In Defense of Paula Deen

No, I’m not talking about her take on southern cooking which is rather stolid, uninteresting and, not to forget, needlessly fattening.

But is she a racist because, some thirty years ago, as she recently acknowledged, she used the term “nigger”?

[I think the media’s insistence on using the term “N word” to avoid all six letters of the pejorative term is ridiculous.  Of course, it is an offensive word because of the racial hostility it represents.  But do we use expressions like “C” to save sensibilities when blacks use terms like “cracker” to describe poor, southern whites?  Or “W” to disguise the use of the expression “wetbacks” when referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico?  No.

Years ago, the press would substitute “G..D…” for the profanity deemed to use the Lord’s name in vain.  No more.  To avoid giving racial offense is now far more important.  Who cares these days about religious sensitivity… unless Muslims might be upset?]

Racism is a term of attack bandied about often with little regard for its meaning because those uttering it seek to hurt the target by any means available.

 

Racism by definition means a system of beliefs which judges people on the basis of race instead of individual merit.  Invariably, those who subscribe to it consider themselves to be members of the superior race.  This sense of superiority often involves hostility and hatred toward people deemed to be lesser (e.g. Nazis). 

It is a mistake to assume that merely because a person uses a racial slur that she is, at her core, a racist as so defined.  Paula Deen was raised in the deep South at a time when, for most of her generation, “nigger” was an accepted description of people whom Northerners typically referred to as “colored” or “Negroes” (terms such as blacks and African-Americans are of more recent vintage.)  It was not meant necessarily to be pejorative but referred to a member of a racial group.

Do we evaluate people and ascribe motivations by what people say or have said?  Some do.  But shouldn’t considerably more attention to be given to what they do? 

By all accounts I’ve read, Paula Deen does not judge people by their race.  In fact, one of her staunchest defenders is a black pastor who says he knows her record personally in such matters quite well.

But I, as a self-described gourmand, do wish her cooking were better.

The Challenge of Faith

People of a conservative persuasion tend to be religious, liberals less so, polls report.

This, given the differing attitudes, is not a surprise.  Conservatives don’t believe in heaven on earth – man’s imperfect human nature won’t permit it.  As a result they recognize man’s need to believe in God (even for those on the right who are skeptical of His existence).  And most have faith in Him.

Liberals and their allies on the left often share a different faith.  That is that human nature is not immutable.  With appropriate education and guidance, humans can be improved and moved toward perfection (as in retaining positive virtues and rejecting the negative ones).

A secular heaven on earth is the goal. (Those willing to absorb the lessons of history would know that such efforts have never succeeded and often cause untold misery – think USSR.)  Wishing that the unchanging nature of human nature weren’t a fact is, at the very least, foolish.  But it is, still, the faith of many on the left.

But reality can also shake a conservative’s faith in God.  Years ago, Harold Kushner, a prominent theologian, wrote a popular book entitled When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

The logical follow up question is why? The answer is because they do. 

Sure, one can opine that God works in mysterious ways, that our minds are too limited to comprehend, and that we are not privy to His plans for mankind.

So how does one fathom the meaning or purpose, for instance, of the twenty-two year old, just out of college, highly regarded by all who knew him who dies in a crash because he got into a car driven by a drunk friend?

I can’t.

For the loved ones of that twenty-two year old, they trust in their faith and remain true to their beliefs or they conclude that they’ve been misled.  The caring, loving God they envisioned does not exist.  Maybe human nature and the love we all need are life’s only constants.  Perhaps that is all we truly need to know. 

Privacy vs. National Security?

This is a false choice.  The desire to survive will always outweigh the wish to be left alone.

It is true that a recent Pew survey had “only” 62% willing to give priority to security.  But I suggest that nearly every one of the remaining 38% would quickly switch sides (or move from the “don’t know” category) if their personal safety were perceived to be at risk.  No right matters if one is not around to enjoy it.

The challenge for a society that strives to be free is how to minimize the restrictions on privacy and liberty that are necessary for national security.

Some restraints are obviously appropriate.  It makes no sense for there to be a public discussion of methods for intelligence-gathering by the government.  For such methods to bear fruit ( i.e. knowledge of enemies plans and activities), confidentiality is vital.

“Transparency” is a term currently in vogue among critics, on both the left and right, of the National Security Agency’s phone data collection program.  But we, as members of the general public, don’t need to, nor should, know what lies behind the veil of secrecy.  Simply put, we lack the expertise to evaluate its significance and, of course, the revelation would likely render the subject activities useless.

 

Don’t misunderstand.  I surely am not endorsing a blank check on all national security concerns to the president, whether Obama or a successor.  As with all power, a check and potential restraint is vital to the survival of maximum liberty consistent with national security. 

But that is the role for Congress and the judiciary to fill - not the public.  America, after all, largely remains a republic.  It is not a democracy in the Greek sense.  As such, our government is a representative one.  We rely on members of Congress and their staffs to provide the expertise and  discretion  advisable in their role as agents to provide for our – and the nation’s – best interests.

“Trust me” is not a popular phrase when applied to the government, particularly for conservatives.  But, really, what option is there when the possibility of massive terror attacks is a constant fact of life?

Of course, skepticism regarding authority is always a healthy attitude.  IRS abuses are a timely reminder that power does, indeed, corrupt. 

