It occurs to me that the latest Gabriel Gomez kerfuffle is a worthy successor to such fine hoo-raws of the past as “Mission Accomplished”, Etch-a-Sketch, Citizens United, Scott Browns’ unbridled sexism and racism (“He’s for us“) and that old particular favorite, purple-heart bandaids: an example of the Republican ethos (sic) of style over substance, appearance before action and (shock! horror! gasp!) profitting from relativism…
Let us review: Gabriel Gomez has a house in Cohasset. This house is located in an historic district and, indeed, the house itself is ‘historic’ (read: old). As such, the historically minded brahmins of Cohasset[1] have deemed it worthy of statis: legally forbidding owners, in this case Gabriel Gomez, from making exterior changes. In apparent reply to this Gabriel Gomez has agreed to abide by the law, that is to say he agrees to do nothing to the exterior of the house, and, simultaneously, valuing the changes he wouldn’t make to the facade in the amount of $281,000. Rather than leaving it at that, Gomez’ takes the easement that is valueless, per the local ordinance, and donates it, wholesale (sic) to a Washington DC historical trust, at a value of, you guessed it, $281,000. Gabriel Gomez gave an utterly valueless piece of paper to a Washington DC trust fund and claimed that the value represented by the piece of paper was 281,000 dollars. The trust fund did not receive so much as one dollar. Gabriel Gomez turned around and deducted $281,000 from his tax liability for the honor of handing over a valueless piece of paper to the trust…
Wow. He must possess Rmoney-esque powers of wealth creation as he, apparently, can create wealth out of… well… nothing. One day it can’t be changed. The very next day, changing it would cost well over a quarter of a million dollars. The mind, it reels. The gob, it is smacked. The head, it is scratch mightily…
The IRS frowns upon this sort of caper, classifying it as “charitable contributions fraud”. On a side note, one has to wonder if, A) the IRS has a particular animus to Gabriel Gomez and is thus calling him out alone or 2) the practice is particularly widespread enough, amongst (that is) those both able enough to afford antiquities in historical contexts and able to make large scale donations to obscure (out of state) trusts. Cynical minds might be tempted to believe that this particular trust was created, in Washington DC no less, for the sole purpose of furtherance of said capers across the nation…
It is reminiscent of George Dubya putting on a flight-suit and declaring “Mission Accomplished” when the mission was muddled and nowhere near accomplished. The reality, in spirit and deed, was distinct in its separation from the facade, but that didn’t seem to matter in the slightest: The real cost of the war, the bulk of which had yet to be paid in 2003 when the banner reading “mission accomplished” was flown, was nowhere in relevance.
It’s also redolent of the contextual and cognitive dissonance needed to both support a coward and draft dodger like George W Bush by engaging in rank calumny of a war hero like John Kerry by the donning of ‘purple heart bandaids’: slight the battlefield injuries of one in order to slight the cowardice of the other; facade torn asunder and facade erected and nothing, ever, real is touched.
I could go on: Citizens United, flagrant handwaving in naked pursuit of corporate interests: Eric Fehrnstrom and the famed “Etch-a-Sketch” comment whose subtext was to be able to present anything to anyone: Scott Browns’ viciously racist and sexist campaign that said if Elizabeth Warren was other than what she appeared, she was less than a pure white woman; The attack in Benghazi looks like something therefore it must be something… on and on the relativism puts on and havoc follows.
The deeper point is the manifestation, clearly exhibited here, of blatant manipulation of the facade and of rank contextualism: changes Gomez doesn’t, and cannot, make are worth nothing to Cohasset and… yet… are worth $281,000 in the context of federal tax deductions; it’s all about appearance and appearance is all about with whom it is you are speaking… and the appearance can change as quickly as you can change to whom it is you are interacting with… It is the new version of the ‘etch-a-sketch’: in Cohasset it’s one thing, but on the tax form, shake and clear, it’s a complete other thing. Such is the very basis of ‘dog whistles’ and ‘whisper campaigns’. A myriad of tactics, and their clear opposite, can reside in the same strategy and the same strategist. The Republican party is fast approaching an apotheosis of relativism and context switching that threatens to overwhelm us all.
