June 29th: No Disenting Opinion, Just a Descending One

In the wake of the Charleston shooting that left 9 church members dead last weekend, a fierce debate has started up against the Confederate flag, most notably the one that flies over the statehouse in South Carolina. Dylann Roof, the shooter at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, was infatuated with the Civil War flag, and was diabolically devoted to starting a race war with the flag as his symbol.

The debate has raged on for the last several days, gaining steam with each passing day that the flag isn’t removed. Many reference that the flag is a symbol for hate, that it represents a similar meaning to what the Swastika stands for in Germany (it is an illegal image in the country now), and that white southerners continue to use it as a symbol of oppression and malice.

As I’m watching the debate unfold, two things strike me as inherently troubling about the conversation. The first is to ask the question, why is this such a huge issue this week? Why hasn’t there been a raging debate or argument before, and why did we pick today to finally get insulted.

There is an easy answer to that, of course: we feel bad for what happened in South Carolina. More than that, we feel helpless to actually do anything about the atrocities that occurred in a place of worship, a place of peace, and are looking for some small way that we can bring comfort to those who lost loved ones.

This isn’t the way to honor these fallen friends and loved ones, though. It is a small way, a token way, a way to signal that yes, in fact, we NOTICED something terrible happened, but are unable to make the changes that would have actually saved their lives.

Look around. Very few are arguing with the idea of taking the flag down. Many southerners have said “let’s do it.” The South Carolina governor has called for it’s removal. A great may politicians, from all sides have spoken on the necessity for action. So why are we dedicating so much time, energy, and effort to fighting the subject when we are one swift and unilateral action from taking the thing down?

The answer, of course, is that it feels like action. We feel like we’re standing up for something, making bold and daring action against a horrible evil. What we really need to be doing, though, is standing up against the violence that caused this attack. We need to be creating laws and initiatives that make it harder to murder one another, rather than spending an entire week (if not more) eliminating a flag that most agree should be removed anyway.

The second piece of this debate that is so often ignored but so important to maintaining a thoughtful dialogue is to understand that Southerners aren’t inherently racist for being slow to want to get rid of the flag. We need to differentiate between the ideas that the flag encourages from what the people actually believe.

Someone raised in the south was not necessarily taught that the flag was a symbol for hate and oppression. What they were taught is that it is a part of their cultural heritage, a reminder of their loved ones who fought in the Civil War. It is a part of their southern identity, and therefore is incredibly important for regional pride. They have been taught this since an early age, and it will take explanation and patience to change that way of thinking.

Now, this position is wrong. The flag isn’t a symbol of valor and heritage. It is a reminder of a horrible time in our country’s history, and a symbol that needs to be relegated to the museums of the south, rather than the state houses. Rather than assaulting southerners with accusations of racism, though, we need to explain why the flag is received as it is by so many, and help others to understand.

The flag needs to be taken down. Frankly, it needs to have been taken down a long time ago, for reasons that many other writers have done plenty to explain. The flag is a reminder of a terrible portion of our country’s past, a reminder of a time when brother fought against brother, our country was divided, our people were oppressed, and animosity was as prevalent in American life as it has ever been before or since. We have no need for a symbol of oppression or hate.

As we engage in the conversation, though, we need to make sure we know WHY we’re talking about it, and recognize environmental factors that helped to get us here. Taking down the flag won’t bring those who lost their lives back to us. It wouldn’t have prevented their deaths if it was to have been taken down a week before the incident either. Taking the flag down will prevent racial anxiety that has been present for decades, and will, most likely, take several years to forget. The faster we get that process started, the faster we can begin to heal.

We need to take the flag down because it is the right thing to do. But we also need to take the flag down quickly, so that we can return our attention to matters that will save lives quickly, immediately, and dramatically.

If you enjoy the work of the Zoot Perspective, please visit my GoFundMe page, to help support me on my journey. Thank you very much.

For more content from ZPMedia, visit www.zootperspective.com.

January 29th: The Big Cheese

During the Andrew Jackson administration, the story goes, a large block of cheese was wheeled into the White House. The purpose was to allow for all of those who were hungry to come and join the staff and cabinet of the highest office of the United States and share some food and discuss matters that would important to them.

