Columbine: A Retrospective

Today marks the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting. In terms of dollar-value damages and lives lost, it’s hardly the biggest national tragedy of my lifetime. But it’s done more to shape my consciousness than any war or explosion or plane crash.

Like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Columbine’s two perpetrators, I was an angry and miserable teenager. That I was angry and miserable did not cause me to empathize with them, as some deluded souls certainly did, nor did it burden me with any more antipathy than I felt for mass murderers who weren’t close to my age (and, to a far lesser extent, my then-mindset). What their shooting spree did do was illuminate for me where being angry and miserable could take me. I saw their culminating acts of rage and rejection and I saw that I wanted absolutely no part of it whatsoever. It wasn’t enough to make me stop being angry and miserable – that would come later, when graduating high school was within reach – but it was enough for me to stop becoming more angry and more miserable. When tensions got to a certain point, the senselessness and barbarism of that Colorado bloodbath acted, consciously or not, as a powerful check.

I read a column recently which pointed to Columbine as kind of a cultural Rorschach test. Those who don’t like guns will blame guns for the tragedy; those who don’t like violent video games will identify them as the culprit and so on. There are, of course, varying degrees of truth and distortion inherent to all this-finger pointing as well as plenty of blame to go around. What interests me most presently, however, is the need to issue this much blame at all.

There is, I think, a tendency toward disassociation concerning the Harrises and Klebolds of the world. No one wants to see themselves as linked, even on a biological level, to people they despise, so they simply stop seeing them as people at all. Epithets like “animal” and “monster” are applied freely despite the reality that Harris and Klebold (like Hitler and Stalin before them) could not have been anything but human.

The next step in this dissociative process is to look for the breaks – in what way were these freaks’ lives unlike mine? Herein the blamers have a field day. What were the parents like? What kind of media (music, movies, games, etc.) were the perpetrators exposed to? Did they say their prayers and eat their damn vegetables? In other words, what were the exact circumstances that led to this tragic undertaking so that we can isolate them and prevent it from happening again?

This, of course, is an exercise in futility. Just as there is no such thing as a school shooter gene, there is no such thing as a mold from which all school shooters are sprung. There are similarities between shooters to be certain, as well as certain behaviors which may be legitimately construed as warning signs. But consider also the vast differences between the perpetrators. Andrew Kehoe was a school board member enraged by property taxes. Patrick Purdy and Jeff Weise were adherents to extremist political ideologies. Brenda Ann Spencer was female and claimed to have no good reason at all.

It is unlikely that any policy prescription will ever be a curative. Crack down on guns and they’ll build bombs. Cast pre-emptive suspicion on kids who wear black trench coats and you may succeed in allowing jeans-n-T-shirt wearing perpetrators to fly under the radar (to say nothing of unfairly hassling trench coat-wearers who lack any nefarious intent). Ban bullying and hurtful speech and your future terrorists will learn to smile politely.

Though Columbine has gathered a sort of cachet as the definitive school shooting, it is hardly the first incident of its kind. And while it is contextualized as a tragedy from which we all can/should/must learn, many other shootings have followed in its wake. I have every reason to believe more school shootings will happen, as they have been happening. I also have every reason to believe a number of people will scratch their heads and ask “how could this have happened?” and begin the cause-seeking anew. The real lesson of Columbine or any Columbine-like occurrence is that there is no neatly laid-out moralistic conclusion that we all are supposed to arrive at (especially if arriving at said conclusion ignores other conclusions that may happen to be right or useful). If people still feel so helplessly compelled to “do something!” in the aftermath of tragedy, I would say a good dose of common sense and historical perspective never hurt anyone.

Stimulus: The New Patriot Act

In politics, all that’s bad is good again. History repeats itself not because we’re stuck on an unbreakable cycle, but because we fail to recognize (or misdiagnose) patterns. If, for example, we are wronged, we will likely see that wrong quite clearly. But when we wrong others, we may not see it simply because it is by our own hand and targets not our own body. In this way, we risk authorship of our own demise.

For the most recent example of this phenomena, look no further than the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (and similar post-9/11 legislation). On the surface, the similarities are few – one addresses national security, the other economic stimulus. And I suspect some will take umbrage on equating the curtailment of civil liberties with increases in spending. But for those who can look pass partisan framing, the commonalities are abundant.

Both the PATRIOT Act and the stimulus package predicate their success, to some extent, on fear-mongering. The terrorist attacks of 9/11, while both horrible and horrifying, did not put us on the brink of Armageddon. The lives lost totaled less than two percent of the U.S. population and that is the worst our enemies have been able to muster. Likewise, while our economic picture is bleak, it is not an unprecedented disaster. The Great Depression and the oil crises of the 1970s were more malignant by several measures.

