Search This Blog

16 January 2017

Racism – Old Wisdom vs New Activism

By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project
#SamFrescoe #racism #race #hatred

Every American is impacted by racism. Whether by an individual’s decision, a collective action, or a government sanctioned use of force, no one is fully insulated. So, is racism in the United States a social-political problem? Those that talk the talk agree in great and loud tones that racism is a problem. However, when it’s time to walk the walk, behaviors suggest a different answer.

Racism is popular. The term seems to have a wide span of usage while, simultaneously, being reserved for use by selected people-groups and contexts. Given this perception, it seems that racism has a fluid, multi-faceted nature that is both inclusive and exclusive, simultaneously. This character is further reinforced by expressions of self-identity and community-belonging along, what are called, racial lines.

Racism is a polarizing. It represents a phenomenon that is harmful to some while being beneficial to others. Consider the following statements. – Racism is an absolute moral wrong (an abomination of humankind). Racism is benign (an aid to those that can’t care for themselves). Racism fuels an industry for the transfer of wealth (financial benefits, prestige and notoriety, legal benefits). Racism is a “call to action” (seeking reparations). Racism is a mechanism for seeking justice (racial justice). Racism legitimizes compelling outcomes (employment, affirmative actions). Racism rationalizes otherwise inexcusable behavior (rioting). Racism provides victim status (oppression). Racism marginalizes (supremacy, embarrassment, humiliation and demonization). Racism rallies (power, “call to action”). – These are just some examples offered by one person. However, because everyone has a unique perspective and experience, I am certain that this list is not comprehensive.

“There is a perceptible shift in our National dialogue on race. We are experiencing a move away from definitions that describe the relationships of different groups of people to newer definitions designed to stifle discussion by negatively characterizing discussion, dissent, or protest.” – Kevin Myles[1]

So, given the complexities, how does someone “wrap their mind around” a working definition of racism?

Getting Started

To address the question, I intend to examine racism as a term of vocabulary. Specifically, I intend to determine if the derivation of racism (as a term) can provide a better understanding of racism in America. I began by considering racism to be a derivation of two words: race (noun/root) and ism (suffix). Then, compared that derivation to current definitions of racism. Finally, I will conclude by addressing the question directly.

While researching, I examined a number of modern dictionaries. I selected sources that have a long history of printed editions, and those that seem to be well-respected online resources. Additionally, to gain a sense of historical perspective, I consulted a Webster edition claiming to be published in 1828. Other online dictionaries seemed to contain entries that have a popular or slang tone, and where not considered due to a lack of long-standing rigor. Four primary sources were consulted: Dictionary.com, Google, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford. Additional sources are cited.

Can examination of “race” and “ism” provide a better understanding of racism?

Partially – In my view, racism, a term derived from race (noun) and ism (suffix), has two working definitions (deviation notes and citations are located at the end of the article):

1.    Racism is a prejudicial or discriminatory doctrine for the purpose of classifying human beings according to a particular state, quality, and/or pathological condition.

2.    Racism is a prejudicial or discriminatory combination of ways, means, and ends for the purpose of classifying human beings according to a particular state, quality, and/or pathological condition.

The first definition describes a way of thinking based on what is observable. The desired result is a set of policies, principles, rules, or guidelines suitable for classifying human beings. It seems reasonable to imply the existence of an observer and the observed, and that this way of thinking is seen in a highly negative social-political light.

The second definition describes a strategy of doing based on what is observable. The desired end-state is a combination of ways and means suitable for classifying human beings. To my mind, it seems reasonable to imply the existence of actors (policy-makers, doers), a population, political will (ends), and an executive mechanism of observation (ways) and enforcement (means). Additionally, this kind of strategy is viewed in a highly negative social-political light.

However, there are significant shortfalls. Neither definition adequately specifies particulars to be observed, nor why those particulars are deemed important. In my view, to derive a working definition for racism, then these shortfalls must be more adequately addressed. Ironically, modern definitions of “racism” (as a stand-alone term) seem to be helpful in addressing the two identified shortfalls: observations and significance.