This tradition was brought into common knowledge when it was featured on the West Wing, Aaron Sorkin’s masterful television show detailing the workplace environment of those working at the White House. In the show, the Chief of Staff brought back this tradition, or at least the part of getting some face-time with the leadership of the government. Throughout the seven seasons of the show, the White  House staff was visited by a wide variety of people with interests ranging from wildlife conservation to astrological concerns and even cartography issues. While many were ridiculous proposals and somewhat outlandish, all received the time and attention of those with some degree of power to act on the shared knowledge.

In a Youtube video that brought Bradley Whitford and Josh Molina together alongside Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, the White House announced their intentions to make this tradition come to life. For the first time, the White House has been accepting videos today to be answered by government officials. This will offer the opportunity for citizens, the day after Barack Obama’s State of the Union, to reflect on ways that their government can best serve them.

While the day in the West Wing was often thought of as “Crackpot Day” because of the prevalence of rather crazy ideas, this is an incredible opportunity for the government to be transparent and include the people in their deliberation. A government run for the people must have an idea about what the citizens deem important, and this gives all Americans the opportunity to have the ear of the leadership of our country.

The Obama administration won the presidency in 2008 because of their ability to understand the internet and social media, and how to use these tools to speak to an audience larger than any public appearance. This is yet another example of that understanding.

As is almost always the case, the State of the Union shed light on an incredible number of issues that are important not only to the Obama administration, but the country as a whole. Everything from the education system, the middle class, and international politics were called center stage to the forefront of the mind of all Americans. As incredible as it is that television has allowed all of the American citizens to get into the room for this address, there is an issue with translating those powerful words into powerful action. This year, more so than any in recent memory, the government looks incapable of making the kind of changes that Obama calls for.

This is where Big Block of Cheese Day comes into play. The American public gets to put the important questions to the government and get answers about not simply beautifully written words, but the actual actions that will be taken to make them a reality. Through this one day of internet communication, the Obama administration has the opportunity to use social media tools to communicate with its constituency in ways never done before.

Nov. 25th: Not Even Politics

For the fourth time in a month, President Barack Obama will have to go back to the drawing board to come up with a nominee for the Federal Appeals Court. The Senate rejected Robert L. Wilkins’ nomination, marking the third time that they have turned down an Obama administration selection to fill one of the vacancies on the court. Republicans in the Senate were forthcoming about their reasoning for the rejection: Wilkins is a liberal which will skew the ideology of the court to the left.

One of the perks of being President is the ability to decide the ideological trajectory of various government agencies, the court being the most significant. Yet again, we see the G.O.P taking all of Obama’s power away, rendering him virtually impotent.

This is just another example from a presidency that, in the scope of history, will likely come to be known for its political conflict across party lines. The Republicans in both the Senate and the House have made the decision to make Obama’s presidency as difficult as possible, no matter what they have to block to accomplish it.

In the aftermath of the government shutdown debacle, you would think that Congress would be on its best behavior. That doesn't appear to be the case. There seems to be this notion that Barack Obama’s presidency is just a tough time and that we, as America, are going to “ride it out.”

That isn’t the way government works, or at least isn’t the way it SHOULD work. We cannot waste the next three years. With so many government officials focusing so heavily on their upcoming elections, we need to leave the off-years to actually allow those elected officials to do their jobs, to allow the governors to actually govern.

While Congress does have the technical power to deny a president the ability to install a candidate to a particular vacancy, it does not mean that it needs to be used early and often. The checks and balances set up by the Constitution are meant to prevent a specific group or individual from abusing their power, installing under-qualified or nepotistic candidates. It is not an example of nepotism to install an individual of similar ideological background, yet the Republicans feel as though they can use that as the only grounds for refusal to approve.

It is totally understandable for different political parties to get into conflict about issues. The actual substance of what is being debated, and the conceptual pieces that make up government deliberation. It is not, on the other hand, the right of the politicians, Republican or Democrat, to shut down the government simply because a politicians cannot find it within him or herself to find a way to get along with the other party.

While the government shutdown has technically ended, behavior like this from the Republicans proves that governing is not occurring. For the political system to think it is acceptable to bide their time until there can be some kind of shift based on elections is not only wasting their time in office, but also wasting my time, as a citizen.

This country is in desperate need of governing right now. It is no longer acceptable, then, for those trusted with that task to continue to use their positions for petty argument, rather than bold and significant social and political analysis and, in some cases, reform.