Gabriel Gomez, it seems, really is a Republican, through and through.
[1] “Cohasset” is an Algonquin word mean “nothing to see here, move along… ”
I know Scott Brown had his moments, but how in the world is that slogan sexist or racist? Why not refer to Brown as “he” being, you know, a man after all? What racial connotation does “us” have? I’m pretty sure he meant that as refering to the people of MA as opposed to what he perceived to be DC elites.
…Scott Brown decried the use of the terms “us” and “them” while standing behind a placard proclaiming “He’s for us” – it’s about 45 seconds in on this video:
His slogan, “He’s for us”, was meant to appeal to his base – white Republicans. I always saw it as racist.
It’s a little bit of a dog whistle given the past few decades’ worth of history here, as we were discussing on the other thread. Brown’s appeal was to people who feel their community is under assault by such “elites,” and that group overlaps considerably with those who define “us” by excluding the non-white as well as the pointy-headed intellectual. There are plenty of people in Massachusetts who see being represented by a Democrat in the Senate as a good thing, not being under the thumb of “DC elites.” The slogan was not designed for those people.
This is not unique to Massachusetts. It reminded me of John McCain’s “Country First” slogan, which one could take as innocent love of country or as a thinly veiled statement that Barack Obama was not sufficiently “American.” It shows up in the conservative definition of “real America,” which excludes New England, New York City, and most of California. It shows up in GOP statements about “real Virginia,” meaning conservative and rural. Blacks in Norfolk and federal workers in Fairfax need not apply; they are “Fake Virginians.”
In the same clip he talked about WE the people and being nobody’s Senator but yours and the slogan fits that theme. There is absolutely zero evidence of racism beyond your assumption that seems to be well he’s a Republican so he must be appealing to a racist base.
is that I have lived among that base for most of my life. I have spent my life around people who talk all the time about how “they” (the non-whites, the immigrants, the liberals) have f’ed things up, so things are not “the same” for “us” (the white, 40-to-80K a year, ethnic townie).
I have overheard the Boston Herald-fueled chats at Dunkin Donuts, been lectured to as I canvassed, sat in people’s kitchens (my aunt is in this crowd) and heard all about how they want someone who’ll stand up for “us.” To them, Dorcena Forrry and Deval Patrick are not great steps forward for an inclusive polity; they’re the end of an era for “us.” Those are the people who don’t like liberal Democrats. Those are the people a Scott Brown must win. And he tailored his campaign to them.
My family in NY lives in a neighborhood of Brooklyn where the same thing is happening. There are many immigrants these days, and a lot of Arabic spoken. The local websites are full of “It’s not Bay Ridge anymore, it’s Beirut” and “we are surrounded by terrorists.” Little point in telling the Italian-American purveyors of such comments that 90-100 years ago the prior residents said the same things about their grandparents.
…are largely the ones who appreciate limited government but would never take this attitude. There are those people to be sure, but unless you can read Brown’s mind you can’t make the connection.
…is that only the dogs will hear it. You don’t hear the dog whistle because you’re not a racist – that doesn’t mean that the whistle isn’t being blown.
Here’s a post from DKos about Rand Paul engaging in the exact same rhetoric just yesterday:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/11/1208394/-Rand-Paul-Republican-outreach-fail-again
Republicans just can’t help themselves – they are rabidly tribal.
He was talking about Republicans broadening their appeal, so when he says “us” he is refering to Republicans who, yes, are largely white. I take it as saying we Republicans are too white right now and we need to change that. Of course what really matters is whether actions follow the rhetoric.
… think that ‘limited government’ exists by itself: that it is an thing free from taint and apart and away from the movement which spawned it. It is not. It, too, is a facade constructed to present one face and hide the other.
One can no more divorce the notion of ‘limited government’ from the racist and sexist side of the right than one can claim that the second amendment, itself, wasn’t implemented to protect white slaveholders who were vastly outnumbered by their chattel slaves. The notion of ‘limited government’ and keeping Blacks in their place, are inextricably bound.
