Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Art or Agitation? Fathers, Sons, and Politics

As The Commercial Appeal noted this week, in an article by its investigative reporter Marc Perrusquia and in an editorial, Republican county assessor candidate Keith Alexander was on record as making undeniably racist statements as a radio talk-show host and on other occasions.

Samples from the radio show (entitled “The Political Cesspool”): 

“Martin Luther King was really a bad man. … [The communists] had to give him plenty of money to keep him on task [or] he would have just gone on doing what so many black ministers do, which is to, you know, preying on his congregation — and chasing after the women in his congregation, too.”

And there was a claim that King et al. were backed by “certain enablers from a certain religious persuasion” intent upon “destroying Western civilization and white heritage” — reference to an attitude frequently voiced by known anti-Semites.)

Not much ambivalence there. The CA‘s editorial called for Alexander to be repudiated by representatives of the Republican Party, and the GOP’s three candidates for county mayor in this week’s primary dutifully — and appropriately — responded with just that when asked by the Flyer.

Once the issue was raised, a member of a rival political party called the Flyer, demanding in effect that the other assessor candidate on the Republican ballot, Robert “Chip” Trouhy, be exposed and denounced as well. His offense? Well, it’s not his, exactly; his son, a student at the University of Memphis, had allegedly started a “race war” by conspicuously using the n-word at a public event while performing a song.

Here’s where things get sticky — and, on investigation, complicated. First of all, was there a bona fide “race war”? Not really, though there were some very serious demonstrations by black students and others — and remonstrations from the university administraton, after the offender, performing in a Panhellenic karaoke event, included the word in his rendition of a hip-hop song by Jay-Z and Kanye West.

The song — and it has to be spelled out here to make the point — is entitled “Niggas in Paris,” and it’s been a big hit for the two famed rappers, both African-American artists.

Among numerous admiring reviewers, Rolling Stone was enthusiastic about the monster hit, calling it “the platinum rappers’ brass-balled toast to over-the-top opulence,” and quoting Jay-Z as having been inspired to write the song by the indisputably white-themed Broadway musical Annie. As the rapper/composer explained: “Annie’s story was mine, and mine was hers, and the song was the place where our experiences weren’t contradictions, just different dimensions of the same reality.”

So what do we have here? A “racial slur,” as some have called it, or an artwork, a proud cultural manifesto by two accomplished black artists? The real question here, of course — and the offense — is whether a young white man should have chosen to perform the song. The father quotes his son as having meant to substitute the term “Sig Ep” (for his fraternity, Sigma Phi Epsilon) and as having tearfully expressed contrition for his verbal mistake. Maybe. Probably you had to be there. Almost by definition, there are going to be different interpretations of both the words and the manner and agency of their expression. 

And this necessary irresolution in lieu of a mandated official opinion is, of course, why the founding fathers chose to append the First Amendment to the Constitution and why that guarantee of free expression is still venerated by bona fide patriots today.

And one more thing: Just as it is generally frowned upon to visit the sins of the father upon the son, perhaps that axiom works in reverse, as well. So, are we going to call this candidate out, and lump him in with the exposed Alexander because of his son’s actions, as our interloper so devoutly wished? 

I don’t think so. For the reasons suggested here, and a variety of others, it’s our right not to, and his right to disagree with us. As he will.

Jackson Baker is a Flyer senior editor.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Geniune Vetting of Trump Cabinet Nominees Needed

At his annual “issues meeting” with constituents from his 9th Congressional District on Monday, Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen called the roll of what he saw as unsatisfactory or outright dangerous cabinet officer-designates named by Donald Trump, and Cohen’s list was fairly inclusive of the President-elect’s entire list.

Those singled out by the Congressman included Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions, who, he said, had been wrong on civil rights and civil liberties issues when the Senate rejected him as a potential federal judge in the 1980s and was “no better” now; climate-change rejector Scott Pruitt as director of the Environmental Protection Agency; Betsy DeVos, an advocate of for-profit charter schools, as Secretary of Education; and former Texas Governor Rick “Oops” Perry, who has extensive ties to the oil and gas industries, for Secretary of Energy.

Senator Jeff Sessions

Not mentioned specifically by Cohen but equally suspect, surely, are Secretary of the Treasury-designate Steven Mnuchin, a banker with close ties to financial-industry members who advocate loosening government restrictions on Wall Street; Secretary of Labor-designate Andy Puzder, a disbeliever in the minimum wage; Secretary of Commerce-designate Wilbur Ross, an investor best known as a “turnaround artist”;  Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, who publicly confesses knowing nothing about his subject; Secretary of Health and Human Services-designate Tom Price, a former congressman known for his opposition to the Affordable Care Act and public health measures; and Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson, the Exxon Mobil oil mogul whose ties with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin are notorious.

Most ominous of all is probably Trump’s choice for National Security Advisory, former Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, whose erratic views caused him to be forced out as Defense Intelligence Agency head and whose son, with apparent paternal approval, has been a public advocate of some of the more monstrous examples of “fake news,” like the canard that Bill and Hillary Clinton were running a child-kidnapping ring out of a Washington D.C., pizza joint.

Unfortunately, the senior Flynn is not subject to Senate confirmation. The other mentioned Trump appointees are, however, and can in theory be rejected in the formal hearings that begin this week. The chances of that happening in a body dominated by Republicans is not great, but Cohen raised at least a modicum of hope when he suggested the names of several Republican senators who might be moderate or open-minded enough to join Senate Democrats in holding up some of the more noxious Trump nominations.

The names were those of Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona. Cohen added, with what sounded like genuine wistfulness, the names of Tennessee’s own Republican Senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander.

Though it is axiomatic these days that no Republican will admit to being “moderate” or anything quite so sissified-sounding to GOP ears, Corker and Alexander do, like Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, enjoy a reputation for relatively fair-mindedness. We join Cohen in hoping that our two senators can rise to the occasion in applying a genuine acid test to the nominees of President-elect Trump.