How did you decide that GM et al believed the AIDS story? I have read the whole back and forth on the blog. I haven’t seen or heard this anymore than the theory that cancer spreads because when there is an operation to remove a cancer, air hits the cancer and it spreads. Mostly the American public is undereducated, doesn’t know how to read different sources, and just believes what they see on television. Now we have reaped what was sowed.

fke:

Ned Williams just knows these things.

Ned, I’m not finding the poll you’re talking about. I’m finding Freepers saying that they’ve heard about the existence of such a poll and I’ve heard conservative pundits referring to this hearsay reference on the New Republic site, but I don’t see the poll itself. When I googled “AIDS created by American Government poll survey,” the only poll that showed up was a 2001 poll that showed that only 7% of American evangelicals would contribute money to an orphanage devoted to housing children with AIDS. If you can turn that poll up so that I can look at its methodology (when and where it was taken and by whom, how the data was analyzed, etc), this social scientist would appreciate it.

I wasn’t referring to a particular poll or saying that anyone who reads MCB believes it. I was referring to Wright’s statements about it. I’ll try and dig up some websites reflecting the sentiment . . . I’ll have to admit that I suspect not many people would publicly acknowledge believing that. And wouldn’t be a relief if a troubling percentage of african-americans didn’t believe that after all?

BTW, nice find with that poll about hard-hearted Evangelicals

Here you go.

Ned, I think that both the “America created AIDS” and the “3 Strikes laws are racially motivated” rumors come from observing the disproportionate number of minorities dying from AIDS and getting life sentences from 3 strikes. You and I both know correlation is not the same thing as causation. The claim of causation gets in the way of addressing the problem of correlation.

The 3 strikes laws are further muddied because we have had a couple of decades of irresponsible discrepancies between minimum sentencing for cocaine charges depending on the form of the cocaine (crack vs powder). Fortunately this has been changing over the past couple of years.

If we really want to talk about race then I think we need to quit focusing on the audacity of misconceptions and start looking at and addressing the nuggets of truth in those misconceptions.

Back now

I posted a reply in the other thread that answers your question re: AIDS. The belief the government created the virus and used it to target specific groups is rooted in part in the revelations that African American men were intentionally infected, without their knowledge or consent, with syphilis (the Tuskegee Experiment) to conduct human trials. Once you wrap your head around that, you may understand why people of a certain age may be just a little suspicious of a disease with disproportionate effect on a certain, unpopular in some quarters, part of our population. It isn’t any faith in government that causes me to disagree with the idea that the government spread AIDS, it is science. But people believe science is just another tool to be manipulated.

Interesting Ned, that piece you linked to actually mentions the Tuskegee experiments as part of the reason why Black people are suspicious of the government vis a vis AIDS, so I feel like I’m telling you something you should already know and grok.

I agree with Jackson’s assessment of 3 Strikes and why people of color believe the sentencing differences were racially motivated. The reasons for the differences were political and petty, crack being the marquee drug in the 80’s and politicians wanted to appear to be working hard to eradicate the scourge (while lobbyists for privatized prison systems lined members pockets and cheered them on). Also difficult to explain is that despite the fact that the majority of crack users were (are?) White or Hispanic, most of those sentenced to the bing for using were Black by a huge margin.

These questions, perhaps they go to understanding this Wright issue a bit better. What the answers underscore is how people of color are suspicious of institutions in which some White people have complete and unwavering faith (except apparently when it comes to gun ownership rights). The suspicions, given this country’s history and the relatively short period of time since complete enfranchisement was offered to African Americans, should come as little surprise. Wright, right or wrong, isn’t speaking hate as much as he is speaking with history at his back and fresh in his memory.

While no one has come up with any actual racist quotes from Wright, I’ve found it interesting that he takes the piss of Tiger Woods basically for not self-identifying as African American. Wonder how Sen. Obama feels about that one? Anyway, I did find this:
“All colonizers are not white. Turn to your neighbors and say that oppressors come in all colors.”

gm,

If we can have this coversation without talking about Wright (I vowed to drop that particular subject), then let’s do it.

Let me tell you what I’ve ALWAYS had a hard time wrapping my head around.

I have co-workers at my gi-normous corporation employer who are African American. They measure roughly the same proportion as the general population.

My company pays well. These are most certainly middle classed (and upper middle classed) people. We all are.