Amid this heightened sense of doom, supporters of both the PATRIOT Act and the stimulus package demanded that immediate action be taken. As Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, noted in Michael Moore’s controversial “Fahrenheit 9/11,” many members of Congress did not have the time to give the PATRIOT Act legislation a thorough reading. Similarly, it would be safe to say that sufficient time has not been allotted for members of Congress to thoroughly digest the 600-plus page stimulus legislation.

Another similarity can be found in the willingness of both PATRIOT backers and stimulus backers to vilify their opponents. Those who questioned or opposed the PATRIOT Act were demagogically denounced as radical or anti-American. In a similar fashion, stimulus backers such as Paul Krugman (who should know better) have referred to stimulus critics and foes as partisan hacks who can be safely ignored. The view that PATRIOT foes recklessly ignored America’s safety has evolved into the view that stimulus foes are recklessly ignoring America’s economic well-being. In both instances, it has proven simpler to smear the critics rather than address or rebut their criticisms.

Interestingly enough for both PATRIOT and stimulus foes, neither piece of legislation is as bad as it could have been. The PATRIOT Act included provisions which sunset, or expire after a certain period of time unless legislation is enacted to extend them. Author James Bovard also states that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who introduced the bill, worked to eliminate even more intrusive provisions. Similarly, the stimulus package includes tax cuts (which have been known to actually stimulate the economy from time to time) and not nearly enough spending for the likes of Krugman and fellow economist Joseph Stiglitz.

In the years since the PATRIOT Act’s passage, its overreach and invitation for abuse is apparent. In a 2007 audit, the Justice Department found that the FBI used the tools provided by the PATRIOT Act to illegally spy on American citizens. The ostensibly national security-minded PATRIOT Act was also used for purposes decidedly unrelated to national security, such as enforcing copyright infringement and investigating drug traffickers.

Since the stimulus package has yet to be passed by the Senate as of this writing, there can be no ill effects to measure. The legislation does, however, contain a number of components unrelated to stimulating the economy, such as funds for family planning. Given the sheer scope of the money involved (over $800 billion) and the size of the bureaucracies it will be filtered through, misuse and malfeasance seems more a question of “when" and "how" rather than "if."

Of course, there is a learning opportunity here and an easy one at that. The chance to avoid repeating a mistake requires only that we not develop amnesia. But when spend-happy big-government Republicans are suddenly unified in their stimulus opposition on the grounds of fiscal discipline (suppressed titter) and once-skeptical Democrats take up the mantle of heavy-handed toadying yes-men, that may be too much to ask.

