Considering Scapegoats

It has been fascinating to watch the transference of anger going from Wall Street and investors to corporations in 2007 or so, which Barack Obama blocked, told the banks I'm the guy standing between you and the pitch forks…

Without a villain, without Barack Obama letting people have the villain they want, the Republican Party stepped in and said you know, it is government and public employee unions that are the cause of your problems.

–  Ezra Klein, The Last Word, MSNBC, February 21, 2011 (at the 00:22:30 mark)

Last night I was listening to Lawrence O'Donnell and Ezra Klein discuss the situation brewing in Wisconsin.  It was a pretty generic progressive conversation about the politics of our national and state economic and budget issues – until Klein raised the issue of "blame."  He got my full attention when he talked briefly (above) about the anger people feel and how they needed to channel it toward something.

It reminded me that President Obama has not chosen to scapegoat any particular groups or organizations for our current difficulties.  In response, I can hear someone say, "Well he did say the Bush Administration's lack of regulatory enforcement was a cause" or "Obama said the greed of the financial institutions contributed to the bad deals," etc.  At which point I need to remind myself that laying blame per se is not the same as scapegoating.  To create a scapegoat, one must attempt to place the blame on a party who bears no actual responsibility for a problem – that is, try to frame an innocent for the transgressions of others.  No one who understands our current economic crisis can say the Bush Administration and the bankers are entirely without culpability in this situation. Frankly, there is plenty of blame to go around as we try to conduct a root-cause-analysis to unearth the decades-long processes that led to this point in time.

While the Left blames bankers and lobbyists and Republicans, the Right blames government employees and taxes and Democrats.  To me, Obama seems to rise above all this as he talks about the forces at work that we must accept (such as the global economy and the speed of technological changes) and those we can control (especially how government and business respond to these forces.) Earlier this month, he spoke to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce about both innovation and economic accountability: "the mutual responsibilities we have – to secure the future that we all share."

In a world where short-term political advantage is everything – and governance is illusory – Obama makes many mistakes.  This is the world of Dualism, the childish belief that good things will happen if you find the right people to blame.

However, if one accepts the Complexity of our world and truly wants to govern in a manner that creates win-win progress for all parties, then scapegoating is a waste of time. It alienates many of those with whom one must partner if one is to truly create a new conversation in this country.   To work toward this end, one must "put an end to childish ways" – stop speaking as a child, thinking as a child, reasoning as a child – and become an adult.

Maybe that's why Obama often feels like the only grown-up in the room.

Photo Information:

President Barack Obama listens during a briefing on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, aboard Air Force One en route to New Orleans, La., Sunday, May 2, 2010.

(Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Name-Calling

MR. GREGORY [on the subject of "birthers"]:  As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?

SPEAKER BOEHNER:  David, it's not my job to tell the American people what to think.  Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people.

– "Meet the Press", February 13, 2011

An Editorial writer at the New York Times (and David Gregory) took issue with this response, seeing it as disingenuous.  Let's consider another possibility. 

Assume there are basically two ways of thinking:

Type1 – Dualism: black-white, wrong-right, evil-good; apocalyptic –
Child-like

The thinking goes something like this:

     My side is right and good.

     The other side is wrong and therefore Evil.

     Things I don't understand are scary to me and therefore Bad.

     I will stick with my side because they're good and I'm good.

Dualistic thinking can lead to a straight-forward, consistent message and solid group cohesion.

Type 2 – Complexity, tones of gray – Grown-up

     Sometimes I'm right, sometimes you're right.

     By sharing differing perspectives, we can find solutions to our problems.

     My side is not always right or good; sometimes I don't have a "side" at all.

     Things I don't understand make me curious to learn more.

     I will challenge my side when I believe they're wrong.

     I will approach the other side as if they think the same way I do, even if their perspective is different.

What is the opposite of cohesion ? Confusion – that is, the message is complicated and may seem confused. [Most of us have heard the line, attributed to Will Rogers, "I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat."]  The consistency is in the process, how one thinks about problems, not in the "answers."

So, if I'm a Type 1 person I might think about the president this way:

I am right and good; I disagree with Obama, therefore he is wrong and evil.

Other things that are bad:

     Anyone who's not American born

     Muslims (who honor something called "Sharia Law")

     Street-wise men of color

     People who want to take my guns, and so forth.

Therefore, Obama is not American-born, is a Muslim, wants to impose Sharia Law, a thug who wants to take my guns away, etc. etc.

So perhaps it's not disingenuous for a leader who's constituency holds many Type 1 voters to say, "The American people have the right to think what they think."  Conceivably the Speaker is just reflecting an understanding of the community his party represents.

Is it possible this is about epithets, not "facts"?  If so, there's no wonder Democrats are frustrated; facts as they understand them are irrelevant to a significant number of American voters.  Perhaps it's time to come up with a whole different understanding of "facts."

NOTE:  I have simplified some important concepts to help get me to my point more directly. Much good work has been done in the area of conflict and communications. Excellent examples can be found in the  works of W. Barnett Pearce, such as his books Communication and the Human Condition and Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide (the latter with Stephen W. Littlejohn.) All Barnett's work is informed and intriguing.

[Image Credit:

Obama as a pimp, from TeaParty.Org email, January 2010

Reported at Talking Points Memo, January 28, 2010]

"Exceptionalism" Raises Some Hackles

A reader responds to an earlier post:

Your essay on Obama's not having used the word "exceptionalism" makes me crazy...

First, I never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never heard the word before Sarah Palin.  I thought she made it up.  (And, linguistically speaking, I am no dope.)

A superficial examination of the history of the use of the word showed me that early in the twentieth century it was used by the Communist party to discuss America.

This word is such a hash of rhetoric, I believe it should be banned from public discourse by Lake Superior State College.  Come on –  take a noun like "exception" --  meaning "an object or being made or designated or thought of as different from the ordinary."  It does not inherently mean or imply "better," merely "different."  Add "al," to make it an adjective to describe a object or being as somehow special and different.  Add "ism," and what the hell have you got?  It is a crappy word, and should not pass the lips of a thinking person. 

Hitler thought the Germans were superior to other nationals.  "Exceptionalism" is a long, concocted word … which would have appealed to a thinker like Hitler, who:
1. actually believed his people were superior and
2. spoke German, in which language the compounding of words into longer words is so endemic it is the subject of jokes.

Of course, this reference to Hitler supports "Godwin's Law" – we just can't help it, it's so appealing.

I can't help but cut to the chase.  In this, we are fighting a duel of wits with unarmed opponents.  Trouble is, most of them are probably packing!!!

The fact that Obama has to date refused to say Americans are the best people on earth is probably one reason the U.S. has risen in the esteem of the world at large, and he is held dear by many foreign nationals.  He values humans, American or otherwise.  What would be wrong with that – if we weren't trying to argue with Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck?  They are beneath contempt, but they believe they are exceptional, yea superior, by virtue of where on the globe they happened to be born.

What I object to is the fact that Palin and her many minions in the right-wing media grab a word. . . decide their own significant definition of that word, and make it the word the duck is carrying in its mouth when it drops out of the sky.  "Say the secret word, and you win a hundred dollars." [Hat tip: Groucho Marx] Fail to say the secret word, and we'll tell people you are an illegal alien.

Obama knows how to say their lousy word.  But he's smart enough, he knows better words.  And he knows how to use them.

Screw them and their magic word.

Source Image Credit:

Title Card for classic TV game show, "You Bet Your Life"

Dissertation Information

For those interested in reading a preview of my dissertation (or actually purchasing a copy) please go to the UMI ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database.  

The main page for my dissertation can be found here.  After the Abstract, there is a link to a page that allows you to preview or purchase a copy.

I'm very happy with the results and I'd like to hear what you think.

What More Is Required?

Between left and right . . . are those who merely want affirmation that all is right with the world. Most important, they want assurance that the president shares their values. So why won't Obama just deliver the one word that would prompt arias from his doubters?

Until recently, I considered Kathleen Parker to be a more hip version of Peggy Noonan, a thoughtful, literate conservative who had a mind of her own (except when it comes to beatifying  Ronald Reagan) and hadn't succumbed to the Tea Party brand of discourse.