Racism

To no surprise, racism (noun) has many definitions. Given the scope of this piece, and the shortfalls identified, I limited the discussion to those definitions that could be categorized as “beliefs and doctrine” and “relationships and interactions.” Definitions of other forms are not discussed.

Beliefs and Doctrines[2],[3],[4],[5]: Racism takes a form that can be used to describe a set of beliefs or doctrines of practice. It seems clear that this line of reasoning subscribes to the following: the differences, characteristics, capacities and/or abilities among human beings are inherent to their race; human beings can be grouped by race; and, races of human beings can be arranged in a hierarchal manner as to distinguish any one race as superior or inferior to another.

Relationships and Interactions[6],[7],[8],[9]: Racism seems to be an instructive construct for dealings among human beings. This line of reasoning seems to subscribe to the following: a condition of hatred, intolerance, prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against an individual perceived to be of a race different than the evaluator.

Historical Perspective: It seems clear that the term, racism, as spoken in the English language, is a relatively recent development. Its first known use seems to be at/near 1902.[10] However, one source claimed that the term can be traced back to 1865-1870 under a French term, racisme.[11] It should be noted that the Webster dictionary of 1828 did not contain the term, racism, at all.[12]     

How does this understanding of “racism” address the shortfalls?

Shortfall-1: Particulars – It seems clear that racism is concerned with differences, characteristics, capacities and/or abilities inherent to particular human beings. This lead to a re-examination of “race” and the attachment of particulars: skin color, facial form, eye shape, genetic markers, and/or other arbitrarily features.

Shortfall-2: Significance – It seems clear that racism performs three functions:
1.    Racism groups human beings by race.
2.    Racism assigns a hierarchal value to individuals by distinguishing any one race as superior or inferior to another.
3.    Racism prescribes a condition of hatred, intolerance, prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against an individual perceived to be of a race different than the evaluator.

“Race-Ism” à “Racism”

Racism is a doctrine. – Racism is a prejudicial or discriminatory set of policies, principles, rules, or guidelines suitable for classifying human beings according to differences, characteristics, capacities and/or abilities inherent to particular human beings (e.g. skin color, facial form, eye shape, genetic markers, and/or other arbitrarily features). – This definition implies at least the following: the existence of an observer; the observed; the observer can discern inherent differences, characteristics, capacities and/or abilities of the observed; and the observer intends ill-will towards the observed.

Racism is a strategy. – Racism represents a prejudicial or discriminatory plan, approach, or scheme (or set of plans, approaches, or schemes) designed to classify human beings according to differences, characteristics, capacities and/or abilities inherent to particular human beings (e.g. skin color, facial form, eye shape, genetic markers, and/or other arbitrarily features). – This definition implies at least the following: the existence of actors (policy-makers, doers, by-standers); a population to be classified; political will (ends); an executive mechanism of observation (ways) and enforcement (means).

Critiques

There are those that disagree with my approach for understanding racism.
-       Robert Hugs, of Everyday Feminist, claims dictionary definitions are “opinions of some people.”[13]
-       Luke Visconti, of Diversity Inc., claims the dictionary definition of racism is “too white” and lacks “nuance and is incomplete.”[14]
-       Pat A. Bidol, Developing New Perspectives of Race, claims the proper definition of racism is prejudice plus power.
-       Clarke University simply states that “All white individuals in our society are racists.” [15]

“Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.” – Thomas Sowell

Putting It Together

Racism believes in devaluing (diminishing, cheapening, reducing) human beings.

Racism provides doctrines and strategies for its own ends (aims, goals, objectives).

Racism is prejudicial (harmful, detrimental, damaging) and discriminatory (unfair, bigoted, inequitable, intolerant).

Going Forward – A Solution

Racism is stupidity compounded by hate. – For me, this is the question. If you consider any two people, each fully vested with natural rights and human meaning, then how can you say one is more valuable than the other?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence, Paragraph-2

Given the last several years of upheaval, removal of racism from our social-political structures should be a priority. For if the United States is to be a nation of freedom-loving people, then racism must be made impotent and all of its citizens uniformly valued.

Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com.

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

 

 
“Race-Ism” – My Derivation

For the purposes of this section, racism (noun) is derived from two words: race (noun/root) and ism (suffix). This assumption seems to be supported, somewhat but not definitively, by Webster[16] and Dictionary.com.[17] Other parts of speech were not considered.

Race

Race (noun) has multiple definitions; however, given the frame and intent of this piece, I limited the discussion to those definitions that could be categorized as “classification” and “lineage.” Other usages of race, such as competitions, are not discussed.

Classification[18],[19],[20]: Race can take a form commonly used to describe a classification of human beings. Characteristics of this form include the following: human beings can be grouped into divisions/classes/categories according to arbitrarily selected physical characteristics (ex: skin color, facial form, eye shape, genetic markers).

Lineage[21],[22]: Race can take a form used to describe the lineage or ancestry of human beings. Characteristics of this form include the following: a family, tribe, people, or nation descended from a common ancestor/ancestors; and, a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.

Historical Perspective: It seems clear that the term, race, as spoken in the English language, is a long lasting term. Its first known use seems to be within the 14th century[23]. The Webster dictionary of 1828 does define race as “lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock” or as a grouping of hooved (particularly equine) animals. [24] 

Ism

Ism (suffix), the word, has many definitions; however, given the frame and intent of this piece, I limited the discussion to those definitions that could be categorized as “doctrine,” “oppression, prejudice, discrimination,” and “condition.” Other usages of ism are not discussed.

Doctrine[25],[26]: Ism can be used to denote a doctrine of thought. Characteristics of this form seem to include: existence of a system of principles, theories, or ideas; a manner of action or behavior consistent with a system of principles, theories, or ideas; adherence to a system of principles, theories, or ideas.

Oppression, Prejudice, Discrimination[27],[28]: Ism can be used to denote the following: prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a specified attribute; an unfavorable act, practice, or process.

Condition[29],[30]: Ism can be used to denote the following: a particular state or quality of being or property; a result of an action; a pathological condition marked by resemblance to a specified person or thing.

Historical Perspective: It seems clear that the term, ism, as spoken in the English language, is a long lasting term. Its first known use seems to be at/near 1680 [31]. However, it should be noted that the Webster dictionary of 1828 does not define “ism” as a stand-alone term. [32] 

A prior derivation I’ve offered as part of previous posts – Racism is a decision-making doctrine by which a person or people group makes decisions concerning their interaction with a differing person or people group on the basis of skin color.[33]



[1] Kevin Myles. “Racism vs Race-ism: The changing language of race in America”. Daily Kos. Published 22 Apr 20009. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/22/723329/- (accessed 170115)
[3] Racism. Google. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define+racism (accessed 170112)
[4] Racism. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism (accessed 170112)
[5] Racism. Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism (accessed 170112)
[7] Racism. Google. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define+racism (accessed 170112)
[8] Racism. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism (accessed 170112)
[9] Racism. Dictionary. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism (accessed 170112)
[10] Racism. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism (accessed 170112)
[11] Racism. Dictionary.com. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism (accessed 170114)
[13] Robert Hugs. “Why Using the Dictionary Definition of Racism Just Doesn’t Work”. Everyday Feminist. Published 15 Mar 2015. http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/dictionary-definition-racism/ (accessed 170115)
[14] Luke Viscosti. “Ask the White Guy: Is the Oxford Dictionary Definition of Racism Too White for You?”. Diversity Inc. Published 6 Aug 2013. http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the-white-guy/ask-the-white-guy-is-the-oxford-dictionary-definition-of-racism-too-white-for-you/ (accessed 170115)
[16] Racism. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. Gramercy Books. 1989. Page-1184
[20] Race. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race (accessed 170112)
[21] Race. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race (accessed 170112)
[23] Race. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race (accessed 170112)
[24] Race, Webster 1828. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/race (accessed 170112)
[26] Ism. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ism (accessed 171012)
[28] Ism. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ism (accessed 171012)
[30] Ism. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ism (accessed 171012)
[31] Ism. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ism (accessed 171012)
[32] Ism. Webster 1828. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/ (accessed 170112)

10 January 2017

Blasphemy: Secondary Effects Trump Primary Concerns – A Retrospect


By Sam Frescoe
#SamFrescoe

As the new Congress sits and the next President awaits, I find myself reflecting on the past decade of American “leadership.” In doing so, I’ve learned something about those entrusted with social-political responsibilities? – The majority of our “leaders” are cowards.