All of us are computer nerds (I guess there goes one stereotype!), but it’s not all business. We laugh about this or that entertainer, talk about the chances the Titans have this year, discuss the latest movie, or music, compare our dinners from the night before (they are surprisingly similar). There are many who I work closely with, and have so many of these conversations with that I consider them FRIENDS.

I’ve been to my friends’ houses to eat, and they’ve been to mine. I’ve been to their houses of worship. (Few have been to mine, but the “Belle Meade” in the name scares off people of all races - shame, really).

Now, what you’re telling me is that behind all of the frindships, behind the smiles and small-talk, behind the battles we fight side by side at work, these people hate me.

They go home, they go to their churches (when I’m not there), and say blameful, hurtful, paranoid things about “whites” in general. They may not be talking about me, personally, but I cannot change the color of my skin, so the splatter gets on me, anyway.

I benefit from this “white privelege” system, so I am just as much the devil as those who fashion nooses.

This is what you are telling me my friends say behind my back.

You’ve alluded that my friends are the most two-faced people who ever lived.

I refuse to believe that.

That’s what eats away at me: seeing the extremists and wondering just how much of their rhetoric has infected the people I know.

I try to fashion my life around Christ (though I am not perfect). When I was growing up, being “good” racially was defined as being color blind. I have done that to the best of my ability, but they changed the rules on me, and gave me new hoops to jump through to be called “good”. But I am an old dog, and I truly believe my old trick is the right one to do. Plus, having Christ in me, I have a hard time seeing my brothers and sisters in Christ as anything but that. I fight injustice wherever I see it.

You have set up a dichotomy where I cannot be the good guy, no matter what I do.

Maybe you think that serves me right - a little payback for hundreds of years of race-based subjugation. Fine.

But, the only thing worse than an unrequited offer of friendship, is an accepted one where the acceptor in insincere, and secretly hates he who made the offer.

This is what I fear. It gnaws away at my peace like a cancer.

You said you wanted frank talk about race. There’s my .02, for right now.

I suspect Wright said these “exxtreme” things for effect. We live in a world where controversial statements are often made to generate debate,to make one think,to open ones eyes.

Slart,it is good that you have been enlightened to the point where your world is a bit more harmonious. However,many people do not live in such a world. There is an existence where racial harmony is still a dream,where suspicion and distrust still reign. Where people have “friends” of all races, but still hear and often laugh at racial jokes and tolerate offensive statements. Oh they may not use the N word, but the sentiment is still the same.
Do we still clutch our purse or touch our wallet when we approach an “ethnic” group on a lonely street. Do we feel a little uncomfortable,or even out of place in the company of persons of another race. Do we hesitate before entering a store where there is only African-Americans or Hispanics.Would we feel pleased if our daughter brought home a boyfriend of another race.

Racial distrust exists regardless of the ethnic group may experience it,without a doubt.While Rev. Wrights statements may seen to be somewhat extreme,there is no doubt,they create debate,and cause us all to question even our own beliefs and actions.
Perhaps they were not so evil after all.

My understanding from reading about Tuskegee is that the government was not actually *giving* people syphilis, but was withholding appropriate treatment, long after penicillin was known to be the appropriate measure. No less horrifying in my book, but I think it’s important to be accurate in a conversation about how the history of the experiment influences current beliefs.

Also, HIV/AIDS conspiracy beliefs are something that has been studied in the medical literature. I did a quick PubMed search and found several articles on this topic just from the past few years - if anybody is interested, I can share the list of citations.

What Slarti said.

What Slarti said.

Well, I hope we have a chance to discuss, today. I know you’re big on social justice, and I suspect Slarti is down with that, too. What I find in Slarti’s comment is a lack of nuanced thinking. It’s not like one group of people smile in another group’s face… all the while they wanna take your place. That’s lyrics — not reality.
.

Slarti,
That is well-said, and pretty much expresses my sentiments on the subject. BTW, I believe you may go to my in-laws’ church . . .

GM,
Yes I read that about the Tuskegee experiments . . . we’re having a dialogue aren’t we? For the record, I distrust the government where I discern there is a need to distrust the government. I think that people with credibility among african-americans need to challenge such notions.

