Safe Spaces, Trigger Warnings, And Mental Blocks

Disclaimer: If you're easily offended, or try to avoid controversial subject matter please stop reading. This isn't a provocation or click bait; I'm not concerned with hits, likes, comments, or shares. I genuinely care about people, but I won't consider anyone's feelings as I make my way through what I see as the potential weakening of the progressive movement.

Too many of our young allies are being stripped of the opportunity to develop a thick skin. Progressives need to end the safe spaces and trigger warnings cult before it ends us. Just for the record, I believe that in a free society everyone's safety should be a priority. I'm not advocating we return to a pre-modern world where machismo and brute force determine outcomes. As a society, we should make every effort to protect people from emotional and physical abuse; I do, however, reject the notion that people need to be protected from ideas- especially ideas that should be confronted. If safe spaces are defined as areas where the dignity of every person is affirmed, and any attempt to diminish that dignity is rejected then, of course, I'm for safe spaces, but let's not fool ourselves: safe spaces and trigger warnings weren't deemed necessary until kids named Hunter, Madeline, Reilly, Emma, and Colin were confronted by aspects of life that made them feel uncomfortable. We have very privileged children joining our ranks who've never learned how to fight.  

Maybe we should modify the old adage: I'd rather have smart enemies than stupid allies. I believe It's better to have brash political opponents than meek political allies. Whether we admit it or not the right-wing has masterfully redefined the rules of political engagement. Not calling someone a n*gger is the new political correctness. Donald Trump's campaign is, in some ways, fueled by the conservative rejection of the safe space, trigger warning society. Many of our political allies refuse to read the writing on the wall. They're convinced that a more nuanced approach to presenting our views will cause an ideological renaissance in America. They fail to recognize the mental blocks at work in the minds of some of our political opponents. We have political adversaries who trust the guy who hooked up their WIFI more than the scientists who developed the technology. Many on the right don't respect the universities where our ideas are cultivated. Climate change is a joke to someone who doesn't respect the institutions that produced the data that supports it. 

If the university is the progressives minor leagues, what kind of damage are we doing to our future prospects by coddling them? Yes, we need thoughtful and articulate young people who are sensitive to the feelings of others to help advance our social and economic agenda, but we also need courageous warriors. It's easier to get a hundred undergrads to sign a petition against an energy company polluting the environment than it is to get a dozen to stand up against police brutality. I'm not just attacking the children of wealthy suburbanites who make up the majority of our campuses; even at HBCU's where social movements are a rite of passage there's been a drop off in those who participate in mass movements. I could be wrong, but I believe some of that drop off could be linked to a generation of kids raised by helicopter parents and universities where confrontations are avoided. The University of Missouri stood out because they forced a change, but their numbers were meek compared to the size of the campus.

The anger expressed by conservatives on television, radio, and the campaign trail is multiplied by their base on social media. Instead of laying out another set of arguments designed to invalidate the roots of that anger, maybe we should just accept the fact that their anger is real to them. The far right isn't just mad; they're willing to fight for their beliefs. I 'm worried that twenty years from now the populist anger we see on the right will go largely unchecked. I know there will always be progressives willing to fight for the cause of social justice, but if your social media experience is similar to mine then you notice that there are more on the right willing to express inaccurate memes and posts than progressives willing to correct the record. It might seem like a leap, but there are too many in our ranks who avoid all forms of conflict. This needs to stop. Twenty loud voices spreading a lie are more useful to a cause than twenty people who know the truth, but are too scared to stand up. We need to match the level of intensity coming from the other side. We're viewed as soft, and I don't see any signs of us shaking that perception.

Raising The Minimum Wage Treats The Symptom Not Our Illness

In theory, raising the minimum wage would pull millions out of the hell called poverty. There are, however, unintended consequences that come with doing this: a portion of the very people such legislation is designed to help would be hurt; some jobs would be eliminated through automation, and the productivity requirements for those fortunate enough to have a job could exceed their physical capabilities. We could, inadvertently, speed up the economic Darwinism many workers are currently facing. There's enough Prima facie evidence for us to admit that low wages are now a structural part of global capitalism. In order to properly address the growing wealth gap we have to be wiling to admit that there are industries that depend on a supply of unskilled low wage laborers.

Much of the economic analysis I see disseminated by the right ignores the developing world's impact on labor markets in America. I, cynically, assume this is on purpose. For the average low information voter, independent of party affiliation, the wonkier side of economic theory isn't something they're fired up to engage. For some of our fellow citizens it's easier to blame their economic realities on affirmative action or immigration policies than it is to look at global factors that may be at the root of their problems. Most people don't care that Mexico is dealing with the problems associated with Chinese currency manipulation, as well as a more competitive global manufacturing market. In a strange twist of fate Mexico is losing some of the manufacturing jobs they got from the United States a few decades ago. The developing capitalist countries in Asia and Africa are the de facto beneficiaries of the market's unrelenting quest to to cut payroll and meet shareholders rising expectations. Is there anything the left can, realistically, do to make American workers understand that we've made progress, but that we still have work to do?

