Search

The Cognitive Dissident

A blog by Ronald P. Thompson, Ph.D.

Month

March 2016

Mocked and forgotten: who will speak for the American white working class?

This is a terrific article. Here are two excerpts.

“The National Review, a conservative magazine for the Republican elite, recently unleashed an attack on the “white working class”, who they see as the core of Trump’s support.

The first essay, Father Führer, was written by the National Review’s Kevin Williamson, who used his past reporting from places such as Appalachia and the Rust Belt to dissect what he calls “downscale communities”.

He describes them as filled with welfare dependency, drug and alcohol addiction, and family anarchy – and then proclaims:

“Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster, There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. … The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles.”

“The differences are manifest in education. The pathway offered out of the working class is to get a college education. Yet at the best colleges there are veryfew low-income students, except for a few lucky enough to grow up in New York City, Los Angeles or Boston.

Differences are also stark around health issues, as well as social issues such asmarriage, family and where people live. The growing differences have made it easier and seemingly acceptable to ridicule the white working class, further marginalizing and isolating them. Go into an office in New York City (I worked in them for 20 years) and you will hear people joke about “white trash”, “trailer trash”, “rednecks”, “round people from square states”. Turn on the TV and you hear more cheap jokes about how they dress, talk and behave.”

My thoughts:

The author is quite right in how the Republican elites attack working class whites, but he is remiss in not pointing out that the Democrat elites do the same.

I spent over a decade as a social worker in Appalachia.  I know full well how these people feel utterly abandoned and powerless.  As a social worker I found that all of the activist and advocacy groups were based on race not income. The Urban League, NAACP and La Rasa are all good groups that do a lot of great work. However, there is no comparable group advocating for the working poor whites, especially rural and suburban whites.  It is hardly any wonder why they feel marginalized and are easy prey for those advocating white supremacy.

These are the Donald Trump voters. I am seeing and hearing increasingly virulent attacks on these low income white supporters calling them neo-NAZI’s and such, but in fact they are not; however, it is easy for them to be convinced the problem is caused by foreigners when no other easy answer is given.  You will notice that working class whites are also flocking to Bernie Sanders. He also gives the working poor whites a simplistic scapegoat (Wall Street bankers); but in reality he, just like Trump, sidesteps the larger problems facing the working poor.

To make matter worse, the working poor whites are increasingly hearing attacks on them because they are white. Poor blacks and Hispanics are being taught to scapegoat whites in general, not just rich whites, but all whites.   Talk of “White Privilege” coming from rich kids at elite universities does great harm to impoverished whites who would love to trade places with their accusers. The effect of this is to divide the working poor and further dis-empower all of them.

It seems the white working poor no longer have any political friends and are consequently easy targets for the elites of both parties. Not only is this immoral, it is a ticking time bomb in the US.

Corporate Blackmail?

I am actually ambivalent about the Georgia law that would allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  I don’t think I would vote for it I were in the Georgia legislature, but I understand the concerns of the Christian community.

However according to this article in the Daily Beast  “Disney released a statement saying the entertainment juggernaut would cease all film production in the state if HB 757 is signed into law. The boycott includes its subsidiary movie studio, Marvel.At least 20 Fortune 500 companies, including Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines, The Home Depot, UPS, and The Coca-Cola Company, have lined up to urge the governor to veto the bill. The coalition includes Google, IBM, Marriott, Microsoft, AMC, Viacom, Nordstrom, Dow Chemical, and Verizon.  Time Warner, which owns Atlanta-based Turner Broadcasting and CNN, also joined the effort.”

Even if I were vehemently opposed to the law, it should give me concern that major American corporations have decided it is legitimate to use their  financial clout to effectively blackmail the state legislature to pass/not pass laws they want or don’t want.  What would the left say if the same approach was used to stop environmental laws or other laws they want.  Isn’t this the same corporate influence in government that Bernie Sanders rails against?

We have courts to decide what is the balance between the power of the majority and the protection of rights guaranteed by the constitution or other laws.  To let corporations use their power over people’s jobs and livelihood to coerce elected representatives to vote for or against a bill should frighten anyone who believes in liberal democracy.

When we open the door to corporate giants to make their clout felt in causes we like, you can bet that they will not stop with altruistic goals. You can bet the power we so willingly given these giants today will be used, sooner rather than later, to more brazen profit driven schemes.

The ends do not justify the means. We can never trade the fair value of people’s votes just for a political win in the short run.  We should ask ourselves what will be tomorrow’s cost for today’s victory.

cuba

The War on Drugs a Front?

A CNN article quotes John Ehrlichman:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
My Thoughts
I’ve never been a drug user and as a social worker I’ve seen first hand the damage drug abuse does to families and especially children.  So, I am not particularly sympathetic to the efforts to glamorize drug use in magazines like The Rolling Stone.  However, it is abundantly clear that the War on Drugs has been a colossal failure not only wasting billions of dollars but causing incalculable “collateral damage.”
I also think of myself as being cynical of almost everything; but, never had it dawned on me that the War on Drugs had never been about limiting the damage done by drug abuse. This new piece of information from one of the few people who absolutely know the truth about this issue is both disturbing and will require a great deal of thought.

A response from Sen. Grahm

Here is the full text of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s response to my letter.

Dear Ronald:

 Thank you for contacting me regarding the Supreme Court vacancy created by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia.  Justice Scalia was one of the most consequential justices in the history of the Supreme Court, and our nation has greatly benefitted from his service.