The Merits of McCain and Obama and Why I'm Not Voting For Either of Them

Whether intended or not, presidential elections are, increasingly, exercises in aggrandizement. Every challenge we face is supposedly unique, every set of circumstances supposedly unprecedented and America’s future is always on the line. Or, barring that, we’re perpetually reenacting the definitive moments of our past: Sept. 11 becomes the new Pearl Harbor, the recent economic downturn is suddenly Great Depression 2.0 and so on.
Amid all this (often groundless) puffery, it’s all too easy to lose sight of the fact that our job as voters is to express our preference for the next president of the United States; nothing more and nothing less. We are not electing a king or a savior or a surrogate father or a drinking buddy. It is highly unlikely any choice we make will spell our ruin or bring about a golden age. The ebullient rhetoric of a bright new tomorrow will fade far more quickly than the gloss on many of the campaign signs.
Within those parameters, however, the choice we make can make a difference. The status quo can still be tilted and nudged if not truly shaken. And just as sickness exists between death and health, there is a whole spectrum of national well-being for our next president to intrepidly traverse. The objective for any voter, be it largely guesswork, is not to go with which candidate you “like” the most, but which candidate will screw things up the least.
This is a question I find myself continually straining to answer. After all, Candidate A might screw us up one way and Candidate B might screw us up another. How do you rate, for instance, paying more in taxes against paying more for health care? Is an expensive and unpopular war we’re now fighting “better” than an expensive and unpopular war we may fight somewhere else in the future? Do one party’s sex scandals merit more scorn than another party’s funding scandals?
The dilemma reached a rather maddening crescendo in 2004. Running on a record of abject failure, George W. Bush benefitted greatly from the Lincolnian adage about changing horses at midstream (the stream, in this case, being filled with casualties and tape recorded threats by bearded men). John Kerry, on the other hand, benefitted greatly by not being George W. Bush, but didn’t really bring anything else to the table save for uncertainty, a lack of charisma and a fondness for windsurfing. Not having the slightest shred of confidence in either of them, I gave my vote in protest to a third-party candidate who, in retrospect, was a few bricks short of a wall.
But – and in direct contradiction of my earlier point – this election is different. I can trust John McCain to do certain things and I can trust Barack Obama to do certain things. There are, for once, good reasons to vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate, as opposed to voting against them.
Some of these reasons, it should be noted, really have nothing to do with the candidates themselves, but simply the positions they occupy. History has shown us, for instance, that federal spending is often held in check by divided government. Thus, a vote for a Republican presidential candidate facing a Democratic Congress is usually a vote for fiscal restraint because the veto pen is more likely to be put to use than if president and congress shared the same party. It has little to do with how fiscally conservative or profligate the individual candidate is or is not.
Further, as both Obama and McCain are sitting Senators, a win for either of them creates a vacancy. In McCain’s case, winning the election frees up his seat for Jeff Flake; aside from Ron Paul, the most libertarian member of the House (and, I can only hope, a future presidential candidate). In Obama’s case, you’re looking at possibly Jesse Jackson Jr. or another Chicago politician. If you’ve been keeping score, you’ll see that McCain is gaining some points by default. Whatever hits he takes running as the successor to an unpopular Republican president is more than offset by Obama running as a member of an even more unpopular Democratic Congress.
Another factor to be considered is each candidate’s choice of a running mate. For better or for worse, we’ve come a long way from the days of John Nance “not worth a bucket of warm piss” Garner. Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford have shown us that a vice president must be ready to occupy the top slot and Dick Cheney has shown us that vice presidential power isn’t limited to occasions when the president is incapacitated.
By the simplest measure possible, Obama succeeded in picking someone who is up to the job while McCain did not. Make no mistake about it: Joe Biden is a traditional Washington politician who undercuts Obama’s message of change. He also has an odious judicial philosophy and is ordinarily a walking gaffe machine (though, it must be said, he has done a better than expected job of keeping himself in check). However, Biden has the requisite experience and temperament, particularly in foreign affairs. It’s unlikely he would be a good president, but he could be president just the same.
GILF-itude aside, Sarah Palin picks up points for charisma and running the crooked Frank Murkowski out of office. That alone, however, is not nearly enough to offset her negatives. Not only does her inexperience render Obama’s inexperience moot, but she’s proven herself to be mendacious (see “Bridge to Nowhere stance”), condescendingly elitist (see “real Americans”) and abusive of the power vested in her (see “Troopergate”). Whining about media treatment – a curious stance given her open hostility to the very same media – negates none of this. Quite simply, she does not have what it takes to be president at this point in time.
Associations beyond the choice of veep tend to be a more tenuous matter. “Knowing” people and putting the people you know in power are two different things and only the latter possibility is really worth our consideration. Contrary to all the mudslinging, Obama probably has closer ties to Chicago School economists than he does to William Ayers and you aren’t any more likely to see the ex-terrorist in a cabinet post than you are McCain buddy/convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy occupying a spot in a Republican administration. Likewise, while the lobbyist/shady fundraiser connections native to both candidates undermine their images as agents of change, there’s little reason to worry unless those same connections are likely candidates for positions of power.
Another consideration often given too much weight is that of character. As stated, you are electing a president, not a best friend. Decent people don’t always make for decent presidents (see Carter, Jimmy and Bush, George W.), while untrustworthy or morally suspect people (see Clinton, Bill and Kennedy, John F.) sometimes make for decent presidents. The only time “character” should be a prime consideration is when it casts suspicion on a candidate’s ability to do the job (see Nixon, Richard).