Our transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy wasn't smooth. Teaching farmers and field hands to work in factories had it's own set of problems, but it worked for two hundred years. Less than forty years into the information technology revolution it's become painfully obvious that IT isn't immune to capitalism's problems. We have software companies that use our visa policy to solicit the best and brightest graduates from the developing world as a way of reducing payroll. We're insourcing and outsourcing the tech jobs that were supposed to save us. The need to cut costs touches every part of our economy. Karl Marx was right in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844 when he theorized that in the production based economy, money is used to produce more labor, which produces more goods, which leads to more capital. Money is never just an end. The interests of workers isn't factored into the equation. 

The Republican platform of wholesale deregulation is just a symptom of global capitalism's greater economic illness: the unquenchable thirst for capital. Our trade agreements aren't designed to be fair to the American workforce. If every pro-labor law was overturned we might see manufacturing jobs return to our shores, If the minimum wage was $2.00 an hour jobs, not rain, might flood the Midwest. How much money do you think could be saved on safety harnesses, hard hats, and safety glasses? This is extreme, but it's consistent with the rhetoric that makes up libertarian and conservative economic theory. Once a company has shareholders or is owned by a private equity firm it's almost impossible for that company to remain pro-labor. The pressure to produce more money outweighs the costs of producing happier people.

The sad actuarial truth is that a steep increase in the minimum wage could temporarily lift millions out of the category of the working poor, but it would also hurt smaller businesses, and cause a spike in the expected productivity of the labor force. While some sit idly on the sidelines waiting to get into the game, millions in the labor force are working their fingers to the bone with no chance of getting out of poverty. The minimum wage is never going to keep up with the cost of living. If we, progressives, aren't willing to openly support policies geared towards investment in large scale infrastructure projects, and creating community based government jobs with a living wage we're wasting our time. We face what's referred to in philosophy as the critics dilemma: If we state, too brutally, the nature of our economic situation we could cause those in the lower middle-class to lose what hope they may have for the future; however, if we understate the economic realities facing the working poor we could disconnect ourselves from their suffering, which could further alienate them. We have to be honest about our predicament and our intentions to deal with the macro level issues beneath the surface of our economy. We have to quit treating symptoms and start treating causes.

I Support The Oregon Militia...

I support the Oregon Militia and the dozens of interlopers who've joined their ranks. I think mandatory minimums are unjust. I've helped inmates in the Commonwealth of Virginia fight against Draconian sentences handed down by judges with reputations for, "laying brothers down". I support the idea of civil disobedience. The most important component of protesting is the disruption of the natural order of business. As far as protests go, they've succeeded in getting media attention. I'm not invested in the outcome of this situation. I'm not a rancher, nor have I ever visited a National Wildlife Refuge. I'm not concerned with the legitimacy of the claims the protesters are making. I don't care who stole the land after America stole it from the Indians. The material facts of this case are unimportant to me. I have one responsibility in this piece: I have to point out, for the 2,456,473 time, the hypocritical media coverage and law enforcement response to armed white men doing things that would get me and the men of my church killed. 

We live in a country in where the Second Amendment rights of armed white men are more respected and vigorously protected than the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendment rights of minorities. I would feel better if we, as a country, would be honest and say the Second Amendment rights of white men supersede every right people of color think they have. Usually this line of criticism is dismissed as "race baiting" -a term I've never understood. After your arguments are dismissed, you get classified as another "angry" black man. I've embraced this title; the shoe fits. I'm tired of seeing black people killed by the same law enforcement agencies that strategically negotiate with the likes of armed militias to insure there's no escalation of tense situations.

If groups like the Brady Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence were smarter they would hire a couple hundred well armed African Americans, Arabs, and Latinos between the ages of 18 and 30 to march on the steps of every capital in every state until comprehensive gun reform measures are enacted. That's what it would take to for their causes to lead to the legislative solutions they're seeking. Many of our Second Amendment warriors either don't know or care that their hero (Ronald Reagan) supported and signed into law several limitations to their Second Amendment rights. If you mention The Mulford Act their eyes glaze over and they do a quick Lexis Nexus search of words Glenn Beck or Alex Jones taught them. Black Panthers marching on the capital in Sacramento accomplished in a few short weeks what dozens of well meaning gun control control groups have failed to accomplish in decades of fighting.

