Dr. Lester K. Spence

The Future is Here
Subscribe

Archive for the ‘ideology’

More Middle-Class New Yorkers Fall Behind on Rent and Face Eviction – NYTimes.com

May 05, 2009 By: The Good Doctor Category: ideology Comments

“It’s kind of dehumanizing,” Mr. Brewster-Streeks said of the experience. “They see you as a certain kind of person. We’ve never been that certain kind of person.”

via More Middle-Class New Yorkers Fall Behind on Rent and Face Eviction – NYTimes.com.

So what does “that certain kind of person” look like?

I had a talk the other day about the fortunes of the GOP in the wake of Arlen Specter’s defection.

The writing was on the wall as soon as middle-class men and women looked in the mirror and realized they were swiftly becoming “that certain kind of person.”

The Pope of the Free Market Economy becomes an Atheist ?

October 27, 2008 By: The Good Doctor Category: economics, ideology Comments

Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, an acolyte of Ayn Rand, and a devout proponent of free markets appeared before Congress to talk about the roots of the economic crisis. This runs 10 minutes but is worth watching and listening. If you have little time scroll forward to the 3:38 mark and then again to the 8:00 mark.

YouTube Preview Image

For those unfamiliar with Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, know this. Because literally billions of dollars move based on their statements, they tend to be extremely conservative in their pronouncements. Perhaps no other group of people besides the (trained) clergy consider their words with more care. For him to say that the free market ideology he supported was basically wrong, would be akin to the Pope saying that he was wrong about Jesus being simultaneously the only begotten Son of God and man.

Now of course the problem here is that those of us on the outside looking in have always known that free market ideology doesn’t work. But the thing is that we weren’t considered part of the rational world. 

When what we think of as “social scientists” first began to employ statistics in order to control, manage, and study human populations, there was a moment in America where white supremacists used statistics in order to prove that slavery as a social system worked well for blacks. Using cooked census data they found that the percentage of blacks who were insane increased the further north one went. Whereas only one out of a thousand or so blacks were deemed insane in the deep south, in the northeastern corridor there were places where one out of every eighty or so were deemed insane. 

The way that white supremacists explained this was extremely logical–though still racist. Blacks didn’t have the mental capacity to live with all of the choices that freedom offered. “Do I work? Do i stay home? Do I go to the store? Do I take a walk? Do I read?” And each of those choices themselves led to other choices, which led to other choices, which…you get the picture. Much better for blacks to live in a system where all of their major choices were decided for them. 

Riiiighht. 

(Congress questioned this finding…and when they looked into it found that in many cases there were more insane blacks in some of the towns, then there were people in the town!) 

But it is this type of logic either applied to non-white spaces (‘inner cities’, ‘barrios’) domestically, or to the “third-world” in general, that caused people to ignore the flaws of the free market. To their (and our) detriment apparently.

Blacks bring it on themselves: A Response

April 19, 2007 By: The Good Doctor Category: hip-hop, ideology Comments

One of my younger fraternity brothers, in the wake of the Imus scandal, made the following Whitlockian move:

In realtity, what ever parts of our culture become mainstream will affect their preceptions of us and their interactions.

How we treat each other sets precedent for how others will treat us.

In response to my request for data, my younger fraternity brother cited The Black Image and the White Mind by Entman and Rojecki…and also the recent poll conducted by Cathy Cohen out of Chicago for her Black Youth Project. What I’m going to do here is respond to him…minus the smackdown. The bottom line? There is a difference between blame and responsibility. We have the responsibility to carry ourselves with dignity and honor, regardless…but we are not to blame at all for what Imus said. (more…)

John Ridley and the New Black Accomodationism

February 26, 2007 By: The Good Doctor Category: black intellectuals, ideology Comments

Somehow I missed Gary Dauphin’s take on John McWhorter. I’m interested in McWhorter about as far as I can throw him, but what I am becoming more interested in are the politics of The New Accomodationism.

Accomodationism refers to the ideology taken up by blacks in the Jim Crow era. Given the pervasive nature of Jim Crow terrorism blacks had to decide whether (and how) to fight, or to go along to get along. This latter strategy involved using various means to change the self-image of black people as well as their image in the minds of whites. It also involved various forms of self-help either through religious, fraternal, professional, or educational institutions, or through various media publications. But the one strategy that was largely disavowed was that of political and economic action against the terrorist regime. The best way for black success was to accept the contours of Jim Crow and to do everything they could to help themselves within those confines (along with getting out of the way of whites).

What we are dealing with now is nothing less than a new form of racial accomodationism. When was the last time that someone posited that structural factors were responsible for black life chances, without qualification? That is, instead of saying “well, we know that some police have it out for black people…but yet and still black crime is real”, saying “some police have it out for black people and we need to figure out how to deal with this.”