Temperament, on the other hand, does matter. How a candidate responds to the demands of being president has big implications for his effectiveness. A president must be able to work with Congress, with subordinates, with world leaders, with the media, etc. The real “change” that Obama brings to this campaign is not in his politics (more on that below), but how he approaches being a politician. As he showed during the debates, he is able to make himself appear conciliatory even when he is on the offensive, a quality that appeals to those who may not share his views. McCain’s hard-charging style, on the other hand, makes him seem angry; a turn-off to voters who aren’t already in his corner.
Take the same characteristics to the foreign policy arena, however, and the dynamic changes. Even after eight years of “The Decider,” it’s worth betting that Americans want their president to appear strong and decisive when dealing with other nations (particularly the “bad” ones). McCain oozes leadership, while Obama’s more laid-back approach comes across as a liability (worse yet would be the ill-fated aggressiveness you can expect him to display to overcompensate for this).
Both candidates, it should be noted, have shown they are capable of working with the other side. Bipartisanship is not always a positive. It gave us campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold), the PATRIOT Act and No Child Left Behind. However, it also gave us increased transparency in federal funding (Obama-Coburn-McCain) among other things. In general, it’s desirable to have a president who will sign or veto legislation based on something more substantive than party control of Congress.
The final pratfall to avoid is that of narrative. Come election time, candidates look to define both themselves and their opponents in terms they hope will resonate with the electorate. Obama wants us to believe he’s an agent of change and McCain is a Bush clone with the wrong economic priorities; McCain wants us to accept him as a maverick and Obama as an inexperienced liberal with terrorist connections. And while there may be a kernel of truth to all of these characterizations, you can count on more than a kernel of self-interested exaggeration. Fortunately, however, politics is not an art which rewards creativity. The farther you stray from that which is so, the easier it becomes to hammer you with it.
All that really remains at this point are the issues: where do candidates stand, what ideas do they propose, what will they do as president. In a perfect world, issues would dominate both the discourse and each voter’s decision-making process. As it now stands, however, issues play second fiddle to narrative, to perceptions of character, to countless other less impactful factors when we talk about elections. How much they actually weigh on each individual voter as the lever is pulled is anyone’s guess.
It is through this lens of issues that Obama loses much of his gloss. For all the rhetoric of change, his positions are indistinguishable from those of many other Democratic politicians. He is pro-choice, committed to multilateral interventionism, in favor of universal health-care and a “green.” While he does offer a few points of departure – he’s voiced support for merit pay for teachers and talked up personal and parental responsibility – he is, for the most part, a breath of stale air.
Obama’s Democratic orthodoxy is most troubling in the economic sphere. It should be said beforehand that Obama is not a socialist: not while he is running on tax cuts, not while he has so many associates in the business world. He is, however, a neo-Keynsian interventionist, which can spell disaster in its own right. By falsely framing the economic downturn as a product of unfettered capitalism, he seems intent on drumming up support for increased economic regulation. Considering that the regulatory excesses of the New Deal helped prolong the Great Depression, this is reason for concern.
McCain, on the other hand, is a bit more difficult to pin down. To quote one characterization, he is, “conservative, but not a Conservative.” Ideology, in other words, takes a back seat to ambition and McCain’s stances on taxes, on the role of religion and politics, on repealing Roe v. Wade, have varied over the years.
Despite his capacity for periodically reinventing himself, McCain has shown a few constants. He has proven to be a consistent unilateral hawk; a firm believer in American military might to solve global problems. He has also been a consistent foe of pork barrel spending and government waste and a proponent of free trade.
McCain’s social policy has generally been conservative, tempered by varying degrees of federalism. His economic views are generally market-oriented, though he did support the recent bank bailout.
Given everything, each candidate brings enough to the table for me to at least give him the time of day. I like Obama’s temperament, for instance, and find myself in agreement with him on certain social issues. But his economic stance and the fact that he is a Democrat facing a Democratic Congress render him unpalatable.
McCain, on the other hand, botched the Palin pick, is running a generally inept campaign, and has disagreeable stances on some foreign policy and social issues. He is, however, closer to being right on the economic side of things than Obama, is a Republican facing a Democratic Congress and would be getting my vote…if there weren’t better choices available.
I am, much to my surprise, supporting Bob Barr this go-around. The same Bob Barr who made waves as a gun-toting, impeachment-craving right-wing partisan during the Clinton years. The same Bob Barr who tried to ban the practice of Wicca in the military. The same Bob Barr who has the affability of a Brillo pad.
And yet, unlike the 2004 vote for Badnarik, this is not a protest vote. I honestly believe Barr has what it takes to be president. He spent parts of his childhood in various parts of the world and has a ton of experience in international affairs. He’s been a congressman, a CIA analyst, a prosecutor and a member of the NRA board of directors and an ACLU consultant. With a résumé like that and all the right notes he’s hitting issue-wise (anti-bailout, strongly federalist, etc.) who cares if he isn’t Mr. Warmth?
Of course, being a former Republican congressman, Barr has some history to answer for. The once-proud drug warrior authored the Defense of Marriage Act and voted for the PATRIOT Act (albeit after adding sunset provisions). That, coupled with my skepticism toward political apostasy, should be enough for me to remove him from consideration. However, I am convinced that Barr’s move toward libertarianism is sincere. He has been a de facto libertarian since leaving office in 2003, several years before he emerged as a presidential candidate. Contrast this to Alan Keyes and Ralph Nader leaching onto third parties at the 11th hour for vanity campaigns.
Barr also benefits from having probably the best running mate of the bunch in Wayne Allyn Root. Root, who graduated Columbia in the same class as Barack Obama, has had success as a businessman/author/media type and brings a ton of charisma. Also, as a Las Vegas sports handicapper, he’s about as far removed from Washington politics as you can get.
Naturally, I don’t expect Barr to win. But if he can make enough of a difference in the final tally, he’ll force Democrats and Republicans to take more notice of libertarian ideas. That kind of nudge will ultimately do more good for the country than either a McCain or an Obama presidency ever could.

White America, We Hardly Knew Ye

An article in The New York Times points to Census Bureau projections which have Hispanics, blacks, Asians, American Indians, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders outnumbering non-Hispanic whites by 2042.

It’s pretty easy to imagine the rednecks and xenophobes sounding the alarm bell over this and it seems almost a matter of time before someone starts whining about “endangered” white Americans. Maybe John Gibson will even renew his call for us to make more babies.

Personally, I can’t help but see this as a big fat “so what?” Look around the world and you’ll find many places where the demographics have changed over time. Further, while there was an Anglo majority during colonial times, America was not founded on explicitly racial/cultural grounds. Lastly, if preserving the whiteness of America was ever a priority, then why have our policymakers repeatedly added areas which would inevitably bring “foreigners” into the fold?

What’s more interesting to ponder is what this demographic shift says about the evolution of whiteness and non-whiteness. There was a time when “white” was synonymous with Anglo and Jews, Italians, et al. were not considered “white” in a cultural sense. Nowadays, “white” has evolved into a blanket term for Americans of European descent and hyphenated subcategories are used to fill the void. Bill O’Reilly, George W. Bush and myself may all be a couple of white guys, but Bill and I (should we choose to) get to affix the appropriate modifier (Irish, Jewish/Russian) to our –American while George does not.

But as Jacob Sullum notes at Hit & Run, this categorization is often arbitrary:

Is there a single objective criterion that unites these particular ethnic and racial minorities while distinguishing them from all the excluded groups? Is there any rational reason why a descendant of Spaniards, say, should count as a real minority, whether or not his ancestors spent time in Latin America, while a descendant of Italians does not?

I say no, not really, but it makes us feel better to be part of a smaller, more exclusive club.

Making a Mockery of the End Times: Foibles of the Apocalypsy

Making a Mockery of the End Times: Foibles of the Apocalypsy

I often proudly refer to myself as a cynic, which connotes a lack of faith in humanity and its collective abilities. I should note that this lack of faith extends to humanity’s ability to destroy itself. Thus, while some people may foresee a great unraveling or the beginning of the end looming on the horizon, I’ll merely think, “nah…we’ll find some way to screw it up.”

As a matter of perception, this perspective has come in handy as of late. The post-9/11, post-nuclear world of the 21^st century is inundated with fear. We are literally drowning in deep-felt concern that our natural resources are about to expire, that we will blow each other off the face of the Earth, that our souls are in danger of damnation. The litany of worries never seems to end. Fortunately, there’s a very simple solution: doubt and ye shall be set free.

The ‘new apocalypsy,’ as I like to call it, spans several branches and disciplines, from foreign relations to ecology to theology, but is marked by a set of common characteristics. First and foremost is the identification of a recent phenomena and its subsequent presentation (accurately or not) as part of a trend. Next is the argument that the trend is escalating and the problem is in fact direr than it had been before. Then, once a general pattern has been established, the dots are connected: this can only lead to one thing – the End. Lastly, a ray of hope is offered in the form of an ‘unless,’ as in ‘unless this course of action is pursued…’

Apocalypsy as a propaganda technique is neither new nor subtle, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t effective. By hyperinflating the urgency of an issue, it draws the public’s focus onto it and away from other issues that may be of concern. Further, playing upon fear of mass extinction greatly increases the chance your proposed solution (your ‘unless…’) will be taken seriously where it might not have been otherwise. All anyone has to risk in the process is their credibility. But, as we shall see, this is less of a hindrance than one may think.

Debunking the apocalypsy can be done one of two ways. The lazy way would be to simply shrug off any catastrophic claim as baseless and inaccurate. In my view, this is not the way to go. Improbable does not translate to impossible and those who walk around with their head perpetually nestled in the clouds are likely to miss whatever is right in front of them. Doubt, not dismissal will set you free.

The second method is as simple as bothering to ask a few questions. Fallacious claims tend not to hold up well when exposed to rigorous inquiry and doomsayers are easily peeved by even the most innocuous of interrogatories. These questions can roughly be divided into several categories: credibility, historicity, probability and accuracy.

Credibility pertains not only to the person offering the theory, but to the theory itself. The extent to which defeated ideas are repackaged can be surprising. To give one example, unfounded concerns about overpopulation and mortality keep popping up every now and then. When Thomas Malthus raised them in the 19^th century, he was shouted down by a coterie of economists, socialists and Catholic intellectuals (!). When Paul Ehrlich made a slew of erroneous predictions in “The Population Bomb” (life expectancy of 42 by 1980, anyone?), Julian Simon famously and rightfully took him to task. Just recently, University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka has forecast a 90% mortality rate is imminent. You’d figure after awhile, disproved theories would simply stay disproved, but that appears to be too much to ask.