Make no mistake about it Oregon is about President Obama. Even when his name isn't mentioned the underlying, unifying force behind the Tea Party, the original Bundy supporters, Donald Trump's meteoric rise in the polls, and this Bundy 2.0 upgrade is the president's radical alterity. Almost seven years into his presidency he still has the ability to unify militias, Neo-Nazis, the Klan, and other anti-government groups. I know that these groups have a long history. I concede the point that Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, and a slew lesser known incidents happened before 99% of the country ever heard the name Barack Obama, but I can't pretend that these groups haven't had a Renaissance since 2009. Their reflexive hatred of President Obama allows them to engage in, what some people view as, treasonous behavior. As long as the face of government tyranny is President Obama these groups won't have any problem recruiting. The minute a white male or military uniform replaces the president as the de facto face of the government, my hunch is that many of the weekend warriors who dress up and play soldier will go back to their individual pastimes.

Again, I support this group's right to protest laws they feel are unjust. I won't be on the front lines with them, but I won't stop someone from joining their ranks. My animosity stems from the fact that too many people in our country seek to use every method possible to deny what's right in front of them. We have too many shoot first ask questions later cops patrolling our cities. I don't want this Oregon situation to end in a hail of bullets. I want the impossible: I want us to, collectively, admit that there's a problem. One of my favorite James Baldwin quotes is, "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." I want to turn on the news and hear Black Lives Matter activists covered as fairly as this group. I want to hear one of the major network anchors admit that a group of minorities would never be afforded the kind of leeway this group has gotten. I want to stop writing about this kind of hypocrisy, because so many of my white brothers and sisters have used up all of the good words and made every necessary argument.  

What Does It Mean To Be A Progressive?

"My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected, and the despised. They are restless and seek relief. They've voted in record numbers. They have invested faith, hope and trust that they have in us. The Democratic Party must send them a signal that we care."  To Be Revealed Later

What does it mean to be a progressive? This isn't a rhetorical question. I came to my political awareness in the mid 90's; back then, there were very few self described progressives in my circle. I was in my twenties, and most of the people I knew identified as liberal. That was before the right-wing think tanks and commentators masterfully shifted what it meant to be a liberal. If being a progressive means being a Bernie supporter does that automatically make Hillary supporters liberal or neoliberal? This might seem like a frivolous line of questioning, but it matters more now than it did in 2008. The choice between President Obama and Hillary Clinton wasn't as politically pronounced as the choice between Bernie and Hillary is today.   

I don't know if Bernie can win in a general election. This is more than a statement grounded in political uncertainty. It's a thinly veiled question some in our ranks ask themselves. Bernie Sanders is an ideological Rorschach test. To his young, enthusiastic base Bernie represents a clean shift from the status quo they learned about in history and Political science classes. He resonates with their desire to try something completely different as a way of avoiding the economic outcomes they see on the horizon. For his older, somewhat politically jaded, supporters he represents the hard left turn they've been waiting for the Democratic party to take. Many pragmatic- dare I say conservative- Democrats have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the argument that Bernie can't win in November. Maybe he can't; maybe the country isn't ready for a Democratic Socialist. Labels matter; the fact that Socialism has been such a loaded term for so long might affect his ability to gain the moderate and independent vote, but what if now is the perfect time, politically speaking, to usher in an era of progressive politics? How many of us could sleep knowing we missed our chance? 

This isn't an endorsement for Bernie or a hit piece against Hillary. I'm convinced that both of them would be far better stewards over the economy, better for the long-term national security of our nation, and would pick better Supreme Court Justices than their Republican rivals, but most of us already believe this. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, but forces the national conversation to move to the left on government spending, Social Security, minimum wage, and affordable college would Hillary use that political cover to advance the progressive agenda? How many progressives are supporting Hillary because they're afraid our ideas are still too far ahead of the electorate? 

These questions matter. We have to be honest about how far we're willing to go in the direction of progressive ideas. We have to be clear about what our priorities are. If Hillary wins the nomination how do we force her to move from the center to embrace Bernie's supporters? If the centrist argument against Bernie hinges on the perception that he can't get votes from the center then wouldn't the same argument work in the opposite direction against Hillary? I've talked to young Bernie supporters who view the Clintons as Republican lite. Whether their critique is right or wrong is a immaterial to the fact that they believe it. If a portion of Bernie's supporters sit out of the 2016 election, and minority turn out is low in purple states the game is over. Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio will be the next president. If Hillary wins the nomination we can't ask Bernie supporters to make all of the concessions necessary to form a winning coalition. We need to create an atmosphere where Hillary has to move left to embrace them.

The far-right is dominating the media. Many national on-air personalities no longer question negative statements made about Progressive policies- no matter how false they are. The quote from the top of this post was from Jesse Jackson's speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco. Almost thirty-two years later those words still describe many in our ranks. Too many of us are getting crushed under the weight of a global economy that demands a more productive and cheaper labor force, and the cost of college and health care are still rising. How much further down this moderate path will we allow the Democratic party to pull us before we admit that walking on the Republican path gets us where they want us to go just at a slower pace?