Now the thing that makes it plausible is the notion that it could be separate, apart and wholly unengaged with a fey ideology and, most importantly, be something other than just a facade. That, to date, has not happened. Not even in liberal progressive Massachusetts where Scott Brown whistled for the hairiest dogs and, briefly, succeeded, have we seen anything approaching the idea of ‘limited government’ solely and completely for the sake of ‘limited government’: for no other reason than it might be a good idea and able to stand on it’s own.
If it was a good idea, and could stand on it’s own, you’d have seen liberals embracing it long ere now and making something useful out of it.
I know people who sincerely believe that a limited government is best for ALL people regardless of their race. Your connecting the 2nd amendment to slavery is frankly bad history worthy of Michele Bachmann. The drafters of that were more concerned about a rerun of the British trying to seize the gun stores at Lexington and they feared a standing army as a threat to liberty.
… since no such people exist. Oh, yeah, they are ‘sincere’ to the extent that they find it, on the surface valid, but what do they do with it? Do they advocate for less defense spending? (on the theory that you are not limiting anything if you allow unlimited firepower…) Do they advocate for better education? (on the theory that the government that gives away free education is giving away the last vestiges of true control. ) Do they advocate for greater religious freedom? (on the theory that greater an individual is connected to his own religion, the looser, more free, the connection to the state)
What do they do with it, Christopher? They advocate for less healthcare. That’s what. They advocate for less medicare. They advocate for less welfare and less ‘wealth re-distribution’ even though the original distribution of wealth is grossly out of balance. They advocate for less religious freedom and they advocate for less public education. The theory of ‘limited government’ is a hollow shell conveniently sized to hang a hat…
The difference, Christopher, between you and I is that you take people at their word. That’s an essentially honest position that assumes honesty in others. Not a bad way to live. In some ways I envy you.
I’m less honest, I guess, or more prone to see dishonesty, and so I take what people tell me and I compare it to their actions. I see “he’s for us” and I look at what he does and I see he’s not for ALL of “us”… just some of “us”. I see a pointed counterpoint in the use of “he” when “he” is running against a “not he”. If I assumed honesty in Scott Brown, I guess I would just accept that “he’s for us” at face value. I don’t assume honesty.
As to the second amendment and the return of tyranny: consider the history. Between 1820 and 1861 the struggle over slavery’s expansion became bitter and exposed deep deep divides that culminated in the Civil War. Slavery, you’ll note, wasn’t even mentioned in the constitution… yet it was the cause (and don’t let anybody tell you different) of some of the bloodiest battles in this nations history. Men fought and died to abolish slavery and other men fought and died to oppose the abolition of slavery.
Yet who fought and died to oppose the creation of a standing army?
That which WAS mentioned, and explicitly so, in the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, and implicitly, as you allude, the fear of a standing army, garnered not so much as a sneeze when we dropped it like a poxed chicken. It wasn’t about the return of tyranny. It was about keeping slaves in line. And when there were no more slaves to keep in line, there was no more reason to oppose a standing army, (or, conversely, advocate for militias). Some even took to creating extra-judicial militias of their own to terrorize the population of former slaves (the Ku Klux Klan being the most prominent…)
Great sturm und drang regarding slavery, over DECADES culminating in the civil war with terroristic remnants afterwards. Yet when we moved from militias to a standing army… nothing. What does that tell you? What can we infer from the difference between what was said or written and what actually happened…?
Some do in fact argue per your first paragraph as a matter of principle. Those that argue per your second paragraph also construct non-racist arguments for them. Do I encounter those who see things through a tribal lens? Of course, but hardly all of them by a long shot. If you truly do not know people like that I humbly suggest you get out more:)
As for the second amendment you have not made the case for a slavery connection. The rest of what you say above about slavery is accurate, but you make huge leaps of logic and inferences that are not to the best of my knowledge (and being a key area of my interest and study the best of my knowledge is pretty great if I do say so myself) supported by any documentary evidence from the time of its enactment. If you can come up with a citation I’d be happy to take a look.
The Republican strategy for the past 50+ years has been characterized by:
To me, with all due respect Christopher, I don’t see that pushing for “limited government” is much different than talking about “states’ rights.”
