What Does Interracial Marriage Teach Us About Us?

In my postings here, I have always strived to be honest about potential conflicts of interests between the contents of my posts and those of my personal life.  Where I might have an interest in something I say online, I have done my best to disclose that interest for the record and my readers.  I am about to do so again here, because I will be delving into a subject that had a significant--and painful--impact in my personal life, one that has also surfaced in several recent news stories that will subsequently be the focus of today's post.  

In my mid-20s, a painful period in my professional life, the pain was brightened for a time by a romantic relationship I had for several months with an African-American woman I had met at Oberlin.  I was forced to end the relationship due to circumstances beyond my control and hers, involving racism directed at us from a quarter I did not expect.  It was my decision, but one that I felt at the time was in the best interests of both of us.  Nevertheless, it has always remained a painful memory, and in any case not a proud one.  At the same time, whenever I meet an interracial couple, or see one in the news, I find a measure of solace in knowing that my own failure to do the right thing did nothing to dent the arc of history in this area to bend toward justice.

So, then, is interracial romance the subject of my post?  Well, yes and no.  I intend to use interracial relationships that are, in one way or another, a part of current events to underscore not only the hypocrisy of the modern/contemporary Republican Party, but its sole, unchanging purpose.  Without further ado, then.

Although it did not receive as much coverage as the other two stories I will be discussing, I was nevertheless fascinated by the recent decision, which you can read about here, by U.S. Senator Mike Braun of Indiana, a Republican, to say the quite part out loud when it comes to his stance on the constitutionality of interracial marriage.  True, like all politicians who let their mouths wander into trouble, Braun hastily issued a "correction" of his previous statement on the subject.  On the other hand, as with all cases of "corrections" that are issued only in the wake of substantial public blowback, the rest of us are free to evaluate its sincerity.

And this one fails that test on two accounts.  One, Braun was offered a chance to make a clarification during the interview in which he decided to torch any reputation he had for tolerance, and failed to take advantage of it.  Second, Braun is a member of a Senate caucus led by Mitch McCONnell, whose leadership is distinguished by a level of message and voting discipline that might make even a Prussian blush.  McCONnell doesn't gladly suffer any member of his caucus doing or saying anything that might stub a toe in his effect to regain his iron grip on the upper chamber of Congress.  So I think it's fair to apply the Maya Angelou test here and conclude that, when Senator Braun told the American people that he and his party are racist, the American people should believe them.

But what about Clarence and Ginni Thomas, then?  The current Supreme Court Associate Justice and his politically active spouse are an interracial couple.  If this is a rule, why are they the exception?

Because Republicans are willing to allow for exception of this sort if they are politically useful.  And, when it comes to political usefulness, for Republicans, Thomas has been the gift that keeps on giving.  First, there was his confirmation hearing, where he managed to turn a sordid episode in his professional life into a moment of unjudicial rage in which he got to accuse Democratic Senators of performing a "high-tech lynching" of him for being "uppity."  They were, in fact, investigating an allegation against him of sexual harassment, but that didn't stop the Senators in question, led by the now-President Biden, from dropping the investigation.  That was 31 years ago, and since then, Thomas' voting record has helped paved the way for a dramatic reversal of the Court's role in championing and advancing social justice.

And second, there was Mrs. Thomas, who has used the political connections forged by way of her marriage to create a power center of her own, in concert with various right-wing political organizations.  In fact, so powerful has she become in the process that it has opened up the question of conflicts of interest between causes she has advanced and their connection with cases before the Court.  This question, which has been previously explored in the press, exploded in news outlets this past week when it was learned that the congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol has records of texts between Mrs. Thomas and then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in which she urged him to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.  Perhaps this explains why her husband was the lone dissenting vote in the Court's decision requiring the White House to hand over to the committee its records relating to the attack.

Both Thomases have denied the existence of any conflicts of interest, insisting that their personal and professional lives are completely separate.  These assertions, which should by themselves strain the credulity of virtually every married person in contemporary America (me included), are as phony as the Justice's attack on his Senate interlocutors.  You need look no further that this tweet from a former Heritage Foundation intern, whose recollection makes it clear that the Justice and his activist spouse are "a team."

