Poems in a time of crisis: After Louisiana, Minnesota and Dallas

Here are three links to poems written and/or published in the wake of this week’s trio of horrors. I think they capture a lot of the emotions many of us are experiencing. My own poetic response follows, as well.

From Rattle, Nicole Homer a poem of mourning.
My friend Quassan Castro offers a troubling painful reflection in his poem, “A Black Boy’s Fear.”
And here is my response:
THREAT ASSESSMENTS 
His hands were empty, will stay 
empty as his body, lowered 
into the dirt, is left 
to rot. He had a gun. 
A carry permit. It was legal. 
He was black. He was 
empty handed, compliant. Dead. 
Alton Sterling’s dead. Philando 
Castile’s dead. Tamir Rice. 
Laquand McDonald. Sandra 
Bland. Dead. Dead. Dead. 
Bodies robbed of breath, made small, 
inert. Less than human. Less 
and more, magical 
hulking figures, perhaps, 
how we see them, as
comic-book villains, able 
to alter space with 
the mere fact of their bodies. 
Minnesota. Carolina. 
Baton Rouge. Chicago. 
In Ferguson, a dead teen, 
riots. Threat analysis, 
reasonable fear. It’s as if 
Michael Brown’s black body 
swelled, a golem bulked up
in rage, looking through me, 
past me, my white 
form nothing more 
than a discarded can 
to be stepped on
and kicked down the road. 
Nothing more than, 
nothing at all, not worth 
the effort, leave it
uncovered for hours 
like roadkill. I guess 
that’s what he was, what 
any black kid at the cusp 
of manhood can expect, 
to be treated as parasite, 
vermin nibbling the teat 
of polite society, as
predators — isn’t that what 
Clinton called them. Not boys, 
not men. But animals 
devouring their prey. 

Enough is enough: Rambling thoughts on the American sin

It is overcast this morning as I sit in my kitchen with coffee and type out these thoughts. The dogs are sleeping and I’ll soon wake them and take them on a walk then go for a run, confident that my suburban life is one of relative safety. Yes, there have been some break-ins recently, but the odds are in my favor. I’m white. I’m solidly middle class. I live in a town with a well-run and ethical police force and I have the characteristics that allow me to feel secure that, when I need the police, they will come, they will treat me with respect, will listen and do their best to help.

I’m pretty damned lucky — as most Americans are.

I say most, because that is not the case in the United States if you are black or brown, if you speak Spanish or Arabic, or live in neighborhoods that have been purposefully neglected for decades.

I say most, because not all police officers are as ethical or conscientious as the men in blue here in South Brunswick. I say most, because there are too many places in this country where safety is a rare commodity, where calling the police is as potentially dangerous as leaving the streets unpoliced.

Alton Sterling is dead, shot by Baton Rouge police. Philando Castile was killed by police in a St. Paul suburb. These killings — executions, really — just add to the litany of African Americans who have died in police custody. This is unacceptable, which is why American streets are now filled with protesters shouting enough is enough.

In Dallas, five police officers were killed by snipers in what is an apparent act of revenge. It is a terrible act, a cowardly act, a foolish act. Five more families are now left broken, permanently scarred. It is a reminder of the dangers police face everyday, just as the deaths of Sterling and Castile — and Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, et al before them — are reminders of the dangers that black Americans also face. The Dallas attack, sadly, is likely to do nothing more than provide cover for those unwilling to acknowledge the way race continues to infect our public policy, the way privilege distorts the supposed meritocracy in which we live.

We will talk about protesters fomenting violence, retreat to our camps and allow the anger to fester.
We are awash in guns in the United States but we will continue to do nothing about that. Minority neighborhoods are treated as war zones, their inhabitants viewed as combatants, and we will do nothing about it. We will do nothing to address failing schools and broken institutions, but we may find a few extra dollars for police to buy high-tech weaponry, which has been the default position for far too long.

We will talk about high-crime areas, about black-on-black crime, and we will toss around the racist canard that blacks lack responsibility. But that just blames the victims. Residents of cities like Chicago, Newark, Trenton, etc., are at the mercy of broken institutions — of failed schools, dysfunctional governments, of militarized police. They live with concentrated poverty, in segregated neighborhoods that have seen businesses close, residents flee, and despair move in.

Michael Eric Dyson, the social critic, writes in today’s New York Times that the accusations that “black folks kill each other every day without a mumbling word while we thunderously protest a few cops, usually but not always white, who shoot to death black people who you deem to be mostly ‘thugs'” is “nonsense is nearly beside the point.”
Black people protest, to one another, to a world that largely refuses to listen, that what goes on in black communities across this nation is horrid, as it would be in any neighborhood depleted of dollars and hope — emptied of good schools, and deprived of social and economic buffers against brutality. People usually murder where they nest; they aim their rage at easy targets.
It’s about a de facto, if not legal, segregation, he says. While there are blacks and Latinos in the suburbs, overwhelming majority of minorities continue to live in primarily black or Latino neighborhoods. So, we should not be talking about black-on-black crime, but about “neighbor-to-neighbor carnage.”

Again, I’m lucky. Many of us are lucky. We are far removed from the carnage, to use Dyson’s word. We are not the ones who, when stopped by police, are met with an automatic suspicion based on nothing more than the color of our skin. We have been “given a pair of binoculars that see black life from a distance, never with the texture of intimacy,” Dyson writes.
Those binoculars are privilege; they are status, regardless of your class. In fact the greatest privilege that exists is for white folk to get stopped by a cop and not end up dead when the encounter is over.

Those binoculars are also stories, bad stories, biased stories, harmful stories, about how black people are lazy, or dumb, or slick, or immoral, people who can’t be helped by the best schools or even God himself. These beliefs don’t make it into contemporary books, or into most classrooms. But they are passed down, informally, from one white mind to the next.

I have one of those white minds. I’ve been lucky to have the binoculars, the privilege, to have attended good public schools, to have access to funding, to safe streets, to police who are committed to the notion that they are here to protect and serve.

I could ignore what is happening. I could retreat to my privilege. I could, but I won’t. Enough is enough.

Send me an e-mail.

Trade deals are not all good or bad

A good piece that, in critiquing simplistic takes on trade policy and trade agreements, offers a primer on their basic workings. As I tweeted and Facebooked  the other day, trade deals are neither good or bad in theory, but specific deals can be.

You have to look at the details, as Dean Baker says. Who wins and who loses? Who is at the table? How will disputes be addressed? Every one of those questions requires a value judgment — which is why all trade deals are as much about protectionism as they are about opening markets.

Consider Baker’s explanation:

The United States pursues a variety of agendas in its trade negotiations. Naturally it does not get everything it wants, it prioritizes some items over others. In some areas it clearly has been very “tough” as measured by outcomes. For example, Pfizer and Microsoft and other drug, software, and entertainment companies are collecting tens of billions of dollars a year from foreign countries because U.S. trade negotiators have been very tough in demanding that these countries adopt U.S.-type rules on patents and copyrights.

The United States has also demanded that other countries allow U.S. corporations to take their complaints to special tribunals outside of their domestic legal system. This is a central feature of the newly negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership. Undoubtedly our negotiators had to be very tough to get these countries to surrender this aspect of their national sovereignty. (We even had to make a reciprocal sacrifice of sovereignty, allowing foreign investors a route around the U.S. legal system.)

Negotiators have not been tough in pressing demands on currency values, which would have meant a lower U.S. trade deficit with countries like China. While the trade deficit matters hugely to workers, some of whom directly lose jobs to imports and others who suffer indirectly from a weak labor market (in the era of secular stagnation we have no mechanism for making up the demand lost due to a trade deficit), it actually benefits many major corporations.

Companies like GE benefit from being able to produce at low cost in countries like China. Retailers like Walmart also benefit from having low-cost supply chains in the developing world. And highly-paid professionals like doctors, who are largely protected by regulations from foreign competition, benefit from a weak labor market by being able to hire cheap help.

U.S. negotiators, as he says, are picking winners and losers. That’s totally appropriate. The issues we need to be discussing, however, are whether the winners and losers they have chosen match the priorities of Americans and workers around the world.

Send me an e-mail.

A matter of principle, or so they say

A Facebook friend offers this argument in favor of his decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton:

It is an interesting argument, one I made as recently as 2000 or so, but one that fails a basic test. Voting is not an act of principle, but a pragmatic act that is part of a larger array of strategic actions we should be taking to push our agenda.

I understand the urge to toss Hillary Clinton under the bus. I am no fan — she has been too close to corporate interests and is far too hawkish on foreign policy. But it is dangerous to assume that tossing her under the electoral bus will not have consequences. Clinton and Donald Trump are not the same. On several key issues — the court, immigration, health care — a Trump presidency would be a disaster. Trump’s rhetoric has been racist, misogynist and protofascist, and his electoral success in the primaries has given an imprimatur to the racists and misogynists out there. I could go on.

So, how does the notion of “principles” factor in? I could argue that my principles demand that I vote for Clinton as the only person who reasonably can be expected to beat Trump and keep him away from the nuclear codes and the bully pulpit of the presidency. Or I could argue that Clinton’s long-standing pro-corporate biases disqualify her from receiving my vote, and that I had no principled choice but to vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. In this case, the argument is that we must use our ballot to send a signal to whoever it is that wins the White House that we on the left can not be taken lightly.

Both are legitimate and principled arguments that are consistent with the beliefs of lefties like me. But they are in conflict with each other and, in the end, we have to reconcile the conflict. The reality is that Stein is not going to win the presidency. A protest vote may send a message, but it also deprives the more liberal candidate of a liberal/lefty vote. It is not a vote for Trump, but it ultimately enhances the value of the individual Trump vote by removing a counterweight to that vote. If enough liberals and lefties vote for Stein, Trump could win. (The same is true in the other direction; if enough conservative voters move to Gary Johnson, for instance, it would doom Trump.)

It is a question of strategy, then, and not one of principle. Those of us suspicious of Clinton have to ask ourselves which principle will serve us best long-term — one in which we send a message but potentially give the White House to a narcissistic opportunist with proto-fascist tendencies, or one in which we bite our lip and back a badly flawed candidate understanding that we are best served by having a Democrat choose the next few Supreme Court candidates and prevent the rollback of the gains made over the last eight years.

Voting is a strategic act, as I said, and it has to be part of a broader political strategy. In my case,  I’m voting for Clinton in November, not so much as a lesser of two evils, but as a way of making the best of a bad situation. And after she is elected, I plan to be one of her biggest critics, doing what I can to continue pushing her to the left.

Send me an e-mail.