Historical accuracy is another thorn in the side of the doomsayers. They are mindful of the fact that we tend to have short attention spans and forget things quickly. Energy activists, for instance, have been hammering home the idea that we have to break our dependence on foreign oil ASAP or we’re screwed (underlying implication: go green). They point to climbing gas prices and the “all-time high” price of crude, but there’s plenty that they don’t tell you. Namely, oil prices now are well below their all-time high in inflation adjusted dollars. Factor in the big I and the price of crude peaked during the Carter administration. And that was before we entered an era of sports cars and SUVs which, gasp, didn’t drive us to extinction.

Statistical accuracy can also be used to puncture phony claims of pending demise. One recurring theme among commentators and critics is America’s “culture of violence.” In the media-blaming frenzy that erupted after the Columbine shootings, much was said about the level of savagery in American society. But if anyone bothered to examine statistical trends in national crime data over the past 10-20 years – particularly homicide rates – they might find something surprising. Turns out we are getting LESS violent.

The final criteria, probability, is often the most difficult to work with. After all, nobody can predict the future. But with common sense and a little look at the numbers, anyone can avoid being suckered by a failed prophet. One point that’s been hammered countless times by politicians of all stripes is America’s vulnerability to terrorism and the urgent need to do something about it. And while it may be callous and shortsighted to dismiss that concern, neither do we need to be buying rolls of duct tape in bulk. Consider that, at their worst, terrorists were able to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day of carnage. That may seem like a lot until you realize our population at the time was more than 281 BILLION. Look at those numbers then ask yourself what the odds are of you or someone you know being destroyed by an act of terrorism, much less America as a whole.

Despite the ease with which it is debunked, apocalysm is very much in vogue. It transcends partisanship, crosses party lined and gives any nut with an agenda a platform on which to stand. Of course, that platform is held up only by the collective fear of the audience (that means you guys). Thus, in order to nullify the rhetoric, all one need do is not give into its lures and approach all claims with a skeptical mind.

Apocalysm needn’t be as onerous and blatant as a Bible-thumping preacher shouting about the end of days. Respected environmentalists, policy experts and commentators have all been known to go off the deep end, whether the topic is sustainable growth, the ‘New World Order’ or “moral decay.” If you’re like me, you’ve learned to laugh it off. But if you haven’t reached that point, take your time. It’s not like the end of the world is coming…is it?

Marx's Last Laugh and the Limits of Nationalism

Marx’s Last Laugh and the Limits of Nationalism

Let it not be said that history doesn’t have a sense of humor. Years after his demise, some of Karl Marx’s deepest held desires have been fulfilled – thanks largely to those who regard themselves as stalwart anti-Marxists. I refer to Marx’s contempt for civil society: the cultural, religious and social institutions that exist apart of the state. In Marx’s view of utopia (and, to a lesser extent, the ‘totalitarian democracy’ of Jean-Jacques Rosseau and the French Revolution), civil society is transformed into political society. There is little-to-no room for institutions to exist apart from the state. Likewise, the same is true of people: the state and the masses are identified as one.

Not surprisingly, this contemptuous attitude toward civil society has had more than its share of detractors. And yet, it continues to find its takers. The fascist and hardline nationalist movements that have arisen over the years seem to be quite taken with it, despite their ostensibly anti-Marxist, pro-tradition orientations. In Hitler’s Third Reich, to use an extreme example, civil society as it existed was essentially abolished and reconstructed to suit the Nazi regime. You could not simply be a person living and working in Germany, you were (often via coercion) linked with the state. If you weren’t pro-Nazi you weren’t, for intents and purposes of the ruling elite, German…even if you could trace your lineage to Otto the Great.

Softer forms of this kind of mentality have persisted to the present day. It is not without its advantages, either as a political maneuver or an earnest societal goal. In the former, linking the identity of the people with the government that rules over them places critics of that government in a precarious “us versus them” predicament. In the latter, attempting to link people via a common denominator (race, religion, cultural heritage, etc.) seems the perfect pathway to peace. In theory at least, a homogeneous society will be subject to less civil strife, the enormous cost of making that society homogenous notwithstanding.

Whatever the motivations of these ‘transformationists,’ they have proven miraculously inept in keeping civil society down. Civil society, after all, is more a force of human nature than a simple switch that can be flipped. It grows, changes, adapts and evolves. Thus, attempts to exercise excessive control over it will almost always backfire. You can use force to compel human action, but no government can expect to permanently change the thoughts and attitudes of its subjects en masse.

As evident as this lesson seems, it has yet to be taken to heart by the leaders of this nation, both past and present. Consider the current warping of the term ‘anti-Americanism.’ In the truest sense, this should refer to unfettered hatred of the American people and their institutions. Instead, it’s been cheapened to equate to criticism of the government and its policies. Playing directly into Marx’s hands, administration apologists have steadfastly decimated the once-important distinction between political and civil society.