The majority of American “leaders” (politicians especially, but not exclusively) are very good at executing two primary strategies: aggravate secondary issues and effects, and avoid primary concerns. In other words, act to temporarily satisfying social effects in order to secure gains; whereas, evade cultural drivers (especially sub-cultural drivers) to avoid losses.

Who is looking into why the group was founded, or why people mobilized in mass, in the first place? And, if “leaders” are looking into those effects, then why are we not hearing the harsh, unpopular, wart-covered truths of those matters?

As a way of illustration, if a group acts out in mass against an injustice, and does the acting in the name of righteousness, then the likely result is either appeasement of the mob and/or silencing of its critics. However, the underlying matters that drove the founding of the group, or that prompted the people to mobilize in mass, are ignored, understated, disavowed, or (simply) never mentioned.

Common examples of secondary effects and issues include movements and ideas such as Black Lives Matter, acceptance of Sharia Law, social justice, hate speech, racism, censorship schemes, protected class rights, normalization of dysphoria, selective demonization of religion, and corruption (just to name a few). All of these are secondary effects; and, even though they are being appeased, they continue to be hotly debated. 

I fully appreciate that individuals have strong views concerning these effects. I have strong concerning these effects. However, personal views are not the point. – The point is that those in “leadership” positions are not reducing, abating, or eliminating underlying drivers (the primary effects) that prompt the forming and rise of secondary effects. Instead, they are catering to secondary effects directly or by not addressing primary effects.

So, why don’t our “leaders” deal in primary effects? – Simple, championing primary solutions is not popular.

Blasphemy

Seeking to reduce, abate, or eliminate primary effects is social-political blasphemy.

Blasphemy, or to mere appearance thereof, is treated as a form of sacrilege, irreverence, desecration, or demonic attack against any particular secondary effect. As a result, ideological vacuums are created. In these vacuums, ideological diversity is allowed to fester into irrational dissent aimed at society at large. When this dissent is attached to a culture or sub-culture, those views become empowered to emerge as sanctioned effects. In turn, non-conforming elements of society are framed as wrong-doers. Given sufficient time, diversity of dissenting views becomes excessively large, while proximity of dissenting views becomes excessively small. As a result, there is social-political warfare. – Some examples (summaries) are given below.

Racial Justice

·         Secondary Effects: Certain groups of blacks gathered to express grievances for what they believed were unjust practices against blacks at large. Initially, gatherings were peaceful, local, and largely ignored by the national discourse. Unsatisfied, and to garner social-political attention, violence was executed towards people and property.

o   Rationale: Justifications included the following: white supremacy, righteous revenge, colonial racism, white culture, legal suppression, the existence of the United States itself, racism in general, lack of jobs, low minimum wage, existence of police, social justice, white guilt, bigotry, lack of money, bad schools, violent music, poor education, abuse by others, general meanness, failure to truly understand, and on and on and on.

o   Response: Upon initiation of violence, the media covered their activities 24/7. Local “leaders” chose not to meet the mob with force; and then, announced that decision across the media. Having communicated license, violence expanded. All opposed were branded racists and silenced. – At all levels, “leaders” legitimized the behavior and its results. For example, a BLM founder sat at the right hand of the President during a Cabinet meeting (displacing the Vice President to the end of the table).

·         Primary Effects: In general, the majority of protesting individuals represented groups and sub-groups of people that are disconnected from society, culture, and politics at large by their own choosing.

