Monthly Archives: February 2023

The McCarthy era is back!

Posted by on 2023-02-19 No comments

On February 7th, the House Financial Services and Senate Judiciary committees voted on a resolution:

H.Con.Res.9 – Denouncing the horrors of socialism

The resolution was sponsored by Florida House Republican Maria Elvira Salazar, the daughter of Cuban exiles who likely knew Cuban military dictator Fulgencia Batista, who fled to Florida about the same time as they. For Cuban exiles like Salazar’s parents, who lost sweat shops and colonial plantations to agrarian reforms, socialism was all-too easily conflated with a Holocaust.

But just to keep things in perspective, and perhaps as one indicator of just how lopsided wealth in Cuba was before, after the revolution Castro nationalized his own family’s 25,000 acre estate. Plantations like Castro’s family’s were worked by landless farmers living and working in conditions similar to Southern plantations and pre-revolutionary Russian estates. For Cuba’s virulent anti-Communists, plantations and military dictators were the “good old days.”

Salazar’s resolution conflates socialism with totalitarian regimes, famine, mass murder, and places Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro in the same company as Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. Salazar’s resolution is filled with hysterical hyperbole and concludes with a ridiculous claim found neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution: “Whereas the United States of America was founded on the belief in the sanctity of the individual, to which the collectivistic system of socialism in all of its forms is fundamentally and necessarily opposed: Now, therefore, be it resolved…”

None of this is surprising coming from the Republican Party, which has clearly lost its collective mind and is in fact, and in Florida most acutely pursuing, the systematic dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

But most Americans make a distinction between European democratic socialism and the distorted dictatorships found in North Korea, Russia, and China. No sane individual believes for a second that “National Socialism” (aka Nazism) had anything to do with socialism. A 2021 Gallup Poll found that 52% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans view American Capitalism positively and, rather counter-intuitively, that 65% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans think of socialism in a positive light.

For Republicans, who are now the “either-or” heirs of the John Birch Society, it is either Capitalism or socialism. Democrats, on the other hand, understand “socialist” in the context of European social-democratic governments whose support for national healthcare, heavily subsidized education, housing, and parental leave contribute to a social safety net Republicans dismiss as “Communism.” For most Democrats “socialism” means features of social governance that can conceivably exist alongside a less predatory version of Capitalism. For Republicans, only the most predatory form of Capitalism is worth saving.

So it was disappointing to find that 109 Democrats — including a majority of the Massachusetts House delegation — signed on to Salazar’s resolution. Only Jim McGovern, Richard Neal, and Ayanna Pressley refused to make a show of red-blooded patriotic anti-Communism. At the very least they made a distinction that 65% of registered Democrats share regarding the nature of “socialism.” I was not surprised by Bill Keating, Stephen Lynch, Seth Moulton, or Jake Auchincloss. I had expected more of Lori Trahan and Katherine Clark, previously (and significantly) the Assistant House Democratic Leader.

“Disappointing” doesn’t even begin to describe Massachusetts House Democrats. Their disgraceful vote was another sign that the Democratic Party is as ambivalent about the social safety net as it is about every other liberal issue or democratic right it has already conceded to Republicans through collusion or neglect. From police reform to the defense of abortion and voting rights, Democrats allow Republicans to set the agenda on every issue, and they seem only too happy to join their Republican colleagues in betraying working people and minorities as they undermine true liberals within their own party.

With the ascendancy of the Tea Party, Trump, De Santis, and others in the GOP’s far-right starlight — and with a slim Republicans majority in the House — it appears we have entered a new McCarthy era. In the Fifties, the first targets of Joe McCarthy were liberal Democrats he claimed were “communistically inclined”, along with Jews, gays, and “Hollywood elites.” McCarthy succeeded in having libraries throughout the US purged of books, including Philip Foner’s The Selected Works of Thomas Jefferson and The Children’s Hour by Lillian Hellman, a play about false accusations in a girl’s school that had obvious parallels with what McCarthy himself was doing. If you live in Florida today, no doubt you are experiencing either deja vu or PTSD.

I have long believed that the Democratic Party, sadly, is the only thing standing between Republicans and the final nail in the coffin of American democracy. But if Democrats are not up to the task, it may be time for a new party to take on that responsibility. The formation of a new party — a regular occurrence in any other democracy — is hampered only by our lack of imagination.

This is who we are

Posted by on 2023-02-09 No comments

It is Black History Month and there are a couple of streamed documentaries I heartily recommend: Jeffery Robinson’s Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America (Netflix); and Nikole Hannah-Jones’s The 1619 Project, a six part docuseries (Hulu).