Why is this distinction important, you ask? Well, in the run up to the War in Iraq and at numerous times thereafter, a great amount of hostility was shown by Americans to Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. Does this make us guilty of flagrant ‘anti-Iraqism’? Not hardly. After all, our mission over there was undertaken, at least in part, to benefit the Iraqi people by ridding them of a genocidal tyrant. Our contempt was for the political, rather than the civil, infrastructure that existed at the time.

Similarly, while we may denounce the stifling, belligerent theocracy in Iran, we are quick to come to the aid of the Persian people when a massive earthquake strikes. Being that we are capable of drawing the distinction between civil and political society abroad, we should be equally capable of drawing it at home.

That capability begins with admitting that even the most caustic critics of the current administration are NOT, prima facie, America-haters. Bush critics, war critics, political dissidents et al tend to be aware of the fact they are living in a country that affords them the ability to express and advance their views and are often grateful for it. Rejecting Bushism doesn’t equate to rejecting America as a whole, just as spewing venom at Bill Clinton a decade earlier did not make one the embodiment of all things un-American.

So then the question remains: who DOES hate America? The true culprits come in several flavors. There are those, such as Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who legitimately hate American civil society, deeming it hedonistic, sinful and overindulgent, if not downright Satanic. Ironically, these types tend to enjoy a certain degree of coziness with political society as it exists today.

There are also those, exemplified by Ward Churchill and ignorant foreign critics, who not only conflate civil and political society, but insist on castigating the former for the latter’s transgressions. To attempt to hold individual Americans responsible for action undertaken by the CIA 30 years ago is to cruelly deny those Americans their right to an identity apart from that of their government.

Reclaiming civil society also realizes accepting that there are, will be, and should be things that are beyond the state and its control. You have the right to find your neighbor’s purple house tacky. You don’t have the right to make the city repaint it for him. The day that the tolerances, preferences and prejudices of civil and political society are made to be one and the same is the day Marx’s cold dead hand can raise its fist in victory.

Diversixploitation: Manipulating Multiculturalism Ruins Movies

Diversixploitation

Manipulating Multiculturalism Ruins Movies

The world recently mourned the loss of Gordon Parks, a multitalented artist/musician/author who rose to prominence composing powerful photo essays for Life magazine. Among Parks’ other achievements was the original film version of Shaft, an adaptation of Ernest Tidyman’s novel about a heterodox black detective. Parks’ film was, at the time, somewhat groundbreaking in that its protagonist managed to be awash in a sea of clichés both black (Panthers-style radicals and old-school Harlem gangsters) and white (Mafiosos and police bureaucrats) without being defined by either of them. John Shaft, as portrayed by Richard Roundtree, was a three-dimensional character: a wisecracking, tough-talking solo operator in the mold of Philip Marlowe, only hip and socially conscious as well. Ironically, despite the perception of increased tolerance over the past 30 years, there is little room for a character such as Shaft (complex black male lead) in today’s Hollywood.

With some notable exceptions, the status quo of today’s film industry is one of subtle racism fueled by the desire to conform to politically correct archetypes. Consider, for instance, the recent trend of racial diversification/racial inversion in film remakes. On the surface, this seems like an unmitigated positive. After all, the film industry in the first half of the 20^th century was notoriously whitewashed and full of one-dimensional stereotypes. Why, therefore, would remaking a film with a more diverse cast be a bad thing?

To answer this, I direct your attention to a pair of pitiful examples from last year: the Cedric the Entertainer/Mike Epps version of The Honeymooners and the Bernie Mac/Ashton Kutcher version of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (shortened to Guess Who).

The original Honeymooners was a popular television series in the mid-1950s that eventually became the basis for The Flintstones. The show featured scheming bus driver Ralph Kramden, his wife, Alice, and their neighbors/friends, Ed and Trixie Norton.

On the surface, little changed in the remake save for the skin color of the principals. Cedric plays scheming Ralph to Epps’ Ed Norton. The characters names and occupations are roughly the same, as is the setting (New York City). Despite this, the movie was a colossal failure.

This really should come as no surprise, if for no other reason than Cedric and Epps are not Jackie Gleason and Art Carney. They aren’t even close. This isn’t a knock on Cedric’s talent – his “Eddie” character in Barbershop was hysterical, but there he was paired with a competent director and allowed to improvise. In The Honeymooners, he was limited to reinterpreting a character more or less perfected by Gleason over the course of a television run. Given those expectations, it was almost inevitable that he (and the surrounding production) fall significantly short.