When my wife and I were living in Knoxville, we became close to an older African-American woman and had some frank discussions about race. One of the things that came out of that was a promise that I would never tolerate racist references or comments. That has resulted in some awkward conversations (though the discussions generally turn on a dime once racism is challenged) . . . the time I challenged the furniture restorer who said “nigger rigged” for example. To be sure, forcing such ideas “underground” isn’t the answer, so discussion about them can be valuable; I think that racist imaginings–be they by blacks or caucasians need to be challenged.

cb,
There were a ton of glib sentiments in your statement that I disagree with, but I’ve got to challenge the “clutching the purse” or “discomfort” assertions.

I am more alert around any group of thuggish looking young men (non-black and Hurley wearing, for example). Aside from that, 1 in 15 adult male blacks in America is behind bars. The number for adult male non-hispanic whites is 1 in 136 and of hispanics is 1 in 36, so some of that is legitimate, I’d say. And I think it is not insignificant that the popularity of thug wear is prevalent among even upstanding black folk.

As for the discomfort or awkwardness, a lot of it stems from the possible duplicity that Slarti referenced. I could hardly stop thinking last Sunday about how the black couple in the row in front of me–who were visiting at our church and who were very much in the minority, were processing their experience. Should I go out of my way (more than I would a visiting non-black couple) to welcome them? “I wonder if they saw so-and-so?” etc. etc. but there was a discomfort that I’m not sure will ever go away without some frank discussion and growth. Maybe not with that couple, but maybe in a forum like this and as the result of a discussion like this . . .

Ned,

Good discussion you’ve started. Kudos.

Are any local black folks here to weigh in? I’d love to hear from both young and old, as well, were it possible.
.

Would you agree there is VALUE in Rev.Wright’s statements? Not so much truth,but value.

And should Obama be damned for associating with this minister? Can we not attend church with those we disagree with? Or is the Christian religion so narrow as to exclude differing opinions?

Jackson, (and GM),
I didn’t want to ignore your “3 strikes” responses.

Yes, I’ve heard those arguments about racist criminal statutes, but I think the tough thing about the subject is the seeming presumption that racist motives are leading to disproportionate impact. “Disproportionate” according to what measure? I don’t care what someone’s skin color is if they are thrice convicted of a violent crime, I am fairly comfortable in them getting a life sentence. Perhaps I could be persuaded on the point, but I don’t believe that the Democrat-controlled legislature passed 3 Strikes legislation with racist motives.

Of course, someone can also say that I and others are not sensitive to the feelings of African-Americans that the laws are unfair. I don’t know what to say to that . . . I kind of think that once you view things through a racial lens (or you ignore “equal protection”) you have chosen a harsh taskmaster.

“I could hardly stop thinking last Sunday about how the black couple in the row in front of me–who were visiting at our church and who were very much in the minority”

Just a few questions to consider.

So when do we not NOTICE that they are black?

Thanks jp.

cb,
I appreciate you not jumping down my throat for the way I responded–my wife is eager for me to get my butt outside to do yard work and terseness was the result.

I agree that Wright’s statements aren’t evil, but they are offensive. The situation, on the other hand, is a great opportunity. I wish that the subject didn’t come up in this context where various folks have a motive to sweep it under the rug (and I certainly can appreciate that desire).

As far as associating with Wright (I know some people want to move on from that discussion, but . . .) it is very significant to me if afro-centrism was the central teaching of the church that Obama chose to attend for 20 years. Black Liberation Theology is troubling to me. And no, given the way that I view “church,” I do expect that I agree with the overwhelming majority of what is (a) said from the pulpit and (b) believed by other members. Of course, my church doesn’t get into politics, so there is less “overlapping” to do. That being said, my church is VERY clear in its fundamentalism, so it’s not like we’re all sitting in there having our ears tickled or not taking our spiritual lives seriously (or beyond the couple of hours a week that we’re sitting in the building).

cb,
Good question about not noticing. At my church, there just aren’t many blacks. We have a number of bi-racial or non-white children that have been adopted and one of our pastors (and his large family) are African-American, and there is a mixed-race couple and there are two(?) families of “Lost Boys,” but it is hard not to notice. But am I even allowed not to notice? That goes to the sensitivity expectation that is so hard for me to get a handle on.

Still at it, I see? Geez, Ned. You barely know anything about Wright’s church. And the way you throw the term Black Liberation Theology around–I’m not sure I even understand what about that phrase freaks you out so badly.

It surprises you that some people think the government is behind HIV/AIDS? I said in another post that I hate it when people who should know better throw misinformation around–and that’s my main objection to Wright’s comment on this subject. But fear makes people stupid.

