In His Own Words

        I never cease to be amazed by the lengths to which some people are willing to go to continue rationalizing their presidential choice of 2016.  Looking over Emily’s shoulder I saw a Facebook post in which the writer was commenting that while Nixon, Clinton, and Johnson all had “difficulties(sic),” they weren’t subjected to the abuse Trump gets from “the liberals.”

       Having lived through the presidencies of the three mentioned Chief Executives and being a (credentialed) student and teacher of both history and political science, I felt compelled to make the following brief (for me) remarks, which the original poster will almost surely not see, but…

        Lyndon Johnson did, in fact, take a huge amount of abuse due to the unravelling of the truth related to our futile war efforts in southeast Asia. “Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” comes to mind. Johnson’s and McNamara’s escalation of an unwinnable war gathered much well-deserved abuse, true, but what is also true is that LBJ also pushed for and got passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, not to mention Medicare. In fact, if not for escalating Vietnam, largely due to his (LBJ’s) penis envy of JFK being seen as “tough” for his Cuban Missile crisis Russian roulette heroics, LBJ would have been regarded as one of, if not the greatest, presidents of the last half of the 1900s.

       Nixon, emotional train wreck, paranoid over an election he was going to win in a landslide, was simply his own worst enemy. His White House tapes show the depths of his loathing for even the electorate (“The little shits”, Kissinger (“Jew Boy”) and those in society whom he felt held him in low esteem. He also signed budgets containing the largest deficits ever at the time. He also escalated bombing in nations with whom we were not at war, and innocent students died at Kent State. And yes, he took abuse for all these things.

But: Nixon also proposed the creation of both the EPA and OSHA which became law. He also initiated Affirmative Action in federal hiring, pressed for and got the EEOC, and while hardly a liberal, eventually achieved many advances in Civil Right legislation. Meanwhile he achieved the first détente with China since WWII.

All that went down the rabbit hole during the campaign of 1972 and the attendant Watergate related scandals, all of which his paranoia enabled him to endorse. Yeah, he took abuse, related to illegal activities he sanctioned.

        Clinton was impeached for one act typical of Trump’s entire adult life. However, he also left a budget surplus, longest economic expansion in American history, raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment, highest home ownership in American history, largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill, lowest crime rate in 26 years, smallest welfare rolls in 32 years, protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. During the Clinton administration, the US Government paid off $360 billion of the national debt. In fact, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009. (Bush 43 had other ideas, however.) In fact Bill Clinton accomplished what many on the right actually think believe Reagan did. (I struck “think” because so many of them can’t.)  And no, Clinton faced relatively little popular criticism, but much political chaff from the Gingrich crowd. Oddly, Newt Gingrich, we now know, was actually depraved to a degree Clinton couldn’t compete with had he tried.

        Sooo, back to the initial “Nixon, Clinton, and Johnson all had “difficulties(sic),” they weren’t subjected to the abuse Trump gets from “the liberals” assertion. One significant fact shines above all others. These three widely divergent presidents all had major accomplishments which helped Americans. All three dealt cordially with representatives of foreign powers. All three were respected in other nations for the most part. None of these things accurately describe Donald Trump to this date. 

       None of them personally and publicly attacked individuals with whom they differed. None of them mocked handicapped persons, none of them, regardless of their marital situation, denigrated women or bragged about their “conquests” in public. None ever went bankrupt or refused to pay honest workmen for contracted work. None of them was ever reviled and ridiculed by some of our closest (until recently) international allies. None of them supported racist agendas. All of them actually appointed bright people to cabinet posts and then listened to them, unlike Mr. Trump. While all fired some cabinet members during their tenures, none has done it for personal reasons except Trump. Additionally, Trump has fired so many lower level staffers that it’s difficult to count. And all this from the guy with great judgement and people skills! Trump draws criticism because he’s simply a bully who cannot control himself when he’s close to a cell phone.

What follows are examples of why critics “call him out”

Jul 3, 2018 06:13:34 PM - After having written many best selling books, and somewhat priding myself on my ability to write, it should be noted that the Fake News constantly likes to pore over my tweets looking for a mistake. I capitalize certain words only for emphasis, not b/c they should be capitalized!

Jul 3, 2018 04:19:04 PM - After having written many best selling books, and somewhat priding myself on my ability to write, it should be noted that the Fake News constantly likes to pour over my tweets looking for a mistake. I capitalize certain words only for emphasis, not b/c they should be capitalized.

 Yes, Donnie and fourth graders do that, too. Note the later post corrects his own misuse of “pour” for “pore”? also best-selling needs a hyphen. He has actually written no best sellers, but his ghost writers may have.  

“No-one has done more for people with disabilities than me. I have spent many millions of dollars to help out-and am happy to have done so!”

   

If Trump’s plan to change Medicaid is approved, it would mean that thousands of people with disabilities could be displaced from their communities and would be forced into nursing homes or hospitals if they can’t afford things like a wheelchair or assistive technology that allows them to live in their residence.

“Many people have commented that my fragrance, “Success” is the best scent & lasts the longest. Try it & let me know what you think!”

So here’s one response: “When I blind bought my slightly used bottle of Success for the relatively low price of $1.65, I confess I was highly skeptical as to whether I would enjoy the composition. That said, even my darkest nightmares couldn't prepare me for the hideous concoction I am wearing as I write this. Things start off pretty safe, as the open is quite fresh and generic smelling, but far from off-putting. Unfortunately, there is an iodine-like metallic accord that emerges, then grows and grows in potency as time passes that is truly terrifying to wear. I have only sniffed a similarly fearful accord like this in my two least favorite compositions to date... Secretions Manifiques and Mercury”  

  Or : “It's heavily clouded by a horrible fake aquatic (not cologne), chlorine water, "wet hair" note. You know what I mean. The same that's in the dry down of Unforgivable, Wall Street, and many others. The smell of Elmer's Glue lingers in there too.”

The list of Trump’s public comments unworthy of anyone in public service, never mind being President, is endless. As a narcissist who craves approval and acts like a three year old when he doesn’t get it, he has brought all the negatives upon himself. I’ll close with these:

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”

“Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?”

“[The New York Times] don’t write good. They have people over there, like Maggie Haberman and others, they don’t – they don’t write good. They don’t know how to write good.” – Turns out he don’t talk good either.

“I think I am actually humble. I think I’m much more humble than you would understand.”

 And, finally, the most accurate thing he’s ever tweeted:   “One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”

Well at least he’s showing some self-awareness.

Insight and rehash

       This will be ignored as usual by those who can’t grasp the message. That, in and of itself, is truly tragic. What Professor Honig describes below mirrors the change we as a Teacher’s Union made with the collaboration of the school district from “confrontational” (same as distributive) to “collaborative” (essentially integrative) bargaining. The instant we did so, things changed immeasurably for the better for all parties involved. This article resonates with me because personal experience confirms the principles involved.

       This is simply best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the President, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University. His analysis is not based on partisan issues, but on the issues relevant to his skill in an area where the President has left smoldering relationships with the rest of the world at almost every turn.

       “I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

        Donald Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all deal making as what we call "distributive bargaining."

       Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

        The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

        The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

       One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker. (Ed: note Trump has burned bridges with caterers and unions which simply won’t work for him any more in exactly the manner described by Professor Honig. In one case he completely stiffed a caterer, not because they did a poor job, rather he refused to pay because, “You get so much favorable status by working for me that you should do it for free” (yes, really!)

       There isn't another Canada. So, when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

        Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, because he saw only steel and aluminum.  He sees every negotiation as distributive. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

        Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run. For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

        Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

        From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether it’s better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

                                        — David Honig

Because this relates to another recent op/ed discussion (of mine with friends) in the specific area of tariffs, I’m enclosing that blog link. Those who should read it know who they are, lol.

http://bubblehead1026.blogspot.com/2018/07/whats-all-this-about-tariffs.html

What's All This About Tariffs?

First, some history 'cause that's what I do.

       Before the Civil War, the federal government obtained close to ninety percent of its revenue from tariffs, and because of this, the government avoided income taxation. Until the passage of the 16^th amendment and for some years thereafter, tariffs and excise taxes were the principal source of government operating revenues, about 95 % being from tariffs.

        In fact, it can be argued, and has been, that one of Lincoln’s primary reasons for insisting the Union remain undivided was the prospective loss of tariff revenue if ports such as Norfolk, Charleston, Wilmington (N.C,) and most of all New Orleans were no longer “In” the US. There are conflicting numbers (based on who you read) for how much tariff revenue was collected in “the South.” Walter Williams claims 75%, a demonstrably incorrect figure. Others claim as low as just under 33%.  The truth is we don’t know “by the numbers,” but Lincoln almost certainly understood that, while the Port of New York collected about 2/3 (65.9%) of all US tariff revenues in fiscal 1859, many of those imports then being off loaded in NYC and shipped South, would simply shift to Southern ports if a free Confederacy was established.

         As a reasonable man, Lincoln would have certainly understood that the federal budget would have lost, at a minimum, half its operating revenue. This doesn’t even consider the loss of monetary influx due to cotton exports, which was spent on both European imports and Northern manufactured goods. It also fails to factor in that a free Confederacy as, essentially, a new Southern Nation, would have been free to impose tariffs on imports from the North as well as jack up cotton prices to the burgeoning New England textile industry, which was buying cotton, making cloth and selling it back at much higher prices per pound.

“Historical effect of tariffs?”  (From the Cato institute, Libertarian/Right bias!)

“Turn-of-the-Century Tariffs"

In the election of 1888, Republicans called for tariffs to protect American manufacturing. (sound familiar?)  Benjamin Harrison’s defeat of Democrat free trader Grover Cleveland led to passage of the McKinley tariff in 1890. An interesting aspect of the 1890 debate over the tariff is that protectionists abandoned any pretense that high tariffs were needed to protect infant industries. Even mature industries, they argued, needed protection. They further argued that high tariffs were needed “to reduce the Treasury’s surplus.” (Say What? Yep, Treasury surplus!)  They understood that sufficiently high rates would so discourage imports that tariff revenues would fall.

        Protectionist tariffs would remain the bedrock of economic policy of the Republican Party for the next 20 years. Indeed, Republicans were so intent on passing the Payne-Aldrich tariff in 1909 that (Republican) President William Howard Taft supported the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution creating a federal income tax as the political price for Democratic support of the tariff. That has to have been one of the worst deals in history — a lose-lose situation if ever there was one.” (Ed. Note: remember this is from a Libertarian source)

        “The Underwood tariff of 1913 passed early in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson, liberalized trade somewhat. But as soon as the Republicans reassumed power after World War I, they raised tariffs again. The Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922 generally increased tariff rates across the board. However, it also gave the President power to raise or lower existing tariffs by 50 percent. (yeah, might want to rethink that one!) My rationale for that statement is based on the Constitutional proviso that all bills to raise revenue must originate in the US House. While the "Trump Tariffs" may not have money raising as the primary objective, it is certainly an end result. 

Deepening Depression

The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was the last outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists. Rates on dutiable imports rose to their highest levels in over 100 years. Increases of 50 percent were common and some rates went up 100 percent. Table 1 (a “bar” graph, omitted here) indicates how much tariffs increased during the 1920s because