Historically, I have supported judicial nominees that were qualified for the job, even if I disagreed with their philosophical views. However, in 2013, Democrats upset the traditional bipartisan cooperation required for confirming judges by exercising the nuclear option, which lowered the threshold for confirming judges. As a result, for the remainder of President Obama’s term in office, I do not believe that the Senate should hold a hearing or vote on a nominee to replace Justice Scalia.

As your United States Senator, my primary job is to understand and represent the interests of all South Carolinians.  The opportunity to hear from you about the issues confronting our nation is not only essential to representative democracy, but allows me to better serve the people of South Carolina. We will not see eye-to-eye on every issue; however, I promise to always give your concerns the consideration they deserve.

I encourage you to visit my website — http://lgraham.senate.gov — as it will have information on the most recent activities before the U.S. Senate. You can also sign up for our e-mail newsletter, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube pages which will provide the latest information and updates on the major issues facing our state and our nation.

Thank you again for contacting me. I truly appreciate the opportunity to hear from you and am honored to have the opportunity to represent your interests in the U.S. Senate.

 

Sincerely,

Lindsey O. Graham
United States Senator

 

ends and means

A Letter to My US Senator

Please reconsider your stand on giving Merrick Garland a fair hearing.

To suggest that the people need to vote in November before you can consider a Supreme Court justice is both short sighted and an affront to the constitution. To suggest that President Obama is not the legitimate president because he is in the third year of his term shows distain for the constitutional mandated four year term.  He has done his constitutional duty, it is time to do yours. You can’t be “Pro-constitution” only when it suites you.  Where does this end? Next time do you say you won’t consider a nominee after mid-terms?  This position is impossible to justify other than by considering political advantage.

Even if you don’t care about what is right, you know full well the chances of a Republican win in November is rapidly slipping away.   In the end, obstructing Merrick Garland now will likely have the net effect of ensuring a far more leftist justice is confirmed next year.  Is party loyalty worth that to you?

And just today you  suggested that your actions are justified because you are doing what the Democrats would do in your shoes.  You should have learned in kindergarten that that is not a legitimate way to justify your actions.  If you want to act like a Democrat, then be a Democrat; however, wouldn’t it be better to show the Democrats and the nation that you can rise above petty partisanship.

I have long supported you with my vote.  You must know that in the upstate you have strong opposition from the far right wing, yet I’ve been proud to support you.  I hate to see you acting like one of Ted Cruz’s acolytes.

At the University of Arizona, Freedom of Thought Is on Life Support

At the University of Arizona, Freedom of Thought Is on Life Support

From the Article:

Are student-protesters trying to bankrupt their universities? If activists at the University of Arizona get everything they want—including a whopping $500,000 diversity budget—the administration would have to raise tuition rates through the roof to keep up with costs. 

A coalition of left-leaning student organizations at U of A has organized itself into a grievance group, the Marginalized Students, and published a list of demands. Their list will not surprise anyone who has read the outrageous set of demands recently issued by Western Washington University students, who spell history with an “x” (where the rest of us put the “i”) to avoid gender connotations and are seeking the creation of an entirely new college for social justice indoctrination. 

The Marginalized Students want U of A to force all employees of the college, and some students—including everyone who works for the student newspaper—to undergo cultural sensitivity training. They want trigger warnings, and they want faculty members who fail to use them to be punished. They want optional separate living communities for students of color, gay students, and women (the marginalized don’t like to share safe spaces, it seems). And they want diversity—a whole lot more diversity. Half a million dollars worth of diversity, in fact. 

 

“It is important to note that these are Demands, not simply requests or suggestions,” wrote the students. “These represent thoughtful, meaningful reforms that are necessary in order to affirm the expectation of safety and real life equity. Should these demands not be met or properly negotiated to our standards, we will mobilize our students. Additionally, we will inform prospective students, faculty, staff, as well as previous faculty and staff, alumni, and anyone else who will listen of the problematic climate that is perpetuated on this campus.” 

My Thoughts:

Can you say “Cultural Revolution?”   Marxian critical theory drives this whole movement, and true to their roots, they have no regard for freedom of thought or expression, only for imposing their ideology.  I had several professors tell me directly that the entire Bill of Rights should be abolished  because it interferes with the more important goal of social justice.  And, importantly, only critical theorist are capable of achieving social justice.   Thus, all other political and philosophical views must be suppressed “for the greater good”.

These people are far more dangerous than most people realize.

Of Experts and Pseudo Experts

 

In a few very narrow topics I am a genuine expert. In a good many more topics (though still rather small in actual number), I am highly knowledgeable.  On the vast majority of topics that come up I either have a basic working knowledge, or can bluff my way through a conversation by knowing what questions to ask. Then there are those things that I can’t even begin to discuss without looking like a rube.

I think this pattern is true for most people.

There is simply no way anyone can spend the time and energy necessary to become truly an expert in more than a small group of things.  To get to that level one must have both the theoretical understanding of the topic coupled with years of practical experience to work out how the theory behaves in the real world.  This is equally true for educational policy as it is for plumbing. Simply knowing about something from books or classes cannot make one an expert, unless we are talking about being an expert in the theory alone.  All too many college professors believe they are experts in things at which they have little or no practical experience.  On the other hand it is very difficult for most practitioners to see beyond their immediate surroundings to the larger, big picture, concepts.   It is this myopia that formal education/training is very useful in correcting.   That education need not be in a formal classroom, but the larger perspective of why things are done in a certain way is imperative if one is to be a real expert. Continue reading “Of Experts and Pseudo Experts”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