And a mighty useful team they are.  This is why Republicans, in spite of the white nationalism that is their only institutional glue, are willing to tolerate them.  Republicans don't really care about people having abortions, as long as they're the only one who can afford them.  They don't really care about what kids are reading in schools, so long as their kids are the only one who can afford a decent education.  They don't even care about high taxes, so long as they're the only ones not paying them.  And they absolutely, positively, do not care about limited government in the roles of Americans.  After all, government can be a great way of controlling the people who don't support you.  This is why we have a criminal justice system that marches African-Americans to the electric chair, and lets white Wall Street thieves go back to their the thievery.  This is why we have a religious climate in this country that allows one religion to dictate what religion means for everyone else.  And this is why we choose to spend our public resources on making war rather than making wealth for all.  And by war, I'm not just talking about overseas conflict; I'm talking about violence against our fellow citizens, and disgusting attempts to joke about it.

Goodies for we, but not for thee.  That's the Republican philosophy, past, present, and future, reduced to the size of a bumper sticker in the hope that a majority of the American people can digest it.  And if the GQP can get away with hiding it by manipulating the racism of poor undereducated whites, then shame on all of us.  So why should they care about Clarence and Ginni Thomas' interracial marriage?  So long as they don't have to see them too often, and they're otherwise spectacularly useful, it's all good.

Contrast this with this past week's third story in which interracial marriage was a factor:  the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for a seat on the very Supreme Court where Clarence Thomas would be one of her colleagues.  The Republicans questioning Judge Jackson made every attempt to not merely question her patriotism, but to sexualize her public image by profiling her rulings in cases involving child pornography.  She did not rise to the bait even once, which merely underscored the demeaning behavior to which she, her white husband, and her biracial daughter were subjected, as well as the naked racism on which that behavior is based.

This, along with her other qualifications, is why she will make this country proud as the first African-American woman to sit on the highest Court in the land.  And it is one more reason why I am grateful for all of the multiracial families in America.  More than anyone else, you demonstrate our ability to become one out of many.  More than anyone else, you are the proof that this country and its people will not succumb to the base instincts of one political party, but will continue rising to the heights promoted by the Constitution, and those who not only advocate its ideals, but live them as well

Take Advantage of Biden's Sincerity

Is it too early to say "What a difference a State of the Union address makes?"

Well, perhaps.  There are still many intractable problems that Joe Biden, the Democrats, and the U.S. face:  inflation, lingering concerns about COVID, civil unrest of both sides of the political divide.  Plus Ukraine, which, even in a political climate without any other major problems to face, would be enough to absorb a President's attention and tip the balance of a party's political fortunes.

But no one outside of the right-wing echo chamber has any doubt that last week's SOTU was a major plus for Biden's standing with the American people.  According to an NPR poll, Biden received an "unusual bounce" in his standing with voters as a consequence of his speech.  Perhaps one perverse illustration of that point is that this time, unlike SOTU disruptions by Republicans in the past, the performance art of Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene was Biden's rubber to their glue.  If it's any consolation from me to the two of them, they can rest assured that no one could possibly have worked harder to earn that lack of respect more.

But it's worth taking some time to ask:  why did this happen?  There has not been much improvement with regard to the issues that have bedeviled Biden and the Democrats up to this point.  And the Ukraine-Russia conflict may continue for months without any path toward resolution, and nightly footage of horrors being inflicted on the Ukrainians, without palatable options for Biden to make a difference.

I think this is a question with a relatively simple answer.

Joe Biden, for all of his past (and probably future) verbal gaffes, is as sincere a person as you are ever likely to find in politics.  That comes in part from his religious faith, and also from being tested in his personal life in ways that would be devastating for many of us.  I think that latter point is one aspect of his makeup that his political opponents fail to take into account.  When you've had to bury a wife and two children, it's going to take a lot more than imbeciles chanting "Let's go Brandon" to get under your skin.

But I think that his sincerity is demonstrated mainly by one aspect of his personal and political style that no honest person, Democratic or Republican, would deny he possesses.  Biden genuinely believes that politics in a democracy and and should be a win-win process.  Some of us (you can recognize me here, if you wish) are frustrated by the fact that he often acts on that basic impulse even in the face of a mountain of evidence that his opposite numbers are utterly unwilling to return the favor.  But that fact simply affirms that his doing so is not an act of calculation.  It is, for him, a statement of principle.  To share a video I've shared before, can you imagine Lindsay Graham saying this about any other Democrat?

In a field that is dominated by insincerity like no other, Biden's candor, however much it makes him trip over his verbal shoelaces, is a quality that has made a huge difference in his political fortunes.  I have no doubt that, for a lot of voters, it made the difference in making a choice between Biden and the most insincere excuse for a human being ever to run for the presidency.  People may have disagreed with many of Biden's stands on issues, but they felt certain that he at least knew where he stood, and was willing to compromise.  That may well have been a big part of the reason why Biden did better at the polls than congressional Democrats did.

