MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
BLM Confronts Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire
By rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/18/2015 - 9:56am |Five members of Black Lives Matter were able to corner Hillary Clinton at an event in New Hampshire. She seems to hold her own in the exchange. Bill Clinton played a huge role in intensified police practices and mass incarceration. Hillary notes that she is working on policies to change things, but didn't offer specifics.
Interestingly, these five members of BLM didn't have specific policies that they wanted to see put in place either. I am told that two of the BLM members were on Rachel Maddow last night with guest host Melissa Harris-Perry. I will track down the segment when I get home.
Hillary did not cower, which is good. I will watch the television segment to get how BLM felt the interaction went. I think they will focus on the lack of specifics from Hillary Clinton.
URL:
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/08/watch_black_lives_matter_activists_confront_hillary_clinton.html?wpisrc=topstories
- Add new comment
- 8642 reads
Comments
I was struck by Clinton's remark, "Look, I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate."
Contrast this statement with Abraham Lincoln's maxim: "[P]ublic sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed."
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 11:15am
Interesting. In Charleston. I think some behind the scenes pressure from business owners led to Haley making a policy change. There were clearly legislators who had their hearts changed like Strom Thurmund's son and a woman who was a Jefferson Davis descendent. Others bowed to political pressure. If the measure to remove the flag had been put to a vote, the Confederate flag may still be flying in SC.
Lincoln fought a war and built a railroad. He was assassinated and replaced by a man with sympathy for the South. Reconstruction halted. Many hearts remained hardened. 150 years later, we still argue about a flag.
We need a combination of policy and changing hearts. Changing hearts is hard.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 12:08pm
"Changing hearts is hard." Sure it is. But it's essential. I believe that progressive change has stalled because Democrats, especially the Clintons, have been too focused on changing statutes and not focused enough on changing sentiments.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 12:16pm
Which is ironic considering how often their sentiments "evolve."
by kyle flynn on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 12:23pm
What is not so ironic is how Republican sentiments and ideology never evolve.
For the GOP, their ideology cannot fail, it therefore has no need to evolve.
It cannot fail, it can only be failed.
When it does fail disastrously they can blame the Democrats, or quarantine the memory.
by NCD on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 1:39pm
I liken it to psychological counseling and almost any kind of management of people. When people undergo a serious change of heart it's because they have an "a ha", or an insight hits them, not because some person, certainly not an uppity progressive, is trying to steer them.
For example, one of the hardest things a beginning therapist, or even a manager, has to learn is to allow people to reach their own conclusions and not try to over manage the results. Maybe the dynamics of political discourse are aren't comparative.
The subject re Clinton was about what might be the most deep seated prejudice in our culture.
In any case, I liked Clinton's statement even though I winced at the possible bad consequences of telling motivated young people they can't change hearts.
Events can change hearts---which it seems to me is different than "movements" or political talk.
Maybe we need to know if the emphasis should be on "you", as in "you can't change hearts."
Any way, that's what I think. Interesting comments.
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 12:57pm
Excellent point on events changing sentiments.
Krugman has called the MSM pundit 'cult' of 'both sides are at fault' as 'destructive' to the nation.... and one could say the corporate MSM, outside of horrific events like the shooting in Charleston or the fiasco in Iraq, influences to a great extent and more than any candidate, the sentiments of viewers.
by NCD on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 1:47pm
Politics isn't therapy. Great reformers have to be great persuaders. That doesn't mean they dictate what people think, but they're effective at nudging people along. And they are not alone. Political change requires a large movement with many leaders actively engaged in changing hearts.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 2:01pm
Thanks. I didn't say politics was therapy.
Persuading others usually means persuading towards an end---like a piece of legislation, much of which is geared to self interest bargains.
Changing hearts is something different.
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 2:27pm
I'd argue that persuading people to change their hearts is the most critical part of politics, as Mr. Lincoln put it so eloquently.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 3:02pm
I grant that "molding public sentiment" is pretty close to "changing hearts".
I wonder what was in Lincoln's heart when he wrote;"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it". Letter to Horace Greeley.
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 3:19pm
As far as I know, Lincoln believed that slavery was evil and would eventually wither away, but he did not believe that the government should force its abolition on the South (at least not until later in his presidency). This was partly pragmatic--some of the Union states were slave states--and partly an issue of states' rights.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 4:52pm
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 3:57pm
Gay rights is a great example. Many people have changed their views on gay rights, very quickly in fact.
PS Regarding, c, I don't think it's fruitful to debate whether people really changed their views or believed it all along without realizing it. Both are unverifiable, and in the end, does it matter?