Based on my assumptions of her reasonableness, I have a hard time understanding her apparent amnesia when it comes to the demonization of the current president, Barack Obama. Her essay pleads with President Obama to say the "one word" and concludes:

Perhaps it is best resolved through a presidential address in which Obama takes possession of the word and settles the question once and for all: What does American exceptionalism mean in today's world?

Ms Parker forgets that Obama has consistently spoken of America's unique role in his life and in the world – easily found in speeches dating back to the 2004 Democratic Convention. Others have commented on the inaccuracy of her essay and I won't duplicate their efforts here. I would refer you to Steve Benen or Robert Schlesinger, among others, if you want to delve into the specifics of that debate.

What interests me is that the essay seems premised on the belief that Obama is somehow responsible for this effort to brand him as un-American – or non-American.  Does Parker really believe that incorporating the specific word "exceptionalism" into presidential statements (more than he already has) will somehow dampen the demands of that fringe of citizens who question his legitimacy?  Does she believe that a series of speeches from Obama will stop the vilification from the talk-radio Right?

Each time Obama moves to respond to this rhetoric, the ground shifts and a new excuse not to believe he is really a full-throated patriotic American is presented.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama took a stand on the lazy patriotism of wearing flag lapel pins. It became a distraction, so now he wears one regularly. The pin's ubiquity hasn't convinced the naysayers.

The former GOP governor of Hawaii vouches for the authenticity of his birth certificate and the voices cry louder. They escalate to lawsuits that go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Red State legislators draft laws to require that every candidate for President provide "original" birth documents in order to have his/her name included on each state's ballot. (No one seems to ask how many "originals" one person can produce.)

The invective includes claims as simple as the charge that he doesn't place his hand over his heart for the national anthem or pledge of allegiance and move on to conspiracy theories that the president is a Muslim bent on destroying the country by imposing Sharia law and ushering in a "caliphate."

These bizarre claims started early in the 2007-2008 presidential primary season and could have been dismissed as excessive partisan rhetoric. After all, John Kerry was "too French." Standard stuff.

In our so-called public discourse, it's common to call the opposition Fascists and Nazis; so common, in fact, that there is an internet "law" that says, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." That is to say, it becomes close to inevitable. Those who disagreed with Bush-Cheney on the Iraq war and torture called them Nazis. Those who disagree with Health Reform liken parts of the law to the Holocaust. These attacks are within the expected range of  silly commentary. Disappointing, but not surprising.

What has been surprising are the continuing attacks on Obama's personal story, starting with his birth and continuing to the present. These attacks include:

·         He was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

·         He was born in Hawaii, but since his father was a Kenyan he's either Kenyan or British.

·         He became a Muslim while a child in Indonesia.

·         "People aren't recognizing [Obama's] version of Christianity," Glenn Beck, 2010.

·         "He pals around with terrorists, " Sarah Palin, 2008.

·         Living wills and health directives are "death panels" that will require us to "pull the plug on grandma," Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley, 2009.

Yes, I know the last one could be a "policy difference" not a personal attack – if there had not also been a claim during the 2008 campaign that Obama favored infanticide. [18] To me, the two false claims seem related.

So what is all this leading up to? Simply stated, I believe there is an attempt by "main stream" actors to paint Obama as an alien, not 100% American, who does not share or understand or care for the concerns of the American people he was elected to serve.

An almost-humorous example of this can be found in Bill O'Reilly's "interview" on Super Bowl Sunday.  O'Reilly asked more than once whether the president would actually watch the game and then came this question:

O'REILLY: You know, like, football, you know, like, blitzes and coverage and all that?

OBAMA: Oh, I know football, man.

O'REILLY: You do?

OBAMA: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: I know you're a basketball guy.

OBAMA: I know football.

O'REILLY: Yes?

Well, I know Dubyah was a "baseball guy" and I also assume that he knows the basics of football. Having a favorite game does not preclude familiarity with other sports. I'd bet that Bill O'Reilly believes this too.

Why would O'Reilly wonder whether Obama really understood football? Was this O'Reilly's personal curiosity or was this a planned question? And why would one be surprised that the answer was "yes" – unless at some level (intentional or not) there is a doubt that the President is simply a bona fide American man who follows sports.