That said, how large a majority of Americans still believes Saddam Hussein had a connection to 9/11, or had weapons of mass destruction in 2003? And who spread that misinformation? And how many American and Iraqi lives has that cost?

For a little perspective, try this Washington Post editorial, from today’s paper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102539.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

If the link doesn’t work right for you, go to the WP site and click on Colbert King’s editorial under opinions.

Contrast it with Pat Buchanan’s nasty diatribe at http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=969.

Of course, some of you will think Buchanan is spot on. I think he’s filled with hatred and resentment. He misrepresents serious socioeconomic problems in this country as an us-against-them fight to the death (what Obama correctly identified as the myth of the zero-sum game), and reduces Afrian-American history to a gross caricature. Buchanan spends hours on MSNBC playing the rational pundit, but the Wright controversy has worn through the civilized veneer extreme conservatives like Buchanan have polished for so long.

Just startin’ Lisa.

It’s not the phrase black liberation theology, it’s the theology. And it doesn’t “freak me out”; I think it is wrong, unconstructive, non-Biblical.

I see the point you’re trying to make with the 9/11 reference, but it has nothing to do with race and it has nothing to do with nursing a grievance (though people like me certainly cling to the reality that Hussein had a freaking 9 months and a willing accomplice in Syria to relocate any WMDs he might have had; and there are a variety of connections between Iraq and the Jihadists’ war on America; the average American simply isn’t vested–like Liberal elites, in the idea that there was no connection).

I’ll read your homework assignments . . . you willing to do the same?

Ned,we all have issues with race,no matter how hard we try. Old trees have deep roots!
I don’t wish to sweep Obama’s association with Rev.Wright “under the rug”,I just don’t see the issue here as being that important.

Lisa,
King’s op/ed is just excuse-making. Who can blame them for being racist? They weren’t allowed to join white churches in 1787?

Re. Buchanan–agree with him or not, but he has been nothing if not consistent all these years. He hasn’t polished any type of false veneer (though I thought a little differently in the day when he was being more overtly “populist”).

Though I think it is delicate and almost definitely offensive for a white person to hammer the “silver lining” of slavery to the black community. Most would agree that persons who live in America are better off than persons who live in West Africa. But isn’t life a series of examples of making the most of one’s situation and moving on? What is the alternative for black americans? What is the best means of moving forward?

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

I think that’s right. I’m not sure that any other conversation is going to be constructive . . . if nothing else to expose the attitudes of whites that need to be corrected, you know?

JP, as a “mushy moderate”, that may be the first time I’ve been accused of non-nuanced thinking

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t want to accuse or blame - I just said the things I think about when I do think about race. There are 40,000 other threads about the political implications of Wright/Obama.

Ned had a good idea: a non-political discussion of how we relate, and how race affects that.

I want to hear from African Americans. I’d like to hear an honest account - not politically, but socially. I want to know if my fears (of superficial friendships permanently divided by race) are true, or if I can let it go.

I do not want absolution, at least not for the sins of others. I get absolution for my own sins in other ways. I will, of course, ask forgiveness from anyone whom I have wronged.

But, I would like to know where we go from here.

We accept our prejudice as being a rather dubious gift of our upbring, and work to overcome that prejudice in how we deal with others.

OLD TREES HAVE DEEP ROOTS!

I want to know if my fears (of superficial friendships permanently divided by race) are true, or if I can let it go.

Well, that’s what I meant about the nuance. All human relationships are far more complex than the duality/duplicity hypothesis you outlined, earlier. I don’t think it’s a stretch for blacks and whites to be fast friends, AND YET still harbor certain resentments, at certain times, right OR wrong; to me, these are not feelings usually mutually exclusive of one another in folks. And it doesn’t automatically mean racism when this occurs.
.

cb,
I agree . . . and to stick with your analogy, I guess we need to nip new shoots when they poke up above the ground, and we need to keep taking an ax to the stump.

The significant aspect of the Wright story (sorry Slarti) is that it forced the issue out into the open; “the issue” being that many whites are completely unaware of how differently someone sitting in Wright’s pews every week is interpreting current events and public policy. African-Americans seem to feel like it isn’t worth talking with whites about it, and that is what is troubling: lack of communication will only exacerbate current misunderstandings and lead to more misunderstanding in the future.

For the record, back to Lisa’s comments, I don’t read Pat Buchanan regularly (I had a bit of a falling out with him when he started emphasizing his populist and isolationist/America First views some years back. That op/ed in particular manifests his “sharp elbows,” even if everything he says is true. Like Ann Coulter, his writing may steel the resolve of the faithful but they aren’t typically useful for persuading those who don’t already agree with you.

jp,
I agree and it seems that the bottom line is that we have to stay “engaged” or resolve to continue relating in spite of those challenges.

And I don’t want to keep bringing up Wright, but I think he and his church are not the norm. And I also would not be surprised to learn that Obama was not as immersed in the beliefs and teachings of his home church as he let on early in the campaign. Every smart Democrat in America has realized that they must counter the perception that they are the secular party. I could be wrong, though, and then it becomes relevant again that Obama may have been indifferent to outside-the-mainstream Black Liberation Theology.

slarti,

rest asured, you can let go of your fear. Thanks to JP’s replies subsequent to your overly dramatic reading of what is going on here I did not blow my stack. I really don’t see how you could come away from this with such a . . . black and white reading of this issue. Every time I go back to your response I see:

Now, what you’re telling me is that behind all of the frindships, behind the smiles and small-talk, behind the battles we fight side by side at work, these people hate me.I benefit from this “white privelege” system, so I am just as much the devil as those who fashion nooses.

This is what you are telling me my friends say behind my back.

You’ve alluded that my friends are the most two-faced people who ever lived.

And the blood rises again. I’m incredulous. It would take a long time to unpack all the misconceptions in those paragraphs. I guess we can start.

First, you know full well what you describe can be attributed to your friends from work who are White (assuming that you don’t go to their homes or churches or parties either). We’re friendly with people from our workplaces with whom we have no other interpersonal communication, and for all we know they talk about us dismissively while at home.

Maybe the reason why those friendships are superficial, if they are in fact, is because they don’t extend beyond the workplace, where we get along because it’s best for the job, or because we’ve nothing better to do.

You may well benefit from “White privilege.” I seriously doubt that fact makes Black folks hate you. In fact, it’s so accepted as the rule in this society that it isn’t even considered when deciding whether or not you’re a good person or whether they want to have lunch with you.

Most POC don’t resent other people, they resent the system and events that have created the dichotomous society in which we exist.

You are personalizing this WAY too much.

“say blameful, hurtful, paranoid things about “whites” in general. They may not be talking about me, personally, but I cannot change the color of my skin, so the splatter gets on me, anyway.”

No, not at least in the churches I’ve been to. And now that I’ve read a few of Wright’s full sermons, particularly those that have been so roundly criticized, not in his speeches either (I only mention Wright because that’s where this is coming from). If he mentions White people, it is generally not to assign blame to race but to denote privilege. It’s a bit of rhetoric popular with people of his generation, but it IS NOT UNIVERSAL TO BLACK PEOPLE.

I think it is safe to say that most Sundays White folks don’t rate a mention in sermons.

I find it interesting that White people are conflating criticism of the government with criticism of White people.

I find it interesting that the condemnation of America is condemned as hate speech. I was here thinking that the freedom to criticize our government is the thing that separated us from those lesser countries.

I find it interesting that few recognize the patriotism inherent in fighting to make the USA live up to what it boasts to on the Statue of Liberty and in the Constitution and in our speeches and proselytizing.

GM,
BTW, I appreciate your willingness to be the lone African-American fielding these questions.

I find it interesting that White people are conflating criticism of the government with criticism of White people.

Not conflating unreasonably, it seems to me. Who is the culprit in this scenario if not white Americans? Is it Capitalists? Jews? Hispanics? Asians? Other blacks who disagree with Wright on politics?

I brought up Buchanan not because I think every conservative shares his views, but because I think this Wright episode has exposed the depths of anger and racist resentment still festering in some whites. That’s what the constant Fox coverage, etc. is aiming to exploit–the racist sentiment that people tend to keep bottled up. Also, I don’t accept that everything Buchanan says is true. (Nice try.) The contention that people of African descent are lucky that that their forebears went through slavery and all that followed is grotesque, and based on all kinds of warped logic and historical speculation.

As far as King’s editorial: No, I don’t think he’s making excuses. He is, however, putting into historical context why a church might call itself “unashamedly black” but not mean it as a racist declaration. It says, in a world where blacks are often not welcomed, they are most assuredly, forthrightly and proudly at home in this church.

Criticism of the government is not by definition criticism of “white people.” It’s criticism of those in power who are misusing their power, out of stupidity, ignorance, corruption or whatever. That can cross many ethnic and racial boundaries. Let’s see, Bush/Cheney (white and Protestant, a twofer!), Condoleeza Rice (black), Paul Wolfowitz (Jewish), Alberto Gonzalez (Hispanic), Antonin Scalia (Catholic), Elaine Chao (Asian, Labor Sec.), ummm … need I go on?

Is it still an issue whether someone ought to not be ashamed that they are black?

Of course criticism of gov’t is not by definition of “white people” . . . did I say it was? Racial prejudice can be manifested in one’s view of any other race than one’s own.

Okay, here’s some “historical context” from the Buchanan op/ed. Holding things that happened in 1787 against folks today is arguably petty. And when asserting that “somebody’s going to have to pay” (or whatever) for those (long) past offenses (committed by other people), it is legitimate to consider “damages” or what is the injury. Those who suffered the indignity/atrocity of slavery have arguably received other benefits.

Re. racist resentment, I particularly resent folks who play “the race card” or accuse me of “racism” when I oppose some race-based policy. As I mentioned soon after Obama’s race speech, it is awful convenient to equate racial progress with adopting Liberal policies. That’s what’s particularly offensive about Black Liberation Theology, btw.

But how should we move forward, Lisa?

ummm … need I go on?

Yes, you forgot Bill, whom Wright now–as Clinton dares stand in the way of the only candidate who is “black,” accuses of doing to “us” (hmmm, wonder who he’s talking about when he says “us”) what he did to Monica Lewinsky.

I hate to say this, but if the Constitution and what’s in it still matters to the people of the United States, they better care about what was happening in 1787 — the ideas that took shape in that writing came from somewhere and there are all sorts of implications in those words about the power relationships of that day and time. Likewise, with a certain type of judicial interpretation insisting that the document must be interpreted exactly as it would have been at its writing (1787), it seems like what happened in the late 18th century really does profoundly matter for our own historical moment.

Of course, I’m a historian of the early republic. I would believe that, wouldn’t I?

the ideas that took shape in that writing came from somewhere and there are all sorts of implications in those words about the power relationships of that day and time.

Can you be more explicit? Are you saying that strict constructionists might believe that blacks aren’t protected by the Constitution or that there is a possibility that we could go back to the way things were in 1787?

Originalists (like Justice Scalia) wish to interpret the Constitution *exactly* as the Founders would have interpreted it. They give far less weight to what they see as judicial additions of interpretation — they take an especially dim view of common law or any historical/cultural/legal construction expansion of “rights” since 1787. (That would affect the vast majority of citizens in the US — approximately 6% of Americans had the right to vote, for example, in 1787. Most white adult men did not — they gained these suffrage rights throughout the early decades of the 19th century, not as the direct result of the American Revolution.) The early American republic was a deeply unequal time, with growing wealth disparities and starkly different racial and sexual attitudes. Originalist decisions draw on these social understandings and their rulings tend to perpetuate the worldview of 1787 — returning their attention to social relationships still heavily colored by colonial hierarchy.

The most extreme of the originalist jurists question the constitutionality of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, due to the historical circumstances of their passage. While this is an ultra-fringe theory in legal practice, it’s been embraced and poularized by white supremacist/neo-Confederate groups who want any appearance of intellectual legitimacy. (Speaking of substantial numbers of people who passionately believe something screwy that the majority of us don’t…)

A more widespread originalist position insists that the meanings of these amendments — pertaining only most immediately to the cessation of slavery and the enfranchisement of African-American men — have been perverted by subsequent expansive interpretations. Consider how much of our current understandings of “civil rights” are built on the 14th amendment. You can see how this can be tangled up in all sorts of other discussions, from abortion rights to the extension of citizenship to anchor babies to suffrage for women to the racial composition of juries to…well, it pretty much touches on most of our hot-button issues.

It’s not likely that (and you will be hard put to find) even a minority dissent will recommend that slavery be reinstituted. It is far more common to find rulings that seek to curtail the current enjoyment of civil rights by the “protected categories of persons” based on the way things were in 1787. That’s a reason for 94% of us (including the bulk of white guys in the US) to pay attention. Originalism (which, depending on our burning issue, might sound like the way to go) has seriously unjust and adverse consequences when applied to other issues. (For example, an originalist interpretation might deny active service personnel the right to vote in presidential elections, as Revolutionary era soldiers were considered under the command of their officers and thus not independent enough - and probably lacked sufficient property — to cast a ballot. We’d consider that outrageous, but it was what the Founders had in mind at the time.)

And I don’t want to keep bringing up Wright, but I think he and his church are not the norm. And I also would not be surprised to learn that Obama was not as immersed in the beliefs and teachings of his home church as he let on early in the campaign.

I think you’re right about all that. In fact, that was the main thrust of what Ginger and I talked about at the meetup, yesterday, on this topic.

I don’t question the sincerity of a politician’s faith, but I do think all politicians superficially pander to the more religious of the electorate… sometimes in subtle ways, but more often in overt promises about issues that will woo them. Problem being, I think almost every candidate doing this in the past has been like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.
.

I think you’re right JP. And to be completely candid, I as an Evangelical have kind of come to believe that anyone mounting a serious run for president can truly share my priorities and values–that level of politics seems almost all-consuming.

Lisa, I are an Originalist.

Oops, meant to say, Bridgett, I are an Originalist.

I aren’t. What’s ironic (from a legal history p.o.v.) is that the Founders weren’t either. They were endlessly improvisational, highly pragmatic, and brilliantly flexible. They were future oriented and I predict would have been astonished that some duncebuckets in the court system want to party like it was 1787. Heck, the chief architects of the Constitution and constitutional theory (those who made it to the executive) constantly tried to expansively interpret it…and were successful in so doing.

Moreover, the Founders saw the common law as a liberatory instrument to reconcile the dead letter of statutory and constitutional law with the needs of local people for circumstantial justice. They specifically and repeatedly wrote in favor of common law (ranking it with trial by jury as one of the jewels of American jurisprudence). However, it does serve the interests of some few members of our society to forget all that…or at least some of their interests, some of the time. As I said earlier, I doubt you’d care much for where a wholly originalist reading of the Constitution would land you.

Good for you Bridgett. You’re not alone and certainly not a pioneer. Elites have always pined for the authority to ignore the actual words of a given agreement in favor of whatever they think that the agreement/compact/statute should have said . . . getting five people to agree to “reinterpret” the actual words of a document is sure easier than any of the alternatives, huh?

Ned, this would be a more productive conversation if you knew more about the Early Republic rather than looking at everything through your magic mirror of historical make-believe. What I think you’re missing is that *interpreting* the Constitution is the only way you can use it — that’s what readers do when they decide what words mean. The Founding generation interpreted the Constitution generously and inventively, with due consideration for the social circumstances they found themselves in and the local needs of the people they were governing. If you want the courts to stop doing that because it doesn’t serve your current political purposes, go right ahead — but don’t try kid yourself that the Founders would have done the same.

Bridgett:

You are in way over your head when you argue with heavyweight constitutional scholars like Ned Williams.

Ned Williams:

You need to go back down to your post on jumping “wright” up on the couch. That troubling question I asked you abou Hagee has finessed and ignored. It has not been answered. But, I know you have a day job, so you probably can’t take the time to look for an answer.

bridgett - I’d agree, but I think you overstate Scalia’s commitment to originalism.

I can tell you, he has frustrated pro-life activists in the past with his deferral to precedent and “already decided law”.

Just as Methodists believe that scripture, tradition, and experience inform our knowledge of God, so I believe that common law, precendence, and *original intent* all should inform what the consitution means in modern society.

OI is a tool, but it’s not EVERYTHING. Just as precedence is not. There was lots of *wrong* precendence before Brown vs Board of Education.

Sometimes, it becomes clear to the court that decided law needs to be thrown out the window. When this happens, OI, in my opinion, SHOULD inform the court.

Funny, I thought this conversation would devolve into Chris Rock territory(”Why do white people drag al their stuff out on the lawn and sell it?” “Why do black folks yell at the screen at the movies?”), but it took a very interesting higbrow turn.

One could do a study of chaos theory by watching threads on blog posts.

democommie,
You’re too kind.

Bridgett,
It’d be a killer advantage to productiveness of this conversation if you didn’t call names (”duncebuckets”) and attempts at dismissiveness (”magic mirror”).

What I think you’re missing is that “interpretation”–in a governmental system characterized by rule of law, cannot ignore what was intended by the persons who entered the freaking agreement simply because a powerful handful of persons thinks that it would be better for everyone if we did so.

And the “generous and inventive” interpretation issue is part and parcel of separation of powers, but don’t pretend–for example, that folks who condoned public hangings would have balked at putting serial murderers to sleep by lethal injection.

Not all expansive interpretation promotes social equality, sure ’nuff. Thanks to a generous interpretation of the 14th Amendment in 1886, corporations obtained the legal standing of people, for example.

While you’re correct that the Founders personally would not have been troubled to see a convicted serial murderer leave this mortal coil, you’re overestimating their keenness on capital punishment as a whole.

They associated government-sponsored killing with the sanguinary excesses of British law, which had hundreds of crimes for which one could be executed. One of the measures of a good republican government, therefore, was the merciful and redemptive character of its jurisprudence. They cherished a less bloody justice and strongly favored incarceration (at forced labor, true enough) over killing off their workforce. Many of them sat on the Board of Visitors for the evolving prisons of the day. Moreover, they wrote pretty extensively about forbidding the government to execute people in the vast majority of circumstances; they thought that this placed too much power in the hands of unelected officials (judges).

Thanks to their influence (as well as the outrage of the general public), the number of hangings declined pretty much continuously from the 1780s to the 1820s. So did brandings, whippings, and other bodily punishments seen as offensive to the dignity of citizens.

This is a long way from your original intent (pardon the pun) of discussing race, so I’ll bow out now to allow conversation to proceed as you wished.

Well, how do you know how much I estimate the founders were “keen” on capital punishment? I was simply pointing out how unfair the Originalism-is-for-duncebuckets view is. “Hanging” was just an example . . . it’s the “execution” part that so many “living constitutionalists” are itching to interpret out of existence.

I agree that we’re far afield of a discussion about race, but I can perhaps re-direct us by saying Originalism is no legitimate bogeyman for a Colbert King defender.

Ned,

I’ve posted a link to this discussion and the other thread on the blog associated with the radio show Ron Wynn and I do on WFSK. I hope to have a wider variety of folks peeking in on this discussion. the blog is stylesfree.wordpress.com.

Sorry, but I didn’t know who Colbert King was until a minute ago when I googled him. Now what I know is that he’s an irascible WaPo op-ed columnist who rides shotgun on the least-read issue of the week (Saturday night) and mostly writes about local Washington stuff. He seems like he’s a loose cannon who has made his name (such as it is…hey, I’m a political junkie in the Northeastern corridor and I’d never heard of him) being a crank who writes floridly. I don’t have cable, so I guess I don’t know why I’m supposed to care about him one way or another at the moment.

I guess I’m becoming the perfect test person for the “is this an issue because cable heads say it is?” test. If we all turned off our TVs for a couple of weeks, what would we be talking about when we talked politics?

Bridgett:

Do not call Ned Williams or anyone else bad names, because they never do (well, I do sometimes, but just a little; Ned, though, he never, ever does. Never).

If we all turned off our TV’s and the internet, then we would not have much to talk about re: politics, unless we all read papers, magazines and books about politics. That would let a lot of us off the hook. You, I’m afraid would be stuck because I know you read lots of stuff. That list you gave me a couple of week back is still sitting in my “in basket”.

I didn’t mean to imply that Colbert King was any kind of authority . . . he certainly isn’t to me, and I had never heard of him until Lisa linked to a column he’d written about Wright. That column was the one that spoke about 1787, etc. which you commented on. I’m assuming you never read the article I/we were discussing?

GM,
Thanks for the link, and it’s cool that you have a radio show; please provide info on it.

And hopefully the discussion will expand and be constructive. And I’m glad to know about freestyles, too. Is it in the MCB aggregator?

No, when I discuss 1787, I don’t generally reference op-ed columnists, cable TV talking heads, talk radio shows, or other bloggers as my primary source of information on post-revolutionary America. Sometimes they interview me as their primary source, though.

Good for you, bridgett, but the article written by Colbert King (and referenced by Lisa) was the reason that “1787″ came up and it was the context for my statement about it.

FREESTYLES is a show that Ron Wynn’s (Nashville City Paper journo) been doing for nearly 6 yrs (next week is the anniversary) and he asked me to join last year.

The blog is an idea we came up with though neither of us have the time to give it the attention it deserves (we’re always open to guest bloggers who share our outlook). I don’t know if it is on the agg, perhaps KC added it?

I see that after we mentioned the discussion going on here after the show the hits spiked but only one comment, from a participant here, so I dunno. I think a few of the show’s listeners are a bit technology adverse . . .