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 4:48pm
I rather doubt many people have changed their views on gay rights vs. find they just don't care as much as they thought they did or that there's anything they can do about it or they roughly held their current position but it's now socially (or party) acceptable to hold it. I imagine there are those who are the fundamentalist types who actually do care and haven't changed their views. Think of it as demoting issues on the party platform and doing a quick rebrand.
Re: c, it's roughly the "we've always been at war with East Asia/Eurasia/EastAsia/Eurasia..." approach, or in the case of the GOP, "we've always been the party of civil rights-MLK supporter / pro-Hispanic / party for women / against removing troops from Iraq...". It's the memory-hole option that never admits defeat but simply moves the ball out of the rough and pretends they never touched it.
My basic premise is that people have very few sincere deeply-held beliefs vs. tactical positions that make survival in the clique more bearable. I'd guess the healthier they are, the better able they are to switch skins and adapt new postures, as the future is hard to predict. Who knows when you'll be called upon to fret about Iranian nukes or back a Hispanic candidate or cozy up to a Qaddafi or Castro. (and yes, as many convenient shifting sands for the left - "enemy is perfect of the good", mass surveillance is needed for us to be safe, the trade pact that was anathema last month is acceptable this...)
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 7:31pm
I'm thinking there is solid research to support the thesis that good health, especially in the later years, and ability to adopt new positions are positively correlated.
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 8:23pm
Possibly that's saying "people who switch positions a million times have to have good memory to keep track of it all", but that's looking at it from an Alzheimers perspective
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/20/2015 - 8:03am
That same perspective would lead to viewing those who constantly change positions as being up-to-date. Everything's fresh when the old is new again.
by barefooted on Fri, 08/21/2015 - 2:50am
For the most part, hearts don't change when left to their own devices. Public policy must, to some degree, force the issue in order to motivate the need for change. Both heart and mind are required, but if it's a chicken-or-egg issue the policy must take the lead.
by barefooted on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 3:51pm
You cannot get public policy without the hearts and mind. There would have been no civil rights legislation if MLK and other Civil Rights leaders hadn't persuaded a majority of Americans to reject racism and segregation.
In fact, public policy is not effective at changing people's hearts (or minds); is is effective in forcing those who remain unpersuaded to comply. The Voting Rights Acts did not persuade racists to join the majority; it forced them to follow the majority's decision.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 4:44pm
Well, if we are at the forcing point on stopping, for example, police violence and the unequal dispensation of "justice" towards blacks and minorities , isn't Clinton's statement sensible and appropriate in this case?
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 5:09pm
The first step is to convince (white) people that police violence against black citizens and unequal justice are critical problems. Once you raise public awareness, you can more easily pass difficult measures to address the problem. That's what the BLM guy what arguing and what HRC seemed not to appreciate. For too many people, black lives still don't matter.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 6:24pm
I get that.
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 8:25pm
So statutes are more important for progress than sentiments? Seems the opposite of your position above.
Without law, sentiments are subject to the vagaries of public mood and tribulation.
by NCD on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 6:20pm
I never said laws are unnecessary. That would be silly. I said that you have to first persuade a majority to get effective laws passed. Majority sentiment => effective statutes & enforcement => minority compliance
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 6:26pm
I think the majority is already against the issues that BLM is raising. Oddly, there seems to be more opposition to their methods than their argument. So now is the time for policy to be implemented to cement the majority opinion into law/regulation/enforcement to circumvent the minority whose hearts can not be changed.
by barefooted on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 7:17pm
I think you're right.
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 8:12pm
Without a media propaganda machine or recent big event c oxy, any nudging of the needle of sentiment by candidates is likely to be small.
This is the TV dominated age, not the age of Lincoln or TR.
That's why the Fox News non-reality based right wing propaganda machine has been so much a part of the GOP strategy, often making some wonder whether it runs the GOP.
Fox News viewers less informed than those who watch no news at all.
But they are informed, or misinformed, on what will control their sentiments.
Like..... Republicans pin Katrina (2005) blame on Obama over Bush.
by NCD on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 4:10pm
Slanted media propaganda was much, much bigger in the days of Lincoln and TR. Hearst put Murdoch to shame. If anything, Fox News has been effective at winning hearts & minds for Republicans because it has been playing an old game.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 6:31pm
Bingo. I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement, MW.
My own feeling is, hearts can and must be changed for lasting results, but it takes time and patience.
by MrSmith1 on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 1:34pm
Poetry can change hearts, especially your poetry.
Politics, not so much, in my view.
The subject was BLM changing hearts and where the political emphasis should be. If there are hearts of racism still left after all the violence against blacks which we have witnessed of late, I ask you, what amount of persuading and explaining is going to change them?
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 08/19/2015 - 3:08pm