For all the Right's claims that they are "color-blind" and it's the Left that is "racist" I believe much of the confusion over Obama stems from our unwillingness to face our discomfort with a younger man of color as President.

Some of this is generational – I am disoriented by the idea that someone young enough to be my baby brother is Leader of the Free World. Just as I am perturbed that I don't know who any of the musical guests are on SNL (or about half the hosts either.) 

Some of it is cultural – I don't have that many friends with names not found in Western history and literature.

Some of it is racial – and some of it just might be racist, that is, an institutional attempt to maintain a separation of the races so that power games between them can divert us from the achievement of common goals.

I grew up in the 1950s, in a society in which races did not mix socially; they barely mixed at work. Those of us from the early days of the Baby Boom traveled in a monochromatic world, black or white, red or yellow. In 1961, the year Obama was born, we inaugurated our first Roman Catholic President. Mixed-race marriages were rare or illegal (depending on your state.) The simple idea that the child of such a couple would be President in my lifetime didn't even enter my imagination. So as an individual who grew up in the 20th century, I can understand the disorientation that many of us may feel when confronting the idea of Barack Obama's name and face among those of previous American Presidents.

What I don't understand is the acceptance of racist images, concepts and language into our civil discourse. I don't understand the continuing use of the mechanisms of the media or government to deny legal rights to Americans because there are some who don't yet accept their claims to full citizenship.

There is a saying that goes, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."  The psychotherapist M. Scott Peck wrote a book in which he struggled with the nature of evil. The book was titled "People of the Lie."  I'm not saying those who condone these lies about the President are evil; frankly I don't know what lies in their hearts. I believe, however, that (intentionally or not) they are condoning bigotry and are adding nothing positive to our common discourse.

photo credits:

Flag Pin:  http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/10/03/giving-new-meaning-to-the-term-pinheads/

Button: 1920s Klan pin; http://nsm88records.com/theshop/popup_image.php?pID=2141&image=0

Stained Glass

Ta-Nehisi Coates on why he blogs:

My hope here is twofold--1.) To write deeply about that which I wake up thinking about. 2.) To push people to write deeply, either here or in their own space, that which they go to bed thinking about. I do not wish to model content. I wish to model form.

So here it goes. . . .

Stained Glass

January 29, 2011

I woke this morning to an image of stained glass in a dark church – a nave in the evening after the last prayer has been spoken and the dampened candles send their smoky trails to the high ceilings.  I look at the dark glass.  In the low light, at the right angle one can just make out the images as different textures of black and gray, with only a few hints of muted color that help identify the image of a man.

To understand the full design, there must be light – behind the window from outside the building.

And that is the ultimate intention of this blog space – to shed some light on our public conversation, to apply a perspective that may enlighten the situation under discussion.

[Church interior, source: tesnexus.com]

[Stained glass:  Thomas Becket | Canterbury Cathedral | dark: Wikipedia | bright image:  ambrett on flickr]

What is Pentimento ?

In my doctoral dissertation, I used the concept of pentimento to help organize and understand my data.  It is an image adapted from Lillian Hellman's memoir of that name, best conveyed in this opening passage:

Old paint on canvas, as it ages, sometimes becomes transparent. When that happens it is possible, in some pictures, to see the original lines: a tree will show through a woman's dress, a child makes way for a dog, a large boat is no longer on an open sea. That is called pentimento because the painter "repented," changed his mind. Perhaps it would be as well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again.

This blog proposes a metaphor in which the primary under-layer of our social "canvas" consists of unresolved American biases (such as racism and anti-Semitism). Since the 1960s, this layer has been slowly covered over by images and institutions identified as either "color blind" at best  or "incompetent" at worst. In either case, they prevent us seeing the layer below. However, over time and under constant irritation this top layer has been flaking away, revealing the old unaddressed problems. This image provides the basis for many of the ideas that will be presented in this blog.

[citation:  Hellman, L. (1974). Pentimento. New York, NY: Signet; page 1.]

[images: Caravaggio, Lute Player: Foreground, 1596, The Metropolitan Museum, New York

Background, 1595, The Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia.]