Afronerd on the NYC Brutality case

December 03, 2006 By: The Good Doctor Category: ideology Comments

Over at Afronerd they’re discussing the Queen brutality case. Their ideological line is very far from mine, but I am not interested in that as much as I am interested in what flows from that. How does a moderate conservative ideological perspective alter their conception of this incident?

They note the following:

1) Policing is a stressful, difficult and dangerous job that no sane person wants to do.

2) Police officers (some who are also persons of color) have been killed in the line of duty leaving families (like the victim’s in this case) orphaned and widowed. The key difference is that Sharpton, to my knowledge has not shown up for cases like these.

3) And of course, you do have reprehensible cases of police misconduct and corruption.

And black/Latino communities have to keep in mind the following (some context deleted for space reasons):

1) The police have to discern who has criminal intent in an atmosphere that idolizes rebel behavior thanks to commercial hip hop imagery. Gone are the days when the heroes and villians wore opposing color schemes. Now there are legions of Black and Brown youth, whose fashion sense and mannerisms mimic those comprised of the thug element. Many are not criminals but (a la 50 cent) how is one to tell the difference between a gangsta and a wanksta.

2) Not only do you have a street culture that has risen to mythic proportions but also street ethics that manifest in “stop snitchin’” policies-the ghetto version of the Italian omerta.

3) And lastly, we have a youth culture that unfortunately fulfill the stereotypes that have been ascribed to them. In the Bell case, all three parties had numerous arrests for drug and weapon charges in the past.

Questions:

  • When the writers say “of course there are some reprehensible cases of police misconduct” what do they mean? Are they saying that this is a part of the job? That we should except misconduct as routine? How is this misconduct distributed? Are Manhattan socialites as likely to be the victim of misconduct as Puerto Rican working class men? If not, why not?
  • If no sane person would take the job of the police, then are we to believe that the police are in fact, insane?
  • The three aspects of black/Latino life they focus on are modern in nature. Is police brutality against communities of color a modern phenomenon?
  • Did the police know about Bell’s record before he was shot and killed? Is this why they sought to stop him?

If we don’t take into account the stated purpose of the police, as well as the historical trajectory of their development vis a vis black communities, then it is very easy to take Afronerd’s point of view. But if we take into account the fact that police are paid by our taxes to protect us, then the first viewpoint we should think about are those of the citizens they are supposed to protect. Further if we understand that police misconduct is not a “natural” part of the job, in as much as it is targeted towards certain populations, and that this misconduct is not a modern response to hip-hop, then rather than taking some brutality for granted (and blaming it on hip-hop), we’d likely take a more sensible approach to crime fighting and to police behavior.

Conservatism…and Democracy?!?

October 11, 2006 By: The Good Doctor Category: ideology, politics Comments

Over at Cobb, my boy Mike is arguing that Conservatism may be the saving grace of America and the West. I don’t expect to get a response from him because he’s got a job to do…but while conservatism very well may be the saving grace of the North (not the west), it’ll be because of its identity politics rather than because of its support for democracy, reason, and modernity. Quiet as its kept, conservatism as a philosophy stands against each of these. Political equality? Nope. Reason? Nope. Modernity? Nope.

Now I guess I could be persuaded to believe otherwise. But then again if you pressed hard enough you could convince me that the tigers lost last night.

The best argument for small govt I can think of

October 03, 2006 By: The Good Doctor Category: ideology, politics Comments

I was going to call this post “the best argument for conservatism I can think of” but the thing is that conservatism really isn’t about small government, it’s about small government for interests conservatives don’t support. Hence the change…

But anyway, the problems with Iraq, with Foley, with Afghanistan, all point to gross negligence, incompetence, and (in the Foley case) a crass desire for power that knows no end.

(An aside on the Foley issue. The Nation has an excellent piece on Foley arguing that if he would have been able to come out of the closet and be who he was then perhaps this would not have happened. For what it is worth I believe them to be right.)

Anyway. Let’s say that the entire political landscape was different, and the political interests that you as a voter prefer run the entire government…and that government does exactly what you want it to. If you knew that this government would not only be replaced by that of your political opponents, but they would be TOTALLY INCOMPETENT…how big would you want your government to be? The Republican Administration is the worst administration I have ever seen from top to bottom. They are incompetent, corrupt, and millenial. Not to mention classist, racist, sexist, etc. etc.

I believe in a government large enough to counter private corporate interests. But times like this? I want government to be small enough that these people (and those that voted for them) can’t do any more damage.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes