November 22, 2011: Welcome to Manzanar   3 comments

November 25, 2011

Symbolism from the Self Righteous

The latest in the “My Balls and/or Ovaries are Bigger Than Yours” tournament (aka Republican Presidential Candidates Debate) turned out to be a less than Train Wreck episode on, of all dates on the November calendar, November 22.  I can only assume that the Republican Party, CNN, and the American Enterprise Institute didn’t choose November 22 for the debate as a way of commemorating the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Whether in life or death, Kennedy was never a respected or revered figure to the American political right. Ironically, his good looks, personal wealth, and his now legendary service during World War II didn’t help his standing with the GOP. Or the John Birch Society. Or the really crazy right (suggesting their is a really crazy right to the right of the Birchers.) Nevertheless, it was on the 22nd that the pretenders to the throne met in Washington, D.C. The two important moments of the evening came from former Senator Rick Santorum, and of course, “expect anything to come out of his mouth”, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (although Representative Michelle Bachmann earned a mention.) Let’s take Mr. Gingrich first.

I can only assume that a memo gets circulated before every debate so that all of the participants know the talking-points by heart. Notes from the Tea Party, Republican National Committee, John Birchers, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck: “Immigration”, “invade (fill in the blank)”, “cut taxes”, “cut spending”, “stop abortion”, “kill public radio”, etc. Apparently Newt missed the memo, as the debate transcript in the Washington Post suggests:

If you’re [an illegal immigrant] here — if you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.

This is an interesting position and completely antithetical to the authors of the “memo”. A seemingly thoughtful, rational, almost personal point of view, i.e., not rehearsed to appeal to the majority of the voters. The idea of forcibly removing 12 million men, women, and children is anti-social, anti-Christian (added here since most of these candidates have consistently pandered to a Christian voter bloc, and since Gingrich said “you belong to a local church), economically or logistically impractical, possibly fraught with one or more legalities that might move millions of these people into the courts pending a ruling, instead of on a bus, train, or plane headed south. (I say “south” since most of the vitriol is aimed at Mexicans and other Latin Americans, and not illegal Europeans or Asians, although Haitians and other black Caribbeans apparently fit the GOP model.) I might applaud Gingrich if I wasn’t completely convinced this was just another calculated remark in a lifetime of calculated remarks.

Representative Michelle Bachmann, who I saw too much of when I lived in Minnesota, offered the following response to Gingrich: “Well, I don’t agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty. And I also don’t agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level. And those are two things that I believe that the speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself.” Try not to spend too much time analyzing the disjointed syntax. Her bottom line is that she wants to ship every last Mexican to Mexico.

And then there is Santorum, possibly, the true poster child for Iowa voters: white, conservative, and with an almost complete inability to appeal to anyone else. But his role on November 22nd was to have a standout performance. Not stand-up, mind you. Stand out.

First, he chose this forum to ressurect a memorable phrase from the Reagan years: “trickle down economics”. Here’s the theory: If the wealthy are taxed less, they’ll invest in factories, new businesses, expand employment, and in the end generate more revenue for the government by being all around good citizens. I prefer to think of this as the Republican’s “Less is More” theory. It doesn’t work. The wealthy take the extra wealth and add it to their existing wealth resulting in even more wealth for them. The theory sounds workable on first blush, but there seems to be a lack of credible data confirming it worked for Reagan or anyone since. Nevertheless, as with most Republican sound-bites, it sounds good until you start asking questions about the aforementioned missing data.  And the idea of trickle down is precisely what the top wealth-holders in America want. If they have to give up anything, let it only be a trickle.

Here’s Santorum’s thought(?) as he connects trickle down to  immigration:  “We do those things [said another way, we get rid of the illiterate, stupid, illegal immigrants and get more genius-level legal immigrants here], we’ll not only have the innovation, which I support, coming from legal—legal immigrants, but we’ll have that money trickle down to blue-collar workers and we can see that income mobility that a lot of people are right in that is not happening in America.”  Forget the fact the sentence is not a sentence, but rather it reads like Santorum’s neurotransmitters are misfiring.

But Santorum’s most aggregious moment was early on as he tied immigration and national security together with one nasty ribbon, and then advocated for ethnic and religious profiling of people in the United States to determine if they are terrorists. The moderator, Wolf Blitzer asked, “Senator Santorum, under certain circumstances in the past, you’ve supported profiling. Is that correct?” His answer? “I have.” Blitzer followed up a minute or so later with , “So just to be precise, is it ethnic profiling, religious profiling? Who would be profiled?”

Well, the folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes. If you look at — I mean, obviously, it was — obviously, Muslims would be — would be someone you’d look at, absolutely. Those are the folks who are — the radical Muslims are the people that are committing these crimes, as we’ve — by and large, as well as younger males. I mean, these are things that — not exclusively — but these are things that you profile to — to find your best — the most likely candidate.

To his credit, Ron Paul attempted to counter the callous Santorum with this: “And terrorism is a tactic. It isn’t a person. It isn’t a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists? You’re the judge and the jury? No, they’re suspects.” But Santorum’s words were the red meat the GOP faithful wanted.

Ignore for a moment Santorum’s inability to easily string together a cohesive thought; his message is in there. Profile Muslims. And how do you know which people are Muslims and might actually be radical Muslims? Profile all of them. Round them up. Examine their religious beliefs, their homes, diet, dress, and friends. Yes, their friends are fair game. If a Muslim or a non-Muslim associates with a Muslim, well they should know better. One is a terrorist, two is a cell, three is a cabal, the logic might go. Santorum forgets we’ve done this before. A half-century ago we rounded up  more than 100,000 Japanese American citizens, took their homes and businesses, put them on trucks and busses, and moved them to concentration camps—relocation camps in the vernacular of the time, but concentration camps to be certain. Where will Senator Santorum build the Manzanar’s for Muslim Americans? New facilities, Guantanamo, or will he move the Muslims back to Tule Lake, Poston, and Gila River, to Leupp, Topaz, and Granada, to Heart Mountain, Minidoka, Rohwer, Jerome, Manzanar, and the others? The Senator, the candidates, the GOP, and all of us should remember Martin Niemöller’s poem. While there are differences of opinion on the exact words and groups used by Niemöller in the original text, the essence of his poem is this:

First they came for the communists,and I did not speak out– because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me– and there was no one left to speak out for me.

David Steffen

Introduction

Last: Sports

Next: Debt Reduction?

© David Steffen 2011

Advertisements

3 responses to “November 22, 2011: Welcome to Manzanar

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I always appreciate a great article or piece of writing. Thanks for the contribution.

  2. Aw, this was a actually top quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this too – taking time and actual effort to make a fantastic article… but what can I say… I procrastinate alot and in no way seem to get something performed.

  3. cool story bro

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: