THE ANONYMOUS TURKEY (Thanksgiving Day, 2003)
Interesting? Perhaps. Significant? Maybe. Paradigmatic? I dunno. Mountain out of molehill? Probably. Reaction of a knee-jerk liberal? Of course.
The President, up-close-and-personal, pardoned, as always, the official White House First Turkey. Then, just a couple of days later, there he was, chowing down on some faceless-headless-nameless anonymous turkey with the troops in Iraq.
Is there something about being up-close-and-personal that makes pain or death just that much more difficult to inflict? Is it harder when one looks the potential victim in the eye, establishes a relationship, builds some kind of a commonality of presence? How much easier is it to shoot the enemy when he is remote, depersonalized and demonized into a “Gook,” “Kraut,” “Nip,” “Veet-namese” (Thank you, Robert McNamara.), “Towelhead,” or part of the “Axis of Evil”? And, how much more attractive is it to rant about “niggers,” “Jewboys” and “faggots” in their anonymity than it is to croon the same epithet to their face?
Jailers are consistently warned not to build an empathic relationship with convicts. Recently, I visited a maximum-security prison just 20 miles from my home to minister to three Jewish lifers. That in itself is a story. The prison, though, was in lock-down, because a few days earlier, the chaplain, a truly decent, compassionate guy, was taken hostage . . . and blessedly released unharmed.
Certainly, the executioner must be a detached non-persona . . . and so many of them ultimately suffer residual trauma, anyways. Dylan the Bard articulated it in the early 60’s, in anticipation of an impending nuclear holocaust and a war that we could not win: “The face of the executioner,” he drawled, “is always well hidden.”
Perhaps when the enemy is really evil, fueled with genocidal venom, anonymity is essential to doing the heroic task at hand. Then again – here comes the unrepentant liberal in me – perhaps that theory is a confusion of cause and effect: Dehumanization, perhaps, is the force that gives birth to genocidal agendas. Maybe that is why the only people truly beyond redemption are certifiable psychopaths, sociopaths and malignant narcissists.
The roots of benevolence-up-close-and-cruelty-afar likely derive not from higher human conscience, but from our basic animal nature. Decades ago, Robert Ardrey expounded on this thesis in his The Territorial Imperative. The animal kingdom typically stakes its turf. It is hyper-protective of those who are near and dear and hostile to “outsider” beasts whom they perceive as encroaching on their territory.
Hence, too, human turf-protectiveness, sometimes to the point of irrationality. Hence, too, the rise in crime in tandem with the invention of the automobile, as conscience and fear of social sanction lessen when the victim is of another place and circumstance. Hence, too, the distrust that inheres in no longer knowing ones neighbor or walking the street among faceless strangers.
And, yes, that protectiveness of the up-close-and-personal extends even – for some people, especially – to the animals that surround us. Seasonal children’s farm-tales abound about fattening up the Christmas goose, only to find that it had become so much of the family that it was spared from the chopping block. In these stories, though, the punchline is typically not about substituting an anonymous goose, but by the family eating mashed potatoes and salad for Christmas dinner. (A friend once suggested that Jewish vegetarians should serve “paschal yam” at the Passover Seder!)
And, Garrison Keillor likewise has a wonderfully bittersweet tale about the elders of Lake Wobegon conducting the annual pig-slaughter as a solemn sacrament, not cruel carnage, and training their young sons, as a rite of passage, to carry on the sacred tradition.
I have plenty of gripes with the President, but on this one I will give him a pass. My Thanksgiving turkey, too, is an anonymous bird, slaughtered, plucked, hermetically sealed and frozen, from some unknown place straight to our abundant table. But, in the throes of a distant and nearby war and too many young men and women coming home in body bags, slaughter of any kind might give us pause to consider the inestimable tragedy that anonymity can leave in its wake.
Then again, Hillary went to Afghanistan to spend Thanksgiving with the troops, up-close-and-personal. Eat turkey? Of course. Eat crow? Never. So much for knee-jerk liberalism.
November 27, 2003
November 17, 2003
SCHMALTZ AND THE PORNOGRAPHY CONNECTION
Schmaltz, that mystifying alchemy of onion-infused rendered chicken fat, is Jewish pornography. It corrupts ones brain and heart. We hide it from our children at the back of the shelf, where only the adult hand may reach. It tempts us, and if we capitulate even a little, it punctuates our otherwise bland existence with a little randy diversion into vaguely illicit pleasure – the fantasy, not the pursuit, of a voluptuous mistress. Those of my coreligionists who eschew schmaltz do it with the credibility of the quasi-prudes who announce that they peruse Playboy “only for the articles.”
My mother used to render a sublime schmaltz, drawing forth globules of fat and the skin thereunto attached from well-bred chickens. This, too, is a sign of the times, as today’s frozen kosher poultry is largely denuded of its finest fat. It leads me to believe that it disappears into a huge, bootleg schmaltz cauldron in the Catskills or is sucked up in the Ronkonkoma triangle.
Rendering schmaltz typically involves the addition of chopped onions that sizzle and seethe with the liquefying fat until their brown-black shards join gnarled skin-cracklings at the bottom of the shimmering virginal pool. This lowly residue is so highly prized that attains the status of “gribenes,” Church Slavonic for “scraps.”
Gribenes may attain their destiny by lovingly fortifying an otherwise mundane blob of mashed potatoes or by adding a dimension of bawdiness to a too-tame bowl of chopped liver. Or, one may recklessly tempt fate by eating the gribenes au naturel, like popcorn. At 13, my 200-pound heft and terminal acne attested to mother-love run amok in the bowl of gribenes that my mom dotingly placed beside me once or twice a week while I watched American Bandstand. And, of course, the wages of sin are still manifest in the two coronary stents and pacemaker that took up residence in my body by the age of 50.
Schmaltz, thus, has omnipotence second only to the Greek male’s application of a therapeutic schpritz of Windex to all of life’s vicissitudes. Fry an egg or some hamburgers in it. Wondrous. Slather it on a piece of matzo, sprinkle some coarse salt and broil for a moment. Nirvana. Schmaltz enriches mashed potatoes, binds chopped liver, and perfectly melds together the elements of an egg salad unlike any that Mrs. Loopner ever concocted for Todd and Lisa.
Indeed, herein lies an immigrant’s tale of acculturation: Mayonnaise was entirely foreign to first-generation Jewish-American homemakers. Moreover, they refused to believe that its creamy texture could be achieved without the addition of some dairy product, thus making it unfit for home-cooked meals, which were usually meat-based. Likewise, Pa and Bubbe could not give away Crisco or margarine to their customers, because it looked so much like . . . feh . . . lard. Thus, for decades schmaltz was pressed into service for all sorts of culinary processes, until Jewish homemakers either stopped being so meticulous in kosher observance or they started believing (“What do men know?”) the orthodox rabbinate’s reassurance that mayo and vegetable shortening were indeed fit for Jewish consumption.
In the lowest circle of Dante’s Inferno there must be a repertoire of stories about the toxic relationship between gentiles and schmaltz. Archetypical among them is surely a cautionary tale that I witnessed late one night while forcing myself to finish a Brobdingnagian hunk of cheese strudel at the legendary Carnegie Deli. Next to me sat a classically Upper West Side couple and their guest, a businessman from Texas.
Allowing him no choice, they ordered a platter of chopped liver “just for the experience.” Then they requested from the waiter a pot of schmaltz from the back room “to complete the effect.” They heaped spoonfuls of the viscous schmaltz onto the already greasy-shimmery chopped liver, handed a piece of rye bread to Tex and insisted he dig in. They snickered furtively at the unsuspecting rube. But he loved it. And I betcha he loved it again and again and again all night long until he hated it. And if he slept at all, I guarantee that he arose with a Jewish intestinal hangover that only a Bromo could fix. And I betcha that he hightailed his way back to Big D fully aware for the first time that the most dangerous part of the steer is not its long horns.
Everything in moderation, I parrot the cliché. And, in fact, it has been years since I have been so brazen as to render a pot of schmaltz, or enrich my chopped liver with it, or baste my Thanksgiving turkey in it (Try dry sake instead), or nosh on gribenes a-nekkid. But, I still yearn for it, crave it as one craves the love of his youth and the delicious temptations that tried his innocence. I dare not, I say to myself. I cannot. I ought not. And, God give me the strength, I will not.
Capitulation, though, is an ever-present urge. That day may come. When it does and you read my obituary, do not believe what it says about succumbing to aortic stenosis or cerebral embolism. You will know the truth: Schmaltz was my lethal paramour. Thus, you may be certain that just as my pacemaker shorted out and my stents collapsed, I toasted my Jewish heritage, went gently and well greased into that dark night, and died one happy, corpulent guy. Inscribe this on my tombstone: He liked his mayo, but gave his life for his schmaltz.
Visit one of Marc's pet projects, JEWISH CHAPLAINCY OF THE UPSTATE.
Schmaltz, that mystifying alchemy of onion-infused rendered chicken fat, is Jewish pornography. It corrupts ones brain and heart. We hide it from our children at the back of the shelf, where only the adult hand may reach. It tempts us, and if we capitulate even a little, it punctuates our otherwise bland existence with a little randy diversion into vaguely illicit pleasure – the fantasy, not the pursuit, of a voluptuous mistress. Those of my coreligionists who eschew schmaltz do it with the credibility of the quasi-prudes who announce that they peruse Playboy “only for the articles.”
My mother used to render a sublime schmaltz, drawing forth globules of fat and the skin thereunto attached from well-bred chickens. This, too, is a sign of the times, as today’s frozen kosher poultry is largely denuded of its finest fat. It leads me to believe that it disappears into a huge, bootleg schmaltz cauldron in the Catskills or is sucked up in the Ronkonkoma triangle.
Rendering schmaltz typically involves the addition of chopped onions that sizzle and seethe with the liquefying fat until their brown-black shards join gnarled skin-cracklings at the bottom of the shimmering virginal pool. This lowly residue is so highly prized that attains the status of “gribenes,” Church Slavonic for “scraps.”
Gribenes may attain their destiny by lovingly fortifying an otherwise mundane blob of mashed potatoes or by adding a dimension of bawdiness to a too-tame bowl of chopped liver. Or, one may recklessly tempt fate by eating the gribenes au naturel, like popcorn. At 13, my 200-pound heft and terminal acne attested to mother-love run amok in the bowl of gribenes that my mom dotingly placed beside me once or twice a week while I watched American Bandstand. And, of course, the wages of sin are still manifest in the two coronary stents and pacemaker that took up residence in my body by the age of 50.
Schmaltz, thus, has omnipotence second only to the Greek male’s application of a therapeutic schpritz of Windex to all of life’s vicissitudes. Fry an egg or some hamburgers in it. Wondrous. Slather it on a piece of matzo, sprinkle some coarse salt and broil for a moment. Nirvana. Schmaltz enriches mashed potatoes, binds chopped liver, and perfectly melds together the elements of an egg salad unlike any that Mrs. Loopner ever concocted for Todd and Lisa.
Indeed, herein lies an immigrant’s tale of acculturation: Mayonnaise was entirely foreign to first-generation Jewish-American homemakers. Moreover, they refused to believe that its creamy texture could be achieved without the addition of some dairy product, thus making it unfit for home-cooked meals, which were usually meat-based. Likewise, Pa and Bubbe could not give away Crisco or margarine to their customers, because it looked so much like . . . feh . . . lard. Thus, for decades schmaltz was pressed into service for all sorts of culinary processes, until Jewish homemakers either stopped being so meticulous in kosher observance or they started believing (“What do men know?”) the orthodox rabbinate’s reassurance that mayo and vegetable shortening were indeed fit for Jewish consumption.
In the lowest circle of Dante’s Inferno there must be a repertoire of stories about the toxic relationship between gentiles and schmaltz. Archetypical among them is surely a cautionary tale that I witnessed late one night while forcing myself to finish a Brobdingnagian hunk of cheese strudel at the legendary Carnegie Deli. Next to me sat a classically Upper West Side couple and their guest, a businessman from Texas.
Allowing him no choice, they ordered a platter of chopped liver “just for the experience.” Then they requested from the waiter a pot of schmaltz from the back room “to complete the effect.” They heaped spoonfuls of the viscous schmaltz onto the already greasy-shimmery chopped liver, handed a piece of rye bread to Tex and insisted he dig in. They snickered furtively at the unsuspecting rube. But he loved it. And I betcha he loved it again and again and again all night long until he hated it. And if he slept at all, I guarantee that he arose with a Jewish intestinal hangover that only a Bromo could fix. And I betcha that he hightailed his way back to Big D fully aware for the first time that the most dangerous part of the steer is not its long horns.
Everything in moderation, I parrot the cliché. And, in fact, it has been years since I have been so brazen as to render a pot of schmaltz, or enrich my chopped liver with it, or baste my Thanksgiving turkey in it (Try dry sake instead), or nosh on gribenes a-nekkid. But, I still yearn for it, crave it as one craves the love of his youth and the delicious temptations that tried his innocence. I dare not, I say to myself. I cannot. I ought not. And, God give me the strength, I will not.
Capitulation, though, is an ever-present urge. That day may come. When it does and you read my obituary, do not believe what it says about succumbing to aortic stenosis or cerebral embolism. You will know the truth: Schmaltz was my lethal paramour. Thus, you may be certain that just as my pacemaker shorted out and my stents collapsed, I toasted my Jewish heritage, went gently and well greased into that dark night, and died one happy, corpulent guy. Inscribe this on my tombstone: He liked his mayo, but gave his life for his schmaltz.
Visit one of Marc's pet projects, JEWISH CHAPLAINCY OF THE UPSTATE.
November 13, 2003
MEL GIBSON’S PASSION – NO BIG WHOOP
You know what I think about all the hoohah over Mel Gibson’s movie about Jesus’s trial and execution, The Passion of the Christ? z-z-zzz . . .
Is it anti-Semitic? Is Mel Gibson a well-motivated or ill-intentioned fanatic crackpot? Is his intention and/or mission to tell a revisionist “real truth” about culpability for Jesus’s death and pin it on the Jews? Does he want Christendom to declare a Holy War to avenge the Jews’ guilt?
Does any of this really matter? Nope.
The only question of any relevance is if this potboiler will change anyone’s mind about Jews and their intended destiny. I weigh in on the side of “no one.”
Moderate, open-minded Christians will remain moderate and open-minded. They will continue to accept Jews as friends and Judaism as another legitimate path toward God, like their own. Even if they wish for Jews to embrace Christianity, they will witness through their works, not their browbeating, to win our hearts to their Christian beneficence.
The Catholics? The vast majority of Catholics already think that Gibson is loose-cannon-cum-nutcase, and for nearly four decades, Papal authority itself has declared anti-Semitism taboo. So, if the Knights Templar are going to mount a crusade against the Jews, it better be a quiet one.
Conservative Christians who are faithful to fundamentalist doctrines certainly do not want Jews persecuted or dead. Indeed, to the Fundamentalist, the very redemption of the world depends on the exaltation of the Jew, not his undoing. If there is any rub between Jews and Fundamentalists, it is over the Fundamentalist claim to the exclusivity of salvation and the dynamic tension that inheres in any avowedly loving relationship that revolves around “I love you. You’re perfect. Now change.” But, to this I will attest: Some bellicose Fundamentalists may annoy us, but they do not hate us. And, the wacky perspective of an off-the-deep-end Catholic will certainly not change their minds.
What about the secular humanists? Well, despite the pronouncements of some conservatives, lots of secular humanists are truly warm, compassionate, ethical people. They truly do walk the talk about universal harmony. Yes, the more contentious among them also have their minion. But, they are invariably more wrapped up in keeping the Christmas tree and/or Chanukah menorah off the village square. Somehow, avenging Jesus’s death does not even make it to the agenda.
So, whom does that leave? Hindus? Buddhists? Baha’i? Zoroastrians? Moderate Muslims? Somehow, I am not scared.
Ah, the radical Islamists? Well, if you give a gander at the bilious anti-Semitism, secular and religious, vomited forth each day by the Saudi press and Al-Jazeera, you will immediately realize that anything Gibson has produced looks like a Hadassah convention.
I guess that leaves just the folks who are already anti-Semites. And, since most of them hate the Catholics as much as they hate the Jews, chances are that Mel’s movie will do little more to stoke the fires. We have had to worry about the hardcore anti-Semites all along, and one way or another, we will have to worry about them forever. They come in all shapes and flavors, but lowest on their list of “things we can blame on the Jews” is the death of Jesus.
You may say that I sound sarcastic, even cynical. Nope, I am just jaded. I am a thirty-plus year rabbinic veteran of the maelstrom of Jewish life. In that time, I have heard doomsayers declare countless irreparable breaches in Jewish-Christian relations and anti-Semitic watersheds. (Remember the ruckuses over Jesus Christ Superstar, Passover Plot and Last Temptation of Christ?) Now, I simply nod my head and wearily say, “Here we go again.” Why? Because at the end of the day, the apocalypse had not arrived, and the ominous threats and explosive issues had made little more than a dull thud. Honorable people stayed honorable, scoundrels remained scoundrels, and ob-la-di, ob-la-da, life somehow goes on.
So, go see Gibson’s magnum opus, if you wish. Or, stay home and watch Friends. If you do decide to go, good luck trying to decipher the Aramaic. If you ask me nice, I may be willing to give you a hand.
You know what I think about all the hoohah over Mel Gibson’s movie about Jesus’s trial and execution, The Passion of the Christ? z-z-zzz . . .
Is it anti-Semitic? Is Mel Gibson a well-motivated or ill-intentioned fanatic crackpot? Is his intention and/or mission to tell a revisionist “real truth” about culpability for Jesus’s death and pin it on the Jews? Does he want Christendom to declare a Holy War to avenge the Jews’ guilt?
Does any of this really matter? Nope.
The only question of any relevance is if this potboiler will change anyone’s mind about Jews and their intended destiny. I weigh in on the side of “no one.”
Moderate, open-minded Christians will remain moderate and open-minded. They will continue to accept Jews as friends and Judaism as another legitimate path toward God, like their own. Even if they wish for Jews to embrace Christianity, they will witness through their works, not their browbeating, to win our hearts to their Christian beneficence.
The Catholics? The vast majority of Catholics already think that Gibson is loose-cannon-cum-nutcase, and for nearly four decades, Papal authority itself has declared anti-Semitism taboo. So, if the Knights Templar are going to mount a crusade against the Jews, it better be a quiet one.
Conservative Christians who are faithful to fundamentalist doctrines certainly do not want Jews persecuted or dead. Indeed, to the Fundamentalist, the very redemption of the world depends on the exaltation of the Jew, not his undoing. If there is any rub between Jews and Fundamentalists, it is over the Fundamentalist claim to the exclusivity of salvation and the dynamic tension that inheres in any avowedly loving relationship that revolves around “I love you. You’re perfect. Now change.” But, to this I will attest: Some bellicose Fundamentalists may annoy us, but they do not hate us. And, the wacky perspective of an off-the-deep-end Catholic will certainly not change their minds.
What about the secular humanists? Well, despite the pronouncements of some conservatives, lots of secular humanists are truly warm, compassionate, ethical people. They truly do walk the talk about universal harmony. Yes, the more contentious among them also have their minion. But, they are invariably more wrapped up in keeping the Christmas tree and/or Chanukah menorah off the village square. Somehow, avenging Jesus’s death does not even make it to the agenda.
So, whom does that leave? Hindus? Buddhists? Baha’i? Zoroastrians? Moderate Muslims? Somehow, I am not scared.
Ah, the radical Islamists? Well, if you give a gander at the bilious anti-Semitism, secular and religious, vomited forth each day by the Saudi press and Al-Jazeera, you will immediately realize that anything Gibson has produced looks like a Hadassah convention.
I guess that leaves just the folks who are already anti-Semites. And, since most of them hate the Catholics as much as they hate the Jews, chances are that Mel’s movie will do little more to stoke the fires. We have had to worry about the hardcore anti-Semites all along, and one way or another, we will have to worry about them forever. They come in all shapes and flavors, but lowest on their list of “things we can blame on the Jews” is the death of Jesus.
You may say that I sound sarcastic, even cynical. Nope, I am just jaded. I am a thirty-plus year rabbinic veteran of the maelstrom of Jewish life. In that time, I have heard doomsayers declare countless irreparable breaches in Jewish-Christian relations and anti-Semitic watersheds. (Remember the ruckuses over Jesus Christ Superstar, Passover Plot and Last Temptation of Christ?) Now, I simply nod my head and wearily say, “Here we go again.” Why? Because at the end of the day, the apocalypse had not arrived, and the ominous threats and explosive issues had made little more than a dull thud. Honorable people stayed honorable, scoundrels remained scoundrels, and ob-la-di, ob-la-da, life somehow goes on.
So, go see Gibson’s magnum opus, if you wish. Or, stay home and watch Friends. If you do decide to go, good luck trying to decipher the Aramaic. If you ask me nice, I may be willing to give you a hand.
November 11, 2003
BEWARE OF THE WHITE-COLLAR REDNECK
How can smart people be so stupid? Every talking head and syndicated pundit is on a tear about Howard Dean and his ill-spoken one-liner about courting the redneck vote. Defend him. Criticize him. In the panoply of last week’s political blather, it was nowhere nearly so idiotic as the President’s vision of Middle Eastern theocracies and monarchies epiphanic embracing of Western-style democracy.
Believe me. I live in the heartland of guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. And, do not forget Confederate battle flags defiantly unfurled from front-yard flagpoles and vituperatively racist bumper stickers. (I saw it with my own eyes: If I Knew You’d Cause This Much Trouble, I’d Have Picked the Cotton Myself!) These are not nice people. These are folks who are still ranting about secession and slavery and “outside agitators.”
Do they scare me? You bet they do. Does their influence befoul the entire civic-economic-social-cultural-political agenda of places like Greenville? You bet it does. Howard Dean will never get their votes. If nothing else, he is a slick Yankee who went to med school at Yeshiva University and has a Jewish wife and kids.
The rednecks really worthy of fear, though, are those encircled by white collars and Brooks Brothers ties. Their agenda may not be quite so radical and the rhetoric not quite so bellicose, but the underlying ethos is the same as that of their grimier cousins. And worse, their wealth and power enable them to impose the redneck agenda, not merely rail about it.
At its crux, the white-collar redneck agenda is also about segregation and marginalization. The extent to which it enforces racial boundaries, though, derives from the compulsion to divide the America into haves and have-nots. The haves must perpetuate a socially- and economically-bereft underclass on whose backs their comfort and fortunes are built.
I worked for a couple of years as factotum to a prosperous boss, compelling me to be an observer of an affluent community’s power-elite. There, I witnessed first hand the openly discussed machinations of the overclass. The plan always revolved around subjugating the underclass to ensure that a continuous flow of fodder would sustain the prosperity of the overclass's factories, mills, ziggurats and palaces. Have-nots were treated benevolently, but not so benevolently that they could ever transcend their paltry wage and inferior housing and education. And, if the economic winds were to shift, somehow the overclass would find a way to maintain its gracious lifestyle, while the underclass would get laid-off.
I have seen enough of the underclass to know that it is not full of shiftless, drugged-out ignoramuses. If it suffers from any malady, it is hopelessness. Its hopelessness is well justified by the ludicrousness of trying to sustain a family at minimum wage.
It comes from the pre-planned inferiority of educational opportunities and social services. It comes from public transportation systems that get servants to and from their masters’ homes but that are willfully not routed from where poor people live to where they might find better employment. It comes from the bureaucratic labyrinth and its indifferent bureaucrats that homeless people must navigate to gain basic sustenance, much less to transition themselves out of homelessness. It comes from tokenistic urban renewal for the poor, while community after community arises to feed gentrification. It comes from creating an urban facade that keeps poor neighborhoods just out of sight, so that no one proper might see the eyesore and realize that the streets are so narrow that they cannot be reached by fire trucks and EMS.
No, theirs is not the kind of hopelessness that one transcends with a “Golly gee! Time to get off my butt!” Theirs is a hopelessness meticulously choreographed by the overclass largely for its own selfish purposes. For, however threatening a crack dealer or a panhandler might seem, face it, they are nowhere nearly so threatening as a truly empowered underclass.
Hence, the rancor should not be over wooing pickup-truck rednecks. It should be over the courtship of the white-collar rednecks, the ones who really wield the influence.
You see, you battle-flag-wavin’, snuff-dippin’ rednecks need not despair. Your goals are already being well accomplished by the rednecks who can make a difference. They are white-collar guys like George Bush the Younger, who will make sure that his button-down buds prosper through an economic upswing and social programs that are built on the back of the hopeless underclass. The only thing that you pickup-truck rednecks have not yet figured out is that you, too, are just part of the same hopeless underclass. And guess what? President George W. Bush does not care about you any more than does . . . Howard Dean.
How can smart people be so stupid? Every talking head and syndicated pundit is on a tear about Howard Dean and his ill-spoken one-liner about courting the redneck vote. Defend him. Criticize him. In the panoply of last week’s political blather, it was nowhere nearly so idiotic as the President’s vision of Middle Eastern theocracies and monarchies epiphanic embracing of Western-style democracy.
Believe me. I live in the heartland of guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. And, do not forget Confederate battle flags defiantly unfurled from front-yard flagpoles and vituperatively racist bumper stickers. (I saw it with my own eyes: If I Knew You’d Cause This Much Trouble, I’d Have Picked the Cotton Myself!) These are not nice people. These are folks who are still ranting about secession and slavery and “outside agitators.”
Do they scare me? You bet they do. Does their influence befoul the entire civic-economic-social-cultural-political agenda of places like Greenville? You bet it does. Howard Dean will never get their votes. If nothing else, he is a slick Yankee who went to med school at Yeshiva University and has a Jewish wife and kids.
The rednecks really worthy of fear, though, are those encircled by white collars and Brooks Brothers ties. Their agenda may not be quite so radical and the rhetoric not quite so bellicose, but the underlying ethos is the same as that of their grimier cousins. And worse, their wealth and power enable them to impose the redneck agenda, not merely rail about it.
At its crux, the white-collar redneck agenda is also about segregation and marginalization. The extent to which it enforces racial boundaries, though, derives from the compulsion to divide the America into haves and have-nots. The haves must perpetuate a socially- and economically-bereft underclass on whose backs their comfort and fortunes are built.
I worked for a couple of years as factotum to a prosperous boss, compelling me to be an observer of an affluent community’s power-elite. There, I witnessed first hand the openly discussed machinations of the overclass. The plan always revolved around subjugating the underclass to ensure that a continuous flow of fodder would sustain the prosperity of the overclass's factories, mills, ziggurats and palaces. Have-nots were treated benevolently, but not so benevolently that they could ever transcend their paltry wage and inferior housing and education. And, if the economic winds were to shift, somehow the overclass would find a way to maintain its gracious lifestyle, while the underclass would get laid-off.
I have seen enough of the underclass to know that it is not full of shiftless, drugged-out ignoramuses. If it suffers from any malady, it is hopelessness. Its hopelessness is well justified by the ludicrousness of trying to sustain a family at minimum wage.
It comes from the pre-planned inferiority of educational opportunities and social services. It comes from public transportation systems that get servants to and from their masters’ homes but that are willfully not routed from where poor people live to where they might find better employment. It comes from the bureaucratic labyrinth and its indifferent bureaucrats that homeless people must navigate to gain basic sustenance, much less to transition themselves out of homelessness. It comes from tokenistic urban renewal for the poor, while community after community arises to feed gentrification. It comes from creating an urban facade that keeps poor neighborhoods just out of sight, so that no one proper might see the eyesore and realize that the streets are so narrow that they cannot be reached by fire trucks and EMS.
No, theirs is not the kind of hopelessness that one transcends with a “Golly gee! Time to get off my butt!” Theirs is a hopelessness meticulously choreographed by the overclass largely for its own selfish purposes. For, however threatening a crack dealer or a panhandler might seem, face it, they are nowhere nearly so threatening as a truly empowered underclass.
Hence, the rancor should not be over wooing pickup-truck rednecks. It should be over the courtship of the white-collar rednecks, the ones who really wield the influence.
You see, you battle-flag-wavin’, snuff-dippin’ rednecks need not despair. Your goals are already being well accomplished by the rednecks who can make a difference. They are white-collar guys like George Bush the Younger, who will make sure that his button-down buds prosper through an economic upswing and social programs that are built on the back of the hopeless underclass. The only thing that you pickup-truck rednecks have not yet figured out is that you, too, are just part of the same hopeless underclass. And guess what? President George W. Bush does not care about you any more than does . . . Howard Dean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)