Accordingly, we must be vigilant always.  Insist that our representatives and president and judicial overseers require that national security measures that impact liberty and privacy satisfy this litmus test:  are they necessary to combat realistic (as opposed to theoretical) threats to our safety?  And are they the least intrusive and restrictive possible to serve their purpose?

Obama’s Foreign Policy – the Perils of Trying to Have It Both Ways

President Obama took office 4 ½ years ago promising a new foreign policy; one free of the unilateral, aggressive and strident conduct perceived to have been the hallmark of the Bush Administration.

But despite the early 2009 “apology” tour of the Middle East, Obama didn’t claim to be against all military action either.  During the 2008 election campaign, candidate Obama roundly criticized American involvement in Iraq because those efforts reduced American effectiveness in Afghanistan – the good war, he termed it.

Yet in office, while expanding drone strikes against Islamist enemies, he has proven reluctant to use military resources elsewhere and set “ exit dates” from both Iraq and Afghanistan over the opposition of American military leaders. 

Unfortunately, his rhetoric has not matched his performance.  He tells Iran that its development of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated.  But the continuing development is.  North Korea is told there will be consequences for its missile tests.  There are not.  Syria is told by the President that use of chemical weapons would be crossing “the red line”.  They are used and nothing happens.

A half century ago, the leader of what was then called Red China, Mao Tse-tung, derided the U.S. as a “paper tiger”.  That was wishful thinking on his part.  But does that pejorative have substance today?

The U.S. would be perceived stronger in the world today if the administration had publicly projected a policy of non-involvement in world affairs – which seems to be Obama’s preference anyway.  Sure, that would plainly create a power vacuum likely to be filled by our foes.  But America’s enemies would undoubtedly tread gently – if at all – on American interests.  One does not want to rouse the sleeping tiger.  Fear of U.S. action would still exist.  And that alone would provide some protection for America.

But this Administration wants it both ways.  It wants to avoid military action but also postures that it might use force. 

But who believes that?  The bluff has been called too many times.  The cruel irony is that by President Obama’s failure to show that he means what he says, our enemies are emboldened; friends are worried and neutrals become more cautious.  Who dares depend on the U.S.?

So why does Barack Obama continue to act this way?  I don’t doubt that he means well, though that is hardly sufficient justification.  Perhaps he is such a supreme egotist that he does believe his warnings to others must be taken to heart... and is utterly perplexed when they are ignored.

Such may be a pity for Obama personally, but it is a tragedy of growing proportions for many in the world who have expected more from the President of the United States.  

Barack Obama Seeks to Justify His Philosophy in the Face of Reality

Cognitive dissonance is a well-recognized but little appreciated term of psychology that explains so much about why people say and do what they do.

It means simply that when people hold conflicting views simultaneously, they seek to ignore the contradictions.  Confronting them honestly means that one or the other, if not both, would need to be rejected.  For most, accepting that one’s view or opinion was wrong is too damaging to one’s feelings of self-regard to be tolerated.

In contrast, to be intellectually honest is to brave the risk and to make choices.  Choose the correct one; renounce the other.

President Obama’s struggle to resolve his cognitive dissonance was on display in a speech he gave last month at the National Defense University in Washington D.C.  He deserves credit for his honesty in trying.   But his effort to reconcile his views and his contradictory actions was unsuccessful.

During candidate Obama’s 2008 campaign, he promised to cancel or reverse a number of President George W. Bush’s anti-terrorism measures.  It was a position much praised by his ideologues-in-arms on the left.  From that perspective, America is arrogant and too prone to use force over accommodation.  Thus, the left viewed the exercise of U.S. power under Bush as playing a large role in generating hostility to our country’s interests in the world.

Very early in his first administration, the President sought to implement this ideological perspective.  He announced that the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility would be closed and conducted a highly criticized tour of the Middle East promising that America, under his leadership, would be different.

But, to his credit, shortly thereafter, the President, as Commander-in-Chief,  recognized that reality could not be ignored.  “Gitmo” was not closed, drone strikes increased, and Bush’s anti-terrorism measures were left intact.  But did that mean that President Obama saw that naïve and ideologically-based promises on the campaign trail could not be sustained? 

Apparently not.  Barack Obama’s May speech disclosed his efforts to resolve his “cognitive dissonance”  by arguing that there was no inconsistency.  He pledged to remain true to that creed that had animated him in 2008 and early 2009.

Again, he promised to close the Guantanamo  facility, exert higher control over anti-terror efforts and, most significantly, unilaterally announce the end to “the war on terror”.  The latter notion presumably means that Bush-era policies – which Obama had continued – were no longer necessary since the “war” which spawned them was now over. 

The President’s attitude was on display also when he gently responded to an anti-war protester who interrupted his speech to demand that Guantanamo be closed “today”. 

Obama noted, after the protester had been ejected:  “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.  Obviously I do not agree with much of what she said… but these are tough issues.”

It was as if he was saying, “Be patient.  I’m with you in spirit.”

Of course he wishes there were no violence-prone enemies in the world.  But he knows better and has taken actions as Commander-in-Chief against them.  But he hasn’t been comfortable in doing so.   So he pledges to return to the leftist fold.

His way of dealing with his cognitive dissonance was to conclude that the apparent contradiction between his ideology and his actions is an illusion.  The world he prefers to see does not contradict his beliefs.   Or so he tells himself. 

In a way, I suspect his May speech was more of an effort to convince himself, rather than the military audience, that he was being intellectually honest.