Particularly when the Republican party today uses “Obamacare” as its’ leading example of not-limited government. Indeed, wiser Republicans eschew the “government-controlled health care” nonsense pretty quickly and have shifted to the more familiar “states’ rights” arguments. Romney was himself forced in to this box while trying to defend his own Romneycare and still attack Obamacare.
TO ME, its’ just so clear that “limited government” is still code for “I don’t want my money to pay for things for ‘them’ (other races, immigrants, poor people).” Rather I want government that is for “us” and therefore promotes very limited government that spends very to maintain the social safety net.
Obamacare – which very clearly helps black Americans (22% uninsured) more than white Americans (14% uninsured) – is just the latest in a long line of debates over the “size of government” that continue to be more than a little bit tinged by racism.
Some of the genuine libertarians I have had conversations and debates with are among some of the least racist people I know.
And frankly the Democratic party has done a poor job speaking to them. BMGers just scoff at them and deride them as racists while the GOP gets them at the polls but screws them in their paychecks. Gotta break it up somehow, but even now go to Paddy’s in North Cambridge, and you will hear Fox News talking points in the most liberal zip code in the country. Do they hate the ‘yups’ as much as the ‘immahgants’ in your neck of the woods Fenway?
These days I live in Newton. It’s not quite like North Cambridge here, in that there’s been no massive takeover of the neighborhood by yuppies. In many parts of Newton, the affluent have always been there. The places that are more blue collar remain so (though getting by, buying a home there, etc., has gotten tougher). The people there generally don’t much like the richer parts of town, but that’s just background noise.
I can say, from being around town and canvassing, that without fail the least affluent sections of Newton are the most conservative. The usual positions: anti-tax, anti-Obama, more socially conservative. We don’t have a ton of immigrants here, but most of the blue collar folks don’t like them (even if their own parents were immigrants, as is the case for many of the older people).
The more affluent parts of the city generally are paradise for Democratic canvassers. Only at the very high end, where most of the people are in private equity and the like, do you tend to get wealthier people here who are Republicans. This screwy state of affairs has been going on here, and nationwide, since at least Reagan.
I was a kid in Arlington. In those days it was a very different place than today, a lot of Reagan Democrat types. My aunt and uncle live in Reading. Both retired, she a federal employee and he a union railroad guy. And they’ve gone the full Limbaugh. We don’t discuss politics, but I commiserate with their lefty daughter.
I’ve been saying for at least 20 years that the Democratic Party has done a poor job of speaking to them, but I’ll admit I have plenty of days where I get so sick of it I just say, F ’em.
…and thus I don’t know how to fix it. By what logic do a federal employee and union railroad guy go the full Limbaugh? How is it they do not see who is really looking out for them? Why is their first instinct to think that if someone else is being helped they must be getting hurt rather than thinking we’re all in this together?
My uncle had a longstanding grudge with his union rep, so he was more than open to arguments that unions, not big businesses, screw over the working man. A side of racism fueled by a mugging in JP in the 1970s and busing, some homophobia, an inlaw-fueled inferiority complex about not going to college, personal antagonism to Ted Kennedy, feeling squeezed by taxes. You name it.
He got his house, his yard, his garage and he does not think he’s in this with ANYONE but his hard-working old self. My aunt just kind of goes along.
I have recently, several times, heard Steve Grossman, our state treasurer, speak. And I should say that Steve Grossman is widely regarded as a liberal, or “progressive”. In his stump speech, he always starts by mentioning the American revolution, and the “values” that we’re willing to fight for — although as I remember it, he never actually specifies what those values are. Then he gets to what really animates him — “entrepreneurship”. How his grandfather (I think it was) came to this country and started a successful business. How other people did, and how he knows the current proprietors of those businesses. This apparently to him is the guts of politics — fostering entrepreneurship. I can’t imagine how this kind of talk speaks to people who don’t own their own businesses — most people don’t, of course. And most people work for others, and often under degrading or humiliating condtions. Steve Grossman doesn’t ever speak the terms “unions” or “collective bargaining”. Why should most people think he’s speaking for them?
