There is too much “we” in our mindless political analyses

Recently I saw a meme on my Facebook feed that asked, “How did my freedom end up in Afghanistan?” As July 4th approaches I cringe at the thought of all the patriotic messages that will be spewed especially by Blacks born here in the United States. Their thoughtless blithering on “freedoms” and “blessings” form the basis for the observation in the Afghan meme.

Thoughtless because it is beyond me how a small Central Asian country that has poppy as its main crop could pose any danger to my ability to walk around my neighborhood; eat my turkey sub; write this blog post; apply for a job; or watch a movie.  Yes, the Afghans are notorious for rightfully kicking the asses of imperialist British and Russian invaders, but if anyone’s freedom is being threatened, it is that of the Afghans who have a 150 year of more long history of battling uninvited guests.

Blacks in America should be especially mindful of latching on to the “we” word.  A group of people who only saw their rights as citizens fully incorporated by law within the past 60 years should be pulling back from the assimilation rhetoric of current misguided or disingenuous political leaders.  So quick to be accepted are blacks that it is easy to spout the mindless adages that will flow more freely than beer during July 4th.

It is too easy for blacks to scream that the Russians attacked “our” election process.  Really? How so? Did the Russians stop 20 million eligible black voters from going to the polls and choosing Hillary Clinton?  How is it “our” process when diverse voices within the black population can nary get support from fellow blacks?

The second problem with “we” is that it reinforces the myth that the black population is a political monolith.  Black over-indexing in support for the Democrats creates group speak and gives the Democratic Party the emotional, Pavlovian responses that make good sound bites for television talking heads and thirty-second video clips for MSNBC.

The appropriate unit of analysis for reflection should be “I”. Democracy and the partisan politics that flow from it have made Americans fearful of sounding selfish or anti-social. Avoiding the “we” is painted as anti-collective and creating disharmony.  Focusing on the “I” fears collectivists, especially the collectivists on the Left because the “I” means operating in an environment of mental and emotional discipline, and when operating in the space raises the chance that the individuals says, “Hey. Not so fast, collective. That’s not where I want to go.”

It is time to pursue more independent thinking. Time to stop fearing the “I”.

The Sarah Sanders fiasco challenges the notion of free exchange of ideas and nation-state.

America’s hypocrisy when it comes to the freedom to exchange ideas was further exposed last weekend when Sarah Huckabee Sanders, press secretary for the White House, was asked to leave the Red Hen, a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. According to The Hill.com, Mrs. Sanders along with seven members of her family, was asked by Stephanie Wilkinson, the co-owner of the restaurant, to leave the establishment because she took issue with the Trump administration’s policy toward transgender members of the military.  Listening to calls this morning to C-SPAN on the issue is giving me the sense of how increasingly polarized the United States is politically. It has me asking, “Are Americans really serious about the free exchange of ideas or is that just some Madison Avenue hype designed to maintain an artificial society?”

The first three words in the Constitution of the United States of America, “We the People”, seem farcical given this latest event. Yes, humans are expected to disagree, but the United States has been transmitting a message to the world that the choice to disassociate based on the groups you want to disassociate away from is somehow a bad thing and that real strength lies in diversity of people and ideas.  The Sanders event is an example that this creed is built on shaky ground. It seems more likely that Americans rather not share space with people who do not share their political beliefs or political lineage. “We the People” means, “We, a Particular People Who Have Taken Charge.” Inclusive means only including those who share your beliefs.

The State had to sell the notion that the disenfranchised were allowed to come to the party. The last thing the United States needed to see was its own version of Bastille Day on American soil. To keep the barbarians at bay the political elite needed a doggy bone and democracy has been that bone since the country’s inception.  But as the guise of democracy and its phony noble intent falls away, are the disenfranchised ready for a world that is not inclusive?

If Americans are serious about freedom of association and the freedom to exchange ideas, they must accept the freedom to disassociate and go one’s own way. The Left is afraid of such a mindset because disassociation means fewer people across which to spread the costs of unnecessary programs and fewer people towing their party line.  The Left has been historically aligned with freedom of thought, but their support for the co-owner of The Red Hen demonstrates to me that even they do not understand their equality standards and the artificial nature of those standards are coming back to harm them.

The co-owner of the Red Hen, again, took issue with transgender policy of the Trump administration and given the lack of anonymity that Mrs. Sanders could not avoid were able to single her out and direct a protest against Mr. Trump by asking her to leave.  Would the Left take issue with a restaurant owner who does not support the Democratic Party because of the party’s support for gay marriage but because she is aware that 90% of blacks support the Democratic Party decides to not serve them? The answer is yes and not because the Left would think the owner is wrong, but the loss of black votes stemming from any Democratic support for the restaurant owner’s free speech would cost Democrats at the polls.

I don’t believe the discussion on free association will ever end. Quite frankly it needs to continue and get louder.

Fifty years after MLK’s death, the civil rights movement has become a revenue stream for event planners

I don’t know if it is still done, but I remember watching some movie filmed in black and white where in one scene there was an attractive white girl walking around with a box strapped in front of her containing cigarette cartons. She would use her voice, smile, and good looks to charm the men in the room into buying a cancer stick or two. From a consumer perspective this type of traction creation for marketing and selling product is standard operation.  I see it when good looking women are pictured on magazine covers laying on the top of race cars. I see it at conferences when the best looking bartenders are placed behind the cash bar. I see it when a pretty face women is placed at the receptionist desk of an office or at the registration table of an event.

An event planner realizes that her staff responsible for connecting with clients must be able to create a level of trust and comfort such that the client pays attention to what the event’s sponsors are selling. The sponsors want event planners to weave the sponsors’ products into an event’s theme creating exposure of the product’s benefits to the prospective consumer. The greater the exposure to the product, the greater the likelihood of a sale in the short or immediate term.

In politics, political messages are the products pushed through partisan politics channels. Those messages ask tax payers to vote for a particular candidate or support some policy. Today’s post Martin Luther King civil rights movement has become an event planning channel for partisan messages from the left. Some of the “event planners” are familiar to some of you: the NAACP, the National Urban League, the National Action Network, the National Rainbow Coalition. Others have emerged over the past decade such as Color of Change and Black Lives Matter. Their business model is simple. Led by a bunch of college educated black elites, they invite people from the black masses to participate in forums, panel discussions, parades, etc., where they can discuss issues impacting the “black community.” During these forums they intertwine the messages of the progressive left and then close with calls to action, including during an election season, a call for blacks to vote for liberals.

During Dr King’s time, civil rights leaders exchanged information and inspiration in their church meetings. Other than planting a bug in a church (I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI did this often), you couldn’t “hack” these meetings unless you convinced civil rights leaders that it was important for you, especially as a non-white, to attend. Contrary to the images you saw on “Mississippi Burning”, of helpless blacks dependent on the white man to get him through, black Americans were very resourceful in addressing and pressing their grievances on their own.

Today they have been convinced that a “go it alone” approach is not feasible. By relying less on their own resources, blacks have opened themselves up the carpet bagging of liberals who have sold them on a new corporate model where the black civil rights movement is underwritten by the Democratic Party and other progressive groups. There is a price to pay for the underwriting. The price is a dilution of message.

Now civil rights has extended to groups that quite frankly don’t need civil rights attention or protection: white women, other ethnic groups, and the LGBTQ communities. Black Americans have been pushed so far down to the bottom of the civil rights ladder that they are a fossilized movement, compressed by the weight of all the other communities that have managed to get ahead of them that today, just like the fossils of dead dinosaurs and mammals, they are fueling the civil and human rights campaigns of everyone else.

Martin Luther King’s death removed any last viability of a movement that was moving its focus toward economic empowerment. The movement opted to go the route of political empowerment, falling for its glamour and surface glitz. That power has traditionally been urban based, but as whites return to core cities and old black neighborhoods gentrify, that power is quickly eroding. Fifty years after his death, all the black civil rights movement may have going for it is putting another event on a calendar.