Islamism & Sharia Law

·         Secondary Effects: Certain groups of citizens and non-citizens gathered to express grievances for what they believed was an unjust lack of recognition. Initially, gatherings were peaceful and sought simple recognitions (such as inclusion of Islamic holidays on par with Christian and Jewish holidays). – In some cases, they setup localized sub-cultures that included social codes, schools, places of worship, and court-like mechanisms. When challenged, these groups arranged Islamic patrols, neighborhood watches, political action groups, and financial foundations. – Murder, street violence, and harassment of non-conforming individuals increased sharply in connection to Islam.

o   Rationale: Those participating profess Islam to be the only acceptable true faith, and so empowered to act. Those opposed, or fail to adequately buy-in, are to be identified and dealt with by force per the same authority.

o   Response: Local “leaders” chose to promote parity via multiculturalism. The “religion of peace” narrative was introduced, and police presence was reduced in certain areas. The term Islamophobia (and its derivatives) became commonly accepted as a means to silence dissenters (actual or perceived) by demonization. – National “leaders” proclaimed that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” seek to restrict access to weapons (particularly firearms), decreed Islam a race (thus a protected class), remove the definition of terrorism from law enforcement protocols, publish a national security strategy that defers to “international norms,” attack foreign nationals in their own nations with lethal force, deny basic facts about the founding of the United States, and on and on and on. – State “leaders” begin to promote legal positions that allow for Sharia Law, prosecute Christians for “rehabilitation,” and demonized police officers that take down violent actors as Islamophobes before fact patterns are known. And then, turn around and mandate police departments to regularly conduct battle drills and rehearse “active shooter” responses. – Unsympathetic citizens continue to seek to be well-armed, obstruct Islamic initiatives, meet street demonstrations with increasing amounts of force, and (in general) build an opposition to Muslims.

·         Primary Effects: Islamism is not compatible with the American Constitutional Republic, nor reconcilable with the American way of life; therefore, we are going to fight.

Social Justice

·         Secondary Effects: SJW’s, LGBTQ’s, and other non-conforming groups and sub-groups gathered to express grievances against society at large for not accepting their views as being on par with what is considered to be “normal.” Initially, gatherings were peaceful in nature, contained within relatively small areas, and largely ignored within the national discourse. Over time, academia began to recognize social justice curriculum, offer majors based on that curriculum, and market graduates to governmental and activist roles. As a result, these non-conforming groups and sub-groups began leveraging government force as a way and means to secure parity and resources. Upon, meeting resistance, these groups increased legal initiatives to establish political action groups, financial foundations, secure “protected” status, and increase support to favorable learning institutions at all levels.

o   Rationale: To secure equality, non-conforming groups and sub-groups must have absolute rights reserved unto them alone. – Equal rights are secured when the old-normal is sufficiently made subordinate to the new-normal.

o   Response: “Leaders” began to promote group-thinking, political correctness, information curation, subjugation of Christians, targeted prosecution of political opponents, social justice “sciences”, individual mandates under penalty of material damage, protected classes with special rights reserved, forced rehabilitation by government actors, removal of affirmative defense, and other “solutions” into law. Anyone opposed is labeled a _____-ophobe, racist, hater, bigot, fascist, patriarchy, or other undefined-yet-denigrating term. – Local “leaders” advocated for reduction of the “clear and compelling” standard of harm, the ability to mount an affirmative legal defense, and opportunity to bring a grievance against the government for an unjust act/decision (ex: The New York City Human Rights Commission). Well-resourced political activist groups, backed by government expertise, bring legal cases to high courts against defendants not capable of mounting a resistance; thus, establishing legal precedence for normalizing gender and sexual dysphoria as a civil right, justifying use of force by the government, changing the legal definition of “sex” outside the legislative process, placing legal standing of un-emancipated minors above citizens with equal or greater standing, and on and on and on.

·         Primary Effects: Social justice is not compatible with individual justice, nor is it reconcilable with human nature; therefore, social justice is toxic to the American Constitutional Republic and the American way of life. Thus, we are going to fight.

Political Corruption

·         Secondary Effects: Politicians of a sufficiently high ranking, or outsiders of a sufficiently high connection, conspire publicly and privately to realize illegal, unethical, or immoral ends at the expense and damage of other persons, peoples, or nation states.

o   Rationale: Stealing is easier than legitimate earning. In this case, corruption is stealing resources using government power. Moreover, government power and connectivity significantly decreases criminal risk while maximizing ability to steal. – At local levels, corruption is condoned because of the view that high-level corruption does not adversely impact those not already directly involved.

o   Response: Executives claim innocence. Legislatures hold hearings. The Judiciary remains silent. The media demonizes capitalism as cronyism. The People hold their noses and wait for the next election; and then, empower another wave of corruption.