But, if all of this is true, why have Biden's poll numbers been a dumpster fire for the past several months?  The Afghanistan withdrawl turned those numbers against him, and that is understandable.  On the other hand, I suspect that people have largely moved on from Afghanistan as an issue, in part because, however chaotically it was done, it was essentially popular with most Americans.

I suspect this answer is relatively simple as well.

Biden has been largely invisible for those several months, except for brief snippets in mainstream media outlets of White House availabilities and stump speeches.  This effectively puts his messaging in the hands of people who have no interest in helping him or his party; if anything, their only real interest is profits for their corporate masters, which in the digital age boils down to clicks.  And this, sadly, is par for the proverbial course with Democrats, who imagine that the media is dominated by truth-tellers fearlessly taking advantage of their First Amendment rights.  In fact, it is dominated by property owners fearlessly protecting the property rights of their fellow investors.  The wry observation that freedom of the press belongs to the person that owns one exists for a reason.

In fact, this goes a long way toward explaining why public opinion has not only run against Biden and the Democrats, but frankly run against the truth.

Inflation the result of excessive public spending?  Wrong.

Republicans the defenders against thought control in schools?  Wrong.

Republicans the advocates of tax relief?  Wrong.

For that matter, Republicans the advocates of individual liberty?  Wrong.

In fact, Republicans working tirelessly on behalf of the American people?  Wrong.  (This, in particular, should be a campaign ad all by itself).

Or Republicans as good stewards of public money?  Wrong.  (She was the last person who should have been allowed to do a rebuttal to Biden.)

And, finally, USCIS failing to stop and deport people at the border:  Wrong and wrong again.

Fortunately, for Biden, Democrats, and their supporters (again, you can recognize me), the solution to all of this is relatively simple as well.

What Biden, his communications team, and their counterparts in the national and state Democratic parties need to do, with FDR and Reagan as their bipartisan role models, is to stop talking about the so-called "bully pulpit" of the presidency and start to actually use it.  Develop and implement a comprehensive communications strategy to get the truth to the American people, the truth that the press has been too intimidated to tell by decades of lies about "liberal bias."  They need a corrective, and you can supply it.

Such as strategy could have all or some of the following components:

Monthly town halls in different parts of the country;

Fireside chats by social media;

Weekly speeches in front of key Democratic constituencies;

Call-in or link-in events;

Fewer press conferences, more one-on-one interviews.

I'm sure that there are many more possibilities.  The main thing is to have the President of the United States come out of hiding and into the light of day, to shine the light about the truth between America's two major political parties:  one is a party of debating ideas, while the other is about advancing white nationalism through dishonest and violence.  Let the voters ponder those choices.  I'm still confident enough in them to think that most of them will make the right choice--indeed, what should be the only choice.

It's America's future, Mr. President.  Your future, as well.  Take advantage of the personal profile you've been gifted with, and use it to make a difference.  Before it's too late.

A Tale of Two Manchurian Candidates

In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, there were numerous reports that Vladimir Putin was interfering in the process on behalf of his preferred candidate, Donald Trump, because Putin perceived that Trump would be far more useful than Hillary Clinton in advancing Putin's geopolitical goals, both for the former Soviet republics, and Europe beyond, especially the former Warsaw Pact nations.  At the time, their was evidence that this was in fact happening, which is separate from the issue of whether or not this interference ultimately cost Clinton the election.  The mere fact that it was happening should have terrified people enough to take it seriously, and take steps to blunt its impact on both the campaigning and the voting.  We did not do that and, as a result, we may never know for certain if the election outcome was an honest one.

We do, however, know that it was a disastrous one.  Honestly or not, Trump was elected, and wasted little if any time in playing the interests of the U.S. and our NATO allies right into Putin's hands.  His vociferous and venomous attacks on our allies, combined with comments about Putin that suggested he viewed him as a potential date rather than a head of state, gave Putin all the cover he needed to begun advancing his plans to re-establish the pre-1989 status quo.  And, just as we may never know the extent to which Putin helped Trump to become President, there is still much we do not and may never know (as I recently wrote) about the extent to which, as President, Trump enabled Putin to advance the planning for the current fighting between Russia and Ukraine.

Well, perhaps not completely.  But now, we have a bit of an inkling from an unlikely source who can, perhaps, in this instance (although not generally) be trusted to be telling the truth.