Many people feel — quite rightly, in my opinion — that they’re being taken advantage of. Rush Limbaugh has an explanation for this: it’s the immigrants; it”s the Hispanics, the Blacks… Steve Grossman doesn’t speak to this at all.
Faced with the choice between no explanation (other than the implicit “perhaps you just weren’t enough of a go-getter to start your own business”) and a racist one, any “explanation”, no matter how fraudulent, racist, or despicable, is generally going to win.
Yes, he’s proud of his family business and rightfully so, but I don’t know where you get that he doesn’t speak about unions or collective bargaining. One of the aspects he seems most proud of in fact is his relationship with his business’s union. He has said multiple times on the campaign trail that his shop has been union for its entire existence, that they never had a strike, never had a lockout, never had a matter go to arbitration. When he ran for Treasurer I heard the head of the union local representing his employees give him very high praise. He is a Democrat who knows how to run a business in a socially responsible way and shows by example that it can be done. I do think he genuinely cares about those whose conditions are not so great.
…but in the two times that I heard him recently, there was no hint of that in what he said. He was really animated about “entrepreneurship”. He said not a word about what most people do for a living, and nothing about the importance of collective bargaining. At one point he talked positively about the recent cutback in teacher pensions. He mentioned that the Supreme Judicial Court had ruled that they couldn’t cut back pensions for teachers already in the system — only for teachers hired in the future. He didn’t actually say that this was too bad, but that’s the way it sounded to me. The underlying problem here is that our state legislature has consistently failed to adequately fund the retirement system for state employees. He didn’t mention that. Teachers don’t make much, and they don’t get Social Security. I’m a former teacher. I know former teachers getting by on their pensions — and not well. I found this offensive.
I think that there are two kinds of people — or at least, two kinds of outlooks — in the Democratic party today: there are those who feel strongly about “social issues” — as I do. And there are people who feel strongly about economic issues and economic justice — as I do. I don’t think we do a very good job of unifying those two outlooks. And in fact, I see very few Democratic candidates and office-holders speaking publicly about the importance of collective bargaining. I do see a fair amount of activity in our state legislature (and others) and at the national level that chips away at workers’ rights. (As I write this, it occurs to me that even the term “worker” is at this point negatively charged. Should I have said “employee”?) I think that there is a real problem here. If the Democratic party is really run by the so-called “Democratic Leadership Council” — Republican light as far as I can see — then we are giving away our soul. And at the same time, giving away our base.
Got an uncle and my ma’s cousins in Arlington, all were Clinton over Obama supporters but they are diehard Dem enough to pull for him over McCain and Romney. They were all huge Scott Brown fans though, and the affirmative action attacks really resonated with them. Fortunately it was a Presidential year and that benefited Warren greatly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they backed Brown for Governor.
Arlington is getting a lot of Cambridge refugee’s though which I suspect is how solid progressives like Garbelley and Donnelley were able to get elected. I canvassed in my ma’s old neighborhood (the Heights) for Deval in the summer of 06 and was surprised at how receptive people were to him there. It helped that he was an outsider, but I figured it was a Reilly town for sure.
Arlington’s becoming not that far from Newton or Lexington politically.
I used to live in the Heights myself, but that was in the 80s. That area in particular has become more white-collar affluent and more liberal.
… an ordinary election, no politician would be so simpleminded as to use a pronoun, which appears nowhere on a ballot, in a slogan that references groups and/or relationships without having some idea of the conclusions too which the people wil come: the risk of ambiguity is too great without knowing, exactly, how it will be taken.
However, in the context of an election where Scott Brown (“he”) is running against Elizabeth Warren (not a “he”) and in which “he” accused her of being an insufficiently white Cherokee, that is to say, not one of “us”, the slogan can be seen, clearly and straightforwardly as rank sexism and bold racism.
Again, the slim facade, “he’ and ‘us’, is used to present the racism and the sexism while trying to have, at the same time, some facade of normalcy: the same way that Gabriel Gomez wants the profit from federal tax deductions while living in a town that says he can’t do that: one face towards one and another face towards another… It’s the Republican way.
From the title to the end. Extra points for this:
…entered and remains in my mind as “He’s Fungus.”