·         Primary Effects: Those that know better, not only arranged the system that allows such acts, but also (even while knowing of its existence) allowing those acts to continue.


Breaking Pathological Apathy
There is a common thread. That thread is the inability of the majority/common citizen to perceive, understand, or appreciate the value of American freedom as immeasurable. In other words, a “leader’s” promise to bestow safety, security, money, comfort, and individual identity are judged to be more valuable than an arrangement that empowers citizens to do those things for themselves.
Sure, on a regular basis, lip service is paid to ideals as we celebrate under their banners. However, when it’s time to do the dirty work of putting down violence done in the promise of being righteous, suppressing incompatible doctrines, ostracizing radical minorities, and not tolerating wrong-doers (all secondary effects) majority/common citizens chooses to fail, and fail miserably. – Why? Because, in their view, protecting American freedom and the American Way of Life is not worth the trouble; and, being in contempt of their civic duty is in no way distressing (all primary effects).
Thread characteristics are as follows: a lack of absolutes by which right and wrong can be objectively measured; a lack of conviction to resist degradation; a lack of courage to act when critical examination and bold correction is needed; and, a lack of faith in the ability of the majority/common citizen to solve problems for his or herself (all contributors to primary effects).
Because the American Way of Life is based on the ideal that free persons must consent to a course of action prior to starting that course, the protection of that ideal falls to the population of free persons (aka: the majority/common citizen). Therefore, the hard work of breaking this form of pathological apathy falls squarely on their shoulders.
Unfortunately, the deck is stacked. Those mechanisms designed to measure and/or correct primary effects have been allowed to erode, or were abdicated all together. – Today, absolutes are not taught in public forums, but allowed in Sunday school (under certain conditions); the Constitution is not studied as a discipline, but given a short number of hours as a matter of high school history.
Additionally, by action and inaction of social-political “leaders,” the majority/common citizen is incentivized to continue the degradation of those fundamental mechanisms that both parties claim to depend upon most dearly. In turn, pathological apathy is promoted. A selection of results of this arrangement include the following: reduction of value of human beings to an arbitrary worth; continued rejection of human nature as a sufficient standard; and increased acceptance of subjective feelings as a quantifiable measure.
 
Blasphemous Leadership Needed
I want to see some blasphemous “leadership” from those entrusted with social-political responsibilities. – I want to see “leaders” with American backbones. It’s time to reduce, abate, or eliminate primary effects BEFORE doing the same for secondary effects. It’s time for “leaders” to respect their constituents enough to say “no” to regressive, corrosive, or destructive ideas.
I want to see some blasphemous “leadership” from those entrusted with sharpening social-political fundamentals. – I want to see citizens display some American grit. It’s time for the majority/common citizen to see through the subterfuge, and standup for his or herself. It’s time for citizens to act in favor of their own good, versus abdicating action to a “higher authority”.
Should Americans decide to restore the primary foundations of inherent rights and human value naturally granted to The People, then the United States will remake itself as a beacon on the hill, and behave as the land of the free and home of the brave.
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
 
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com.
© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved
 



05 January 2017

Who will “Make America Great Again”? Not Trump – The People will!



By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
#SamFrescoe

#SamFrescoe #Trump #selfgovernance #Constitution #narrative #charisma #cultofpersonality

After the Presidential election I was pleased to see that the Electoral College process did its job (in effect, select a President). Yet, I was not excited about the results. On one hand, I was profoundly relieved that Clinton was defeated. On the other, I was unsure what the electorate just did.

On Election Day I executed a decision I made weeks before: to vote against the unacceptable option. Since that decision, I’ve been pondering about the “look and feel” of a Trump Presidency. I must admit, the idea of a political-outsider was attractive; but, Trump’s complete lack of “direct relevant experience” keeps providing me with pause.