John Bolton, my fellow Baltimorean, and a war hawk's war hawk back in the days when the second Bush Administration needed a national-security pretext to invade Iraq and secure oil profits for Republican donors, stated a few days ago, unequivocally, that Trump's actions made it "that much easier" for Putin to invade Ukraine.  Bolton also bolstered that revelation with specific details, describing how Trump complained about the harshness of actions taken by his foreign policy staff against Putin, and noting that Trump's praise of Putin for being "very savvy" was "embarrassing" for the U.S..  (No kidding, John.)  Anyway, you can read about this and a bit more right here.

Not the whole story, to be sure, but enough of it from someone who was in a position to know what was and wasn't going on.  Still begs the question, of course, of what we don't know, perhaps all the more so.  For example, in the conversations between Putin for which, contrary to standard security processes, their is absolutely no third-party verification whatsoever.  We will probably never know what was disclosed by Trump to Putin during those conversations.  Or, for that matter, what Putin instructed Trump to do.  And in exchange for unknown favors.

Back in 1962, at the peak of Cold War tensions, when the world came to the brink of a nuclear conflict during the Cuban Missile Crisis, "The Manchurian Candidate" was playing in American movie theaters.  It told the then-inconceivable story (or so it seemed) about an American POW being brainwashed by Communists to serve their interests as an assassin.  The movie was based on a book by Richard Condon, a novelist who is credited for a principle known as "Condon's Law":  "When you don't know the whole truth, the worst you can imagine is bound to be close."

It's a principle that the movie does a powerful job of illustrating.  But whatever consolation audiences could have taken in 1962 that the movie was just fiction can provide no comfort to Americans who now have to face the probability that the 45th President of the United States was, in fact, a Manchurian Candidate.

You think that's bad enough?  Well, it may even be worse than that.  We may, in the current state of national and international crisis, have other Manchurian Candidates to deal with.

Here is one example.

Marco Rubio, who will be running this fall for a third term as a U.S. Senator from Florida, was positioned for a long time by mainstream media as the next big thing in American politics.  A Cuban refugee from a theoretically "purple" state (and the third-largest state by population, in any case), with an initial reputation as a "moderate" Republican, he seemed to fit the profile of what legacy newspapers and broadcasters look for as the ideal presidential candidate.  And, to be fair, during the early part of his career, his actions lent some weight to that image.  Most notably, he was part of the so-called "Gang of Eight" that almost got comprehensive immigration reform across the finish line, before House Republicans decided that they didn't want to do Democrats any favors in an election year.  How many refugees, from Ukraine and elsewhere, might be better off today if the CIR bill hadn't been blocked?

Whatever the answer to that rhetorical question may be, Rubio apparently got the message from it.  He has spent much of his time since then flipping and flopping on issue after issue, and he did it well enough to make it to a second Senate term.  But, along the way, he decided to take a detour into presidential politics in 2016, which led to a verbal sparring match between Rubio and Trump that was conducted at roughly an eighth-grade level.  Trump won the nomination and the election, Rubio managed to return to the Senate despite his humiliation at the "little hands" (as Rubio called them) of the man who had described him as "Little Marco," and guess what happened after that?  Rubio became subservient enough to Trump to earn Trump's "Complete and Total Endorsement" for his current re-election bid.

And there seems to be no boundaries to that subservience, as Rubio has begun to act as though, like Trump, he too is a Putin "sleeper cell."  Today, I learned on Twitter that he posted a tweet in which he revealed an image from an Internet video conference between Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president, and a bipartisan congressional delegation.  This conference, understandably, was supposed to be confidential; unfortunately, that consideration did not stop Rubio from attempting to leverage an image from it for political advantage.  Or, maybe, that didn't matter.  If, like Trump, he is now working on behalf of another country, maybe he saw it as a win-win proposition.

Well, I don't.  This only makes me wonder how many other members of the Republican Party, in and out of office, are "sleeper cells."  Or Manchurian Candidates.  How many of those "Candidates" will be candidates for office on the ballots this fall.  How many of them have been working in state legislatures this past year to "reform" voting laws in such a way as to put more "Candidates" into office at all levels of government?  And, as a consequence of all this, how close are we to becoming a client state of Putin?  How long will it be before we share what may at this point be the fate of Ukraine?

I don't have the answers to those questions.  But the answers matter.  To you, to me, to all of us.  And we'd better start getting the answers right now.  Just to make sure this election isn't our last one.