I watched Robinson’s film last night on Netflix and it is excellent. At the beginning of the film Robinson meets a man standing in front of a Confederate statue waving a Confederate flag. The two have a conversation about whether that flag was a symbol of slavery and even about the nature of slavery itself. The Neo-Confederate maintains that slaves were just like members of slave-holders’ families and his flag had nothing to do with slavery. But in less than a minute the Harvard Law-trained film-maker demonstrates the contradictions of the flag-waver’s contentions. This confrontation with willful ignorance frames the film’s narrative.

Robinson, who is from Memphis and whose personal story is interwoven into the documentary, goes on to show — using the words of politicians of the time, state and federal laws and rulings, and historical documents — that America most definitely was founded on slavery. He quotes former president Donald Trump — yes, America’s chief racist ignoramus and a fan of Jackson — who says that Andrew Jackson would never have let the US slide into civil war, then points out that Jackson died 16 years before that war. Robinson goes on to show that Jackson in fact was a slave-owner himself who even posted an ad for the return of one of his own slaves — promising to pay the finder a little extra for giving the slave 300 lashes with a whip. This is who is on our $20 bill.

We wait for Robinson to complete the sentence with “this is who we are” but his stealth title “Who We Are” instead does that job for him. Robinson not once mentions the usual bromide that White America uses on the occasion of some new racial atrocity (“this is not who we are”). Robinson just knows. And we all ought to know by now: this is exactly who we are.

In perhaps the most moving segment of the film Robinson, who worked with the ACLU for many years, returns to Memphis with his brother and visits their boyhood home — a house that had to be purchased with a little subterfuge by a white couple and then transferred to Robinson’s parents. He talks about how that home made him who he is today and how everyone on that street worked hard, did their best for their children, and had all the same hopes his parents did. It is not a bitter reminiscence, but Robinson points out that what white supremacy really means is that the playing field will never be level for everyone on that street — because of government institutions that created land-grant colleges for whites, redlining for blacks, land dispossession for indigenous people, and the recycling of slave-catching practices in police institutions. Robinson methodically shows us how many of our racialized institutions are still working as designed years after the Civil Rights movement ended. And the damage to their victims continues.

The 1619 Project has become a lightning rod for people who can’t accept that America was founded on slavery and continues to do everything it can to preserve slavery’s vestiges and inequities. FOX News predictably wrote the series off as “fan fiction” and “slander.” The New York Post called it “cartoonish” and a “pretense” and wrote off one of the interviewed academics as a “Marxist.” And of course, the 1619 Project has been banned in Florida by racist governor Ron DeSantis and his appointees to the state Board of Education.

The series consists of six episodes, the last of which will air tomorrow: Democracy; Race; Music; Capitalism; Fear; and Justice. While Jeffery Robinson never indicts Capitalism outright for the sins of slavery, Hannah-Jones does so explicitly and this is the most likely reason for her rough treatment. But let’s be honest: slavery was a commercial enterprise. The value of slave labor made Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia among the richest in the nation. When slavery ended these states instantly ended up at the bottom of the American economic barrel because human capital (that is humans as property) had been instantly struck from the ledgers. And it wasn’t just Southern plantations which profited from the products of slave labor. Massachusetts textile factories depended on cotton that had been harvested for free by humans under the whip. The New York stock exchange, companies like Lehman Brothers, and insurance industries like AIG — as Robinson shows, too — fed off slavery and toyed with declaring themselves neutral in order to continue to profit from human bondage.

In what is most certainly one of the great ironies of history, while the 1619 Project has been banned and its use in Florida schools now constitutes a felony, it is now available in Germany — a country that knows something about white supremacy and book burnings — and is now ashamed of it.

The Frankurter Allgemeine Zeitung carried a review of the 1619 Project in its book section, pointing out that Americans are woefully (even willfully) ignorant of their own history. Andreas Eckert cites a 2018 Southern Poverty Law Center study which shows how ignorant of American history, particularly its ugliest aspects, American High School students are. Only 8% of American high schoolers could identify correctly the reason the Civil War was fought: slavery. Eckert quotes Yale history professor and Frederick Douglass biographer David Blight, who wrote the introduction to the SPLC’s “Teaching Hard History.” Blight observes that Americans always prefer to view our history in the most positive light, regarding ourselves as a beacon unto the world, bringing progress, freedom, justice, prosperity, and happiness to the benighted. This certainly seems to constitute the “patriotic curriculum” that Ron DeSantis is now about to jam down the throats of Florida public school students.

One of the greatest controversies over the 1619 Project is whether the American Revolution was fought (even in part) to preserve slavery. Hannah-Jones unapologetically says it was. In the same SPLC preface to “Teaching Hard History,” Hasan Kwame Jeffries writes, “In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers enumerated the lofty goals of their radical experiment in democracy; racial justice, however, was not included in that list. Instead, they embedded protections for slavery and the transatlantic slave trade into the founding document, guaranteeing inequality for generations to come.” It doesn’t take much to verify these facts.

For starters, 34 of the 47 signers — a majority — of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. Among the most famous slave owners: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Rush, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, and (a distant relative on my mother’s side) Charles Carroll. So don’t even try to convince me these morally compromised men created a nation for all the beating hearts in it.

The Declaration of Independence has always rung hollow to Black people. Frederick Douglass delivered a scathing oration “What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July?” Aside from its authors and its hypocrisy, the Declaration calls indigenous people “merciless Indian Savages” and whines that King George is inhibiting the theft of indigenous land.

William J. Aceves, in “Amending a Racist Constitution,” shows us precisely where slavery was baked into the Constitutional cake:

While the Constitution never uses the words “slave” or “slavery,” the shadows of these malignant words inhabit its text. Four constitutional provisions reflect a legal architecture that treats Black people as property. Two of these provisions are substantive, and two are procedural.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 is the notorious Three-Fifths Clause. This provision is used to determine the number of congressional representatives apportioned to a state as well as its corresponding tax obligations. Free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, were included in the calculation of state populations. In contrast, slaves would be calculated as three-fifths of a person. Native Americans who were not taxed would not be included in these calculations. While the Three-Fifths Clause did not directly affect the rights of slaves, it served as clear evidence of their inequality. The Clause also had a profound impact on the power structure in Congress by providing slave states disproportionate political influence in the House for decades. Because of this, the slave states were even less inclined to end slavery.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 represents the Fugitive Slave Clause. It provides that any person who escapes from servitude and flees to another state may not gain their freedom. Instead, that person must be returned to the custody of their owner. This clause was used on countless occasions to perpetuate slavery. Individuals who had escaped from bondage by crossing state lines were subject to capture and returned to slavery. Those who aided such efforts were subject to civil or even criminal liability. While there was some resistance to its application, this pernicious clause made anti-slavery states and the federal government complicit in slavery. This complicity even extended to the Supreme Court.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 limited the ability of Congress to adopt legislation prohibiting the migration or importation of slaves until 1808. Congress drafted around this restriction in 1803, when it adopted An Act to Prevent the Importation of Certain Persons into Certain States, Where, by the Laws Thereof, Their Admission is Prohibited. This statute was adopted at the request of the slave states, which were concerned with the rise of free people of color in the United States and viewed the successful slave rebellion in Haiti with trepidation. Four years later, Congress took a more significant step with the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves Into Any Port or Place Within the Jurisdiction of the United States. While the statute was drafted to end the slave trade in the United States, the practice of slavery remained legal.

Finally, Article V addresses the process for constitutional amendments. These amendments can be proposed for state ratification by a two-thirds vote in both Houses. Alternatively, amendments can be proposed through a constitutional convention called by a two-thirds vote of the states. Either process then requires approval by three-fourths of the states. Reflecting one of the central compromises to the Constitution, Article V prohibited any amendment to Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 until 1808. Working in tandem, these provisions ensured that the slave trade would remain legal in the United States for at least twenty years.

In Robinson’s film, Black students sing the third stanza of the American National Anthem (“the Star-Spangled Banner”) by Francis Scott Key, a Maryland slave owner. This stanza sings of the depravity and deserved slaughter of slaves who try to escape:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And the last stanza implies that the republic is meant only for non-slaves:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!

American Conservatives may be incensed at scholarship that at long last proves our nation was founded on and built by slavery, but there is no getting around the fact: it was. The battle for the nation’s soul may be on some people’s lips but it means little without recognition, repair, repentance, restitution — and major revision of our laws. But we can’t even begin if we can’t agree on facts of history that can be easily and objectively verified.

In our hearts of hearts we know the contents of our nation’s soul and who we are as a people. And, if we’re honest, it isn’t very pretty.

This is who we are.

Getting there

Posted by on 2023-02-07 No comments

I have about 30 unfinished plays. As I learn more about plays that “work” I have concluded that most of these moldering first attempts are probably not worth salvaging, although a few could work with major rewrites. But I’ve also realized that maybe I should just say kaddish for my characters and start from scratch.

Together with the many plays I’ve read are books on structure, plot, character, and dramaturgy. Of the ambitious compendia, Richard Toscan’s Playwriting Seminars 2.0 is very good. And Louis E. Catron’s Elements of Playwriting was also very helpful. Lenora Inez Brown’s The Art of Active Dramaturgy talks about how a dramaturg works with a playwright and a theatre company to tune a play for production. In my head I know a lot about what makes a good play, yet for all the books and writing workshops, I’ve never really known how (or been confident enough) to tackle the complex process of completing a play. Now that the light is dawning somewhat, it’s clear that if you know even something about process, you will write much more confidently.

Recently I have been listening to playwriting podcasts. The most helpful (to me) of these is by a young Australian playwright, Emily Sheehan. Her Playwright’s Process podcast is just that: full of wisdom and ideas for tackling process step by step. Another podcast I found helpful is Jonah Knight’s Theatrically Speaking, which focuses on writing plays that can actually be produced as well as suggestions for submitting plays. There are numerous podcasts from the British National Theatre which are excellent. Another, Not True, but Useful, is a British podcast that highlights the work of a couple of roving theatre producers and designers. Add to these: Hey, Playwright; Women Playwrights Podcast; Playwright’s Spotlight; Necessary Exposure; Not in Print; Pint Size Playwriting; Playwright to Playwright; Playwright’s Horizon; Playwriting Real-Life; The Cultivated Playwright; The Subtext; Women and Playwriting; and many more than I have time to listen to.

If you are in the same boat (dinghy, inflatable raft) as I am, hopefully some of these mentions are useful. The world may need major repair. But it has always relied on good theatre to remind us of our humanity.

Help Wanted — urgently

Posted by on 2023-02-02 No comments

I have been afraid of this for some time. The Dartmouth Schools are now indisputably under attack by right-wing fanatics. If you are a liberal or progressive who doesn’t want to see the banning of books and diversity programs come to our schools — and better yet, you are the parent of children in the school system — now is the time to stand up for those pretty words on the sign sitting on your front lawn — and run for School Committee.

The present Dartmouth School Committee consists of: conservative Chris Oliver; ultra-conservative and would-be book-banner John Nunes; liberals Mary Waite, Kathleen Amaral, and Shannon Jenkins. Kathleen Amaral and Mary Waite’s seats are up for re-election this year. Mary Waite has not filed papers. So assuming Kathleeen Amaral keeps her seat, it is Mary Waite’s now being challenged by Lynn Turner, Troy Tufano, and Erica Lyn Morney.

Now that we find ourselves in the George Santos era, it’s worth knowing something about the increasing number of reprobates running for office. So here’s my best attempt at a survey of the School Committee candidates.

I still don’t know much about Ms. Morney, so if anyone has any information to share, please contact me and I will update this post.

However, I am familiar with Lynn Turner — whom I wrote about the last time she ran for the School Committee. Turner is an evangelical book-burner who wants to dismantle diversity programs. I looked into Turner’s background last year and also reported on her campaign remarks at a candidate forum. She is a two-faced piece of work who literally quotes Martin Luther King as she tries to undermine everything he stood for.

Joining her this year is Troy Tufano, a self-described political consultant who has dabbled in both Republican and Democratic politics. Regardless of whatever party he is enrolled in, judging from his abandoned Twitter account Troy Tufano is also an evangelical book-burner who wants to dismantle diversity programs. Besides Tufano’s bromances with domestic right-wing personalities like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and prosperity gospel mega-preacher Joel Osteen, Tufano has frequently re-Tweeted European neo-fascists like: Ragnar Gardarsson of the Danish Nye Borgerlige Party; and Marine LePen of the Rassemblement National Party. Tufano has also retweeted conspiracy theories, such as the long-discredited accusation that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. If Tufano’s tweets should mysteriously disappear during the run-up to the town election, you can find a zipfile of screen shots here.

Dartmouth’s Town elections are only two months away. This year the town election is April 4th. I hope that kind and decent people will step up. Candidates need to pick up filing papers at Town Hall no later than February 10th, collect 50 signatures (double or triple that in case of challenges), and submit the paperwork to the Town Clerk by February 14th.

Especially if you are the parent of children in the Dartmouth Schools, now is the time to step up. That sign on your lawn is nice and all, but British social philosopher and Liberal John Stuart Mill said it best: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”