Why, therefore, was this monstrosity made? The answer, in my opinion, lies in diversixploitation: the phenomenon of making/remaking lousy films with racially/ethnically/sexually diverse casts for the purpose of drawing in diverse or diversity-receptive viewers. In other words, if a slick producer makes the lead a black guy, maybe some blacks and white urban teens will be more likely to see movie (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Beneath the politically correct veneer of multiculturalism lays a very bigoted profit motive which, ironically, often fails to turn a profit.

Diversixploitation is both an updated version of and antidote to blaxploitation, a controversial 70s film trend. Blaxploitation films, though often made by white filmmakers, were often specifically designed to lure black audiences into theaters. They were also crude, poorly made and laden with offensive race and gender stereotypes. Eventually they generated so much backlash that the NAACP came a’gunning and the genre died off by the end of the decade. But what those critics failed to realize at the time was that the genre, though rooted in clichés, gave black actors both a chance to work and a chance to show off their abilities. Richard Roundtree made Shaft an icon, Ron O’Neal turned Superfly into more than a common drug dealer and Pam Grier’s Foxy Brown was actually, in some ways, a positive female role model. Thus, these actors and characters managed to survive the blaxploitation moment and live on in the cultural imagination.

Diversixploitation, like its 70s counterpart, aims for targeted audiences, revels in clichés and is notably cheap on the quality end. However, whereas blaxploitation actually provided opportunities for black actors and filmmakers, diversixploitation seems content to confine them for petty amusement.

That brings us to the second example, Guess Who. The original film had what was at the time an edgy theme: white college girl brings home somewhat older black fiancée to wealthy, supposedly open-minded parents expecting their approval. It had a top-flight cast (Sydney Poitier, Kate Hepburn and the final appearance of Spencer Tracy) and, despite the social issues raised, didn’t drown in preachy self-seriousness.

The remake, on the other hand, eschewed social significance in favor of cheap laughs. Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher, stepping in for Tracy and Potier, bring nothing to the roles save for the ability and willingness to make jackasses out of themselves. Sadly, this is one of the few cases where a remake would have had something to offer. Guess Who could have given us a look at how older blacks, having lived through anti-miscegenation laws, view interracial romances among their children. Instead, the film doesn’t seem to want to say anything more than “OMFG! He’s a white boy! Let’s crack some jokes, y’all.” If that isn’t exploitation, I don’t know what is.

None of this is to say, of course, that including more diverse casts in remakes is a bad thing. Indeed, quite the opposite can be true – provided the actors involved are allowed to actually do some acting and aren’t merely token representations of a society hung up on the need for diversity.

A good example is the 1997 version of 12 Angry Men. Directed by William Friedkin, it hewed closely to the stellar original of 40 years prior, albeit in a way that seems notably less dated. The jury, for instance, isn’t all white. However, instead of simply changing races arbitrarily for the sake of diversity appeal, the afro-American actors involved are given an opportunity to do something with their characters. Case in point: Mykelti Williamson stepped into the racist juror role initially inhabited by Ed Begley Sr. But since casual overt racism is thankfully out of fashion these days (covert is another matter), Williamson had to improvise. He ended up playing the bigoted juror as a quasi-Nation of Islam type and did so effectively. In the wrong hands, a more diversified remake could have been ’12 Angry Black Men and the Token White Defendant.’ But because the film included a stronger selling point than ‘look, there’s black people!,’ what we are left with is a quality film that rivals the original.

Likewise, Four Brothers – John Singleton’s loose reworking of The Sons of Katie Elder – succeeded because it played to the strengths of its participants rather than exploiting their racial differences to fill seats. Singleton didn’t try to turn Mark Wahlberg into John Wayne (he was instead allowed to stay loose and crack jokes), nor did he attempt to have Andre Benjamin try become “Dean Martin, only black” Instead, he left the characters free to do their own thing while focusing on the themes of a classic western: brotherhood and frontier justice (or, in this case, street justice).

Diversixploitation and its associated maladies – tokenism and stereotyping (including, and, perhaps especially, the ‘positive’ variety) have, fortunately, met with significant backlash. The Wayans Brothers and the South Park guys (Trey Parker and Matt Stone) regularly make a mockery of the politically correct need for token characters. Minority filmmakers have refused to play into the expectations that they make minority-centric films for targeted, minority-centric audiences. Taiwanese-born Ang Lee, in case you missed it, has been knee-deep in superheroes (Hulk) and gay cowboys (Brokeback Mountain) these past few years. Even Crash, with its heavy-handedness and somewhat confused message, managed to throw a monkey wrench into the diversixploitation cookie-cutter.

Suffice it to say, some will deny that diversixploitation exists or insist that it is a necessary remedy to years of minority under/misrepresentation in film. But if that’s the case and there is nothing wrong with arbitrary and shallow diversification efforts, then why not make the next Shaft a Jewish white guy?