On 30 Nov 2016, I posted an article titled “Trump – A new President with a new Attitude”. In that article I raised a concern: how can The People forecast the likely behavior (particularly decision-making) of a President Trump? – I came to two conclusions: 1) his leverage of a national-populist framework, guided by an “America First” mindset, is informative; 2) his authoritarian style makes him a wildcard likely to depart from the status quo. – I was left scratching my head.

As of the date of this post, it’s a small number of days before the President-Elect is sworn in as President; and, I’m still driven to pause and ponder. This time the pause is prompted by my observations of media messaging and its narrative. In my view, media messaging generally falls into one of two camps: “He’s not my President” and “Trump is going to make America great again.”

On one hand, there are those that reject the notion of a Trump Presidency. “He’s not qualified,” they claim as fact; or, he’s “illegitimate” and point to election processes. I am not all that concerned about this banter. Come 20 Jan 2017, all of this nonsense will largely be put to rest (as it won’t be as useful anymore) and the die-hards will continue to fade thereafter.

On the other hand, I see the rise of a dogmatic superstar that is known for breaking from the status quo. Additionally, there seems to be an ongoing narrative that “Trump is going to make America great again.” I am quite concerned about this banter. Come 20 Jan 2017, all of this political capital will be available for Executive use. In my view, given the lack of Constitutional couching within the discourse (I’m not referring to political party couching) is a serious problem for the republic. My fear is that The People may be granting consent as a matter of media momentum (aka: a mandate) rather than by a constitutional process (aka: the making of law).

So, in my view, critical questions remain: are The People going to concede their consent or not; and to what degree and how?

“So What?”

Simply stated, the President is just that, and nothing more. Not a ruler, monarch, messiah, hero, king, sovereign, tsar, raja, liege, emperor, majesty, or lord. However, the strength of the administrative state, coupled with an acceptance of Executive Orders on the level of law, does provide any President with a great deal of direct, unchecked, and un-constitutional power.

The United States of America was founded on the ideal of individual self-governance. To that end, the Founders ratified a Constitution that codified an arrangement of national government with enumerated and constrained powers. It happens that the Constitution and Bill of Rights codify a republic form of limited government, according to the consent of The People.

Framing

My intent is to examine media messaging that promotes the notion that “Trump will make America great again” because I want to show you how acceptance of this cult of personality is dangerous to the constitutional republic of the United States of America.

Getting Started

Today’s pro-Trump messaging is effective. I hear it repeated verbatim on the job, in the grocery store, and on the radio. Additionally, I’ve noticed the messaging largely falling into one of two categories: affirming charismatic authority (ex: the Trump Effect) and building a cult of personality (ex: the list of actions Trump is going to do for us). In my view, both versions exhibit harmful potential by fueling Trump’s “wildcard” preferences.

Charismatic Authority

Charismatic authority is a type of leadership in which authority derives from the charisma of the leader versus by legal or traditional authority.[1] In other words, a kind of headship in which authority stems from charm and appeal versus legitimacy by law or establishment by tradition. Additionally, because of this break from the legal and traditional, charismatic authority is often viewed as revolutionary and a means to usher in new normative patterns.[2]

In rhetorical terms, charismatic authority is a leadership type that derives authority from credibility (ethos) versus logic (logos) or empathy (pathos). In a classical sense, it’s a recognition of intelligence, character, and goodwill; and in this case, Trump definitely fits the bill. He is intelligent regarding business and deal-making. He is a strong departure from the “political norm” and seems comfortable around the common citizenry. He seems to go out of his way to demonstrate respect (such as glad-handing with police officers). In my view, all of this seems appropriately Presidential; however, the “revolutionary” warning remains loud and clear.

In my view, this type of messaging represents a potentially serious problem; not because the status quo is acceptable (it’s not), but because charismatic authority is not sufficiently stable to inform an estimation of a new normal.

Cult of Personality

A cult of personality continues to be built as Trump is deliberately presented to The People as a great person who should be admired and loved.[3] Given the incentives of a Presidential election, this approach represents sound strategy for achieving the desired end, winning the election. However, it’s the lingering narrative that suggests The People are helpless without Trump that continues to raise my concern. In short, because political action lags societal momentum, I am concerned that The People are being duped into forfeiting their consent in favor of a promised “a mandate for action.” Now add the recent acceptance of Executive abuses, and the principles of a limited, constitutional republic are in in danger of being outmaneuvered.[4] 

Taken together, fundamental questions remain open: What is the new normative pattern? How far will Trump go to see that America is made great again?

Going Forward

The popular premise that “Trump (himself) will make America great again” is a false narrative. Trump (a single man) will not make America great again. Furthermore, after he is sworn in as President, his ability to lawfully act in a unilateral fashion will become severely curtailed. While Trump can set a “make America great” tone, he cannot simply “make America great.”

The truth is that The People will make America great again. It will be the combined effort of the American people that will “make America great again.” It will be The People that produce; The People that protect lives and property; The People that heal bodies, minds, spirits, and souls; The People that safeguard our ideals; The People that make homes and raise families; The People that put skills in hands and knowledge in minds; The People that put food on the table; The People that maintain the peace; and The People that prepare for war. – The greatness of America is not secured by any one man. The greatness of America is built by a nation of hard-working, freedom-loving Americans.

America was deliberately founded on a good idea: self-governance. Self-governance is a trust amongst us that mutually demands independence, respect, and responsibility at the individual level. The Constitution of the United States, coupled with the Bill of Rights, was ratified to codify a government of limited powers designed to protect this good idea.

The Bottom Line

I am troubled by a political revolution that places charm and appeal above Constitutional law and American ideals. Still, it’s my personal hope that President Trump will usher a new normal that significantly breaks from the status quo and re-institutionalizes an All-American good idea: self-governance. That, indeed, would “make America great again.”

Thank you. – Sam Frescoe


Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com.

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority (accessed 170102) (2 notes, 17 citations, 6 sources)
[2] WEBER LINKS page http Archived April 26, 2005, at the Wayback Machine.  //  Kunin, Seth D. "Religion; the modern theories" University of Edinburgh 2003 ISBN 0-7486-1522-9 page 40
[4] Emily Cadei. “Cult of Personality: How Trump Uses the Playbook of Europe's Far Right”. Newsweek, US. 10 May 2016. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/20/how-trump-uses-playbook-europes-far-right-457566.html (accessed 170102)

01 January 2017

Great Dates in American History – January


By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project
#SamFrescoe

#SamFrescoe #American #History

American history is important. In my view, by studying the past we may better understand who we are today and where we must go tomorrow. My purpose today is to review major events in American history.

In your view, what are the major events in your American history? – Please leave a comment or send an e-mail (samfrescoe@gmail.com).

  • “The supreme purpose of history is a better world.” – Herbert Hoover, 31st American President (1874-1964)
  • “No matter what accomplishments you make, somebody helps you.” – Althea Gibson, an American tennis player and professional golfer (1927-2003)

1 Jan Annually
New Year’s Day
3rd Monday Annually
MLK Jr Birthday

January 2, 1788
Georgia joined the United States as a State
January 9, 1788
Connecticut joined the United States as a State
January 26, 1837
Michigan joined the United States as a State
January 29, 1861
Kansas joined the United States as a State
January 4, 1896
Utah joined the United States as a State
January 6, 1912
New Mexico joined the United States as a State
January 3, 1959
Alaska joined the United States as a State

January 7, 1800
Millard Fillmore was born
January 29, 1843
William McKinley was born
January 30, 1882
Franklin D. Roosevelt was born
January 9, 1913
Richard Nixon was born

20 Jan 1981
Iran Hostage Crisis Ends
28 Jan 1986
Challenger Inflight Disaster


Going Forward

“If we know where we came from, we may better know where to go. If we know who we came from, we may better understand who we are.” - Anonymous

“Preserve your memories, keep them well, what you forget you can never retell.” – Louisa May Alcott, an American novelist and poet (1832-1888)

“Maintaining one’s culture, values and traditions is beyond price.” – Getano Lui, Council member for Iama
“Every man is a quotation from all his ancestors.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American essayist, lecturer, and poet (1803-1882)
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe


Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com.

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved