is generating may bring to him enough primary delegates to require the Republican Party to name him their standard bearer for 2016. What is horrifying about what we are witnessing is not necessarily what is coming from Mr. Trump’s mouth on a daily basis. As base and despicable as it is he is not the first candidate for national office to espouse the type of nativist, anti-immigrant, bigoted, racist and phobic views we are beset by on a daily basis. What is new and particularly alarming is the amount of support that he is receiving in so many areas of the country that is propelling his candidacy forward. That so many of us are embracing Mr. Trump’s hatred of everything the nation has historically stood for raises anew the same question Abraham Lincoln raised in his address to that small gathering in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on the one year anniversary of that critical battle.

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure”. 

Though we are not engaged in a civil war of the type that tore the country apart in 1861 we are nevertheless in the throes of a battle for the heart of the nation and without question its future.

There are certainly many reasons for why we find ourselves where we are today. The litany and complexity of issues that have conspired over the past several decades to bring us to this point are too many to count or to analyze for the purpose of this essay. Nevertheless what is clear is that there are a lot of people who are afraid and tormented by fear of what the future holds. They have become so fearful and so desperate for a way out that they will follow anyone whose words give voice to the fears that rattle around in their heads. The louder the words are spoken the more believable they become and the more the gathering crowd screams its agreement as though witnessing an innocent being hung from a tree in the center of town.

 

So much of what we are witnessing can be explained by a few lines in “The American President”. Acknowledging that the populace was so thirsty for leadership that they would “crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand” to which the President, played by Michael Douglas, responds so eloquently: 

“We've had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand, because they're thirsty. They drink it because they don't know the difference.”) https://youtu.be/HKTqS4bXug

People are quite simply drinking the sand. So desperate are they for something that provides a lifeline that they are willingly drinking the sand never understanding that they will not find anything life sustaining in the act. The Republican base has been told and has come to believe that their lives have been ruined by a supposedly ineffectual government so much so that they are desperate for anything and anyone who offers them even a glimmer of hope for the future even if that future is completely antithetical to everything that the country stands for…intolerant of non-Christian religion, intolerant of non-white America, intolerant of personal freedom unless that freedom is secured by openly carrying high powered automatic weapons. That much of what they have been told is either not true or highly distorted has no place in the echo chamber in which they exist. Neither truth nor facts are either sought or accepted if they do not fit the narrative that has so dominated their lives for so long. The consequence of all this is that they willingly drink the sand never realizing that its consumption provides anything but nourishment for their souls and the soul of the nation.

I can only hope that whoever stands before the nation in November 2016 in search of the nation's vote is prepared to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that there is a difference. That is a responsibility that we all share. Our future may depend upon it.

Paris

Still trying to come to grips with that events in Paris over the past twenty four hours. What does seem clear, inevitable and, I think, unavoidable is the response to the attacks that is likely to come...a broader military response by members of the European Union in concert with the United States which will certainly involve a stepped up air campaign and possibly the deployment of military units on the ground. Unfortunately it is precisely that response that ISIS has been trying to provoke and, with the latest attack, has likely succeeded in provoking. At its core ISIS has always viewed its campaign as intending to once and for all confront the west and its secular way of life and rid the world of any person, government or state that does not adhere to its extreme fundamentalist views. The realization of this "end of days" vision can only come to be if the west and any nation state that opposes ISIS' fundamentalist vision (including Arab states opposed to ISIS) is drawn into a broad conflict. It appears that we may very well be at that point as it no longer seems possible to confront ISIS on a limited basis. They have shown its willingness and now its capacity to carry the fight beyond the Middle East with horrific consequences. The world, already a very dangerous place, is about to get much more so. I fear that ISIS is building toward something even bigger and more deadly in the United States; that as horrific as the events in Beirut and Paris have been they are but practice runs for a much larger attack. Regrettably I see no alternative but to confront ISIS now and end this before it gets worse.

Anti-Intellectuals and the Politics of Fact

The question is often asked why the claims politicians make about themselves or the positions they take are based in whole or in part on either a misrepresentation of the underlying facts or an outright lie. To be clear politicians lying in this fashion is nothing new but also to be fair the current crop of candidates running for the Republican nomination seem to have a particular predilection for lying. The latest two examples include Ben Carson who appears, at least to me, to be genuinely insane and is now receiving a heightened level of scrutiny because repeated statements in his autobiographies are proving to be, shall we say, "misleading", and Carly Fiorina who has been exposed for lying about her business  chops and about a Planned Parenthood video. All of this brings us back to the question, “why”.  

The answer, to some degree, can be found in the angry response of both candidates to the questions now being posed by the media; to the anger at the audacity of the media to ask difficult questions  and, in effect, do its job. Their anger at the media is actually appropriate. Indeed, we should all be furious with the media though perhaps for different reasons. Those reasons are many but at their core is a seemingly successful attempt by the increasingly powerful right flank of the Republican party to inject into our national consciousness the notion that intellectual success or curiosity or a professional ethos that focuses on facts and the methods by which those facts are revealed is to be ridiculed as elitist and part of some sort of some liberal bias. Gone, or at least at risk of disappearing, is an acceptance that facts are not some inconvenient truth to be ignored but the basis for critical discussions about those facts and how to either develop strategies for altering the outcomes that those facts represent or developing strategies to live with an understanding of what those facts represent. 

The consequence of this de-evolution of critical thinking in this country is most readily revealed by the preferences now being expressed by a Republican electorate that has been conditioned to question any fact not on an intellectual basis but simply as worthy of suspicion because it runs contrary to a narrative that they have been programmed to accept. That narrative invites the likes of a Ben Carson and any of his co-candidates to say and do anything that plays to the underlying narrative and to challenge with real anger any attempt by the media to raise questions that run contrary to that narrative. Their anger and utter surprise at being challenged itself should not come as a surprise as it is the challengers...the mainstream med now raising those challenges which,  in no small measure, is responsible for promoting that narrative and  its attack upon any facts which are inconsistent with that narrative and thus allowing  this anti-intellectual narrative to become so much a part of the current discourse. The reasons for this failure are many and something to be addressed in a separate posting  but it is certain that we find ourselves pushing back against a narrative that exists, in large part, independent from factual basis because the media ceased to serve its function as the so-called, Fourth Estate, maintaining vigilance over the political process. 

There is, of course, real danger for all of us, not simply those who will be voting to select among the various candidates for the Republican nomination. The more facts and critical thinking are attacked as elitist and liberal the more vulnerable we become to surrendering ourselves to those who have created a narrative of an America based on intolerance, fear and isolation. While the Ben Carsons of the world must be confronted it is what his anger at being challenged represents and says about ourselves that must be confronted. 

Facts matter. Laws matter. Rules matter. The very fabric of our society…the grand experiment that this democracy still embodies…depends upon those very fundamental truths. They cannot be surrendered. Professionalism and intellectualism must prevail and stand as a stalwart against a creeping narrative that puts us all at risk. 

Fear and Loathing in Nassau County

The views expressed in this post are my own and

are in no way reflective of the opinions of my law firm or my partners. It is, because of that association, that I have been unable to express, with more freedom my thoughts concerning the race for District Attorney in Nassau County. That race pits a life long prosecutor, Madeline Singas against a life long politician, Kate Murray. The race, as of this writing, remains “too close to call” though I fully anticipate that given the direction that this county has been trending over the past ten to fifteen years I fully expect that Ms Murray will be elected. That that is the likely outcome of this race should outrage every resident of Nassau County.

Ms Murray is a career politician with the strong support of the County’s Republican Party. It is with great confidence that I suggest that Ms Murray is being “parked” in that position by the Republican Party in anticipation of her seeking either countywide office (when the County Executive is either forced to not seek re-election or makes that decision on his own) or higher office (i.e. Congress) following the path recently pursued by Kathleen Rice. The big difference between Ms Rice and Ms Murray is that while Ms Rice was a highly experienced prosecutor, Ms Murray has absolutely no experience in criminal law and, in fact, has not engaged in any type of law practice for more than twenty years and, even then, it was within the confines of the attorney general’s office where I suspect she first honed her skills as an administrator and not as a practicing attorney. Given the number of Republican politicians under investigation by Ms Singas' office there should be concern that one of the GOP's priorities in running a politician rather than an experienced prosecutor for this critical office is to put an end to those investigations.

Ms Singas, on the other hand, was a very highly regarded prosecutor in Queens County when she was enticed to come to Nassau County about ten years ago to head the County’s special victim’s unit under Kathleen Rice. She is very experienced and highly regarded not only by the legal community but by the ADAs working on her staff. That the County is at risk of electing someone who knows nothing about criminal law or criminal prosecutions at a time that it faces rampant corruption, gang violence and a drug epidemic should be a concern to everyone who lives in this county.

The question to be put to Ms Murray is a simply one: were she accused of a crime and in need of legal counsel, would she hire someone who is an attorney in name only but has not practiced for twenty years and simply works in a government office or would she hire a skilled and experienced criminal defense attorney. The answer, it would seem, is a simply one, and easily answerable even for a professional politician. It should also be a simple answer to be reached by the residents of this county. Sadly, I fear the tide of Republicanism in Nassau County will blind its residents to so simple an answer.

Addendum: I am pleased to report that despite my worst fears the residents of Nassau County did fully appreciate the need for electing a DA who actually knows what it takes to prosecute a criminal complaint by electing Ms Singas and in a landslide. Quite remarkable when one considers that the County has been leaning so heavily Republican over the past ten to fifteen years. While Ms Murray is the big loser in all this (she has never lost an election and rarely won with less than a 3-1 margin of victory) the Republican party lost as well. The degree of hubris it took to offer up Ms Murray for an office for which she had no qualification and expect that simply because of the strength of its machine the GOP would be able to dictate terms is astonishing but not surprising. I cannot be happier for this outcome...for the small sense of satisfaction that the County voters saw the election for what it was and voted...at least once...for some semblance of sanity and in their self-interests.

The Roots of Republican Racism

Its been a bit more than two weeks since Dylan Roof murdered nine members of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston and the questions of racism and white supremacy continue to reverberate. Certainly, as the President suggested in his eulogy for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney,  the last thing Roof thought (assuming he had a thought) was that his murderous act would ignite a debate that has seen --- finally  -- a recognition that the battle flag of the Confederacy --- the Stars and Bars  -- is a continuing simple of hatred and bigotry that no longer has a place in today’s world.

What his act and the ensuing national discussion has also done is expose a seemingly incomprehensible resistance of the Republican Party and those running to be nominated as the party’s standard bearer in 2016 to acknowledge that racism continues unabated in this country. That the media has so blithely passed over the refusal of any of the Republican candidates and the bulk of the party to  offer this acknowledgement is not surprising…the media having long ago surrendered its responsibility as the fourth estate. What remains surprising is how dedicated  Republicans and their candidates are to their denial of anything that even remotely suggests or admits that racism continues. Discuss the issue and you are immediately accused of “playing the race card” or injecting racism into the nation’s politics. A white supremacist murders nine black people because “you rape our women” and the Republican response ranges from calling it “an accident” as Rick Perry did to blaming the victims for having brought it on themselves as did one of the officers of the NRA. None, however, admitted that the act was an act of racism or, as importantly, that the act reflected a deep and unrelenting problem in this country that needs to be addressed.

I understand that the historic roots for the current Republican agenda are tethered to the very issues over which the Civil War was fought. The current battle cry of a small federal government and the rights of the individual states to decide for themselves how they should be governed were the very fundamental issues over which the War was fought. There is no doubt that slavery was a central issue over which the war was fought but not the reason why those first shots were fired at Fort Sumter in April 1861. That War, at least at first, was not fought to enforce a moral imperative but to bring to heal southern states and, more accurately, the southern aristocracy which controlled the southern economy and refused to yield to a central federal government the fruits of that economy. Slavery was integral to that  economy and thus became intertwined with the roots of the rebellion and the federal governments efforts to counter that rebellion. While Lincoln certainty should be credited with pressing forward first with the Emancipation Proclamation and then the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution and for ultimately bringing to an end the institution of slavery the purpose for his doing so, however well intentioned and despite its consequences, was first and foremost an effort to destroy the southern economy, put an end to the conflict and bring the southern states back into the Union.

While the strategy worked it nevertheless left open wounds which continue festering to this day. Though slavery itself has long since disappeared the attitudes that made slavery possible and as natural to the southern elite as breathing continue as does the belief that despite the outcome of the War the southern states should nevertheless be allowed to decide for themselves how they should be governed without deference to a central, federal government. The “States Rights” cry continues unabated to this day and has over past thirty years or so become the cry of a Republican party which seized upon that undercurrent of dissent to devise a strategy for turning the south, which had historically been dominated by Democratic legislators and voters, into bastions of Republican dogma.

While the southern economy has long since shifted somewhat from agrarian to industrial the issues of self-determination by those states remain and continue to drive the discussion about the size and strength of a federal government. By seizing upon this one fundamental issue – the demand for the right of self-determination –  the Republican party has succeeded in gaining support from those individuals who are most in need of a strong centralized government that can and has provided subsidies for food, jobs, education, infrastructure and security. The incredible result is that tens of millions of southerners vote against their own self interest by siding with a political party that has flexed its political muscle by awakening the ghosts of those plantation owners who so long ago controlled the southern economy and fought the federal government to keep the fruits of slave labor on the backs of poor southern whites who fought under the banner of the Stars and Bars.

Having successfully pressed this strategy in the south I suppose it is understandable, at least from an intellectual standpoint, that the Republican party would resist any pressure to acknowledge that what they are actually supporting when they stand with those southerners still lamenting loss of their “way of life” is a way of life built upon the backs of black slaves and the attitudes which fostered that way of life. While support for that way of life has waned in southern urban centers it remains alive and well in the rural south where those populations are most vulnerable to a "the-South-will-rise-again" pitch because educational opportunities have been reduced by Republican governments that press for smaller governments at the expense of those most in need. With such fertile grounds to conquer, the Republican party continues to press a fight over long-since resolved grievances and, in so doing, finds itself standing with those who continue to long for a way of life which has long since passed from our national experience.

Perhaps it is this alone which drives the Republican refusal to acknowledge that the racism which sprung from that way of life still exists fearful that by doing so it will lose the support of this “base” which it has worked so hard to cultivate. Perhaps it is also its many patrons who continue to pour tens of millions of dollars into campaign strategies that continue to target these states as essential to any strategy for regaining the White House.

Nevertheless, all intellectual conjecture aside, it is beyond reason and understanding why the party of Lincoln, of all people, refuses to acknowledge that which is so obvious. In the long run, any hope of overcoming justified perceptions of who and what the Republican Party represents demands that acknowledgement be made. Until then is certainly no hope for reasserting its moral compass and if successful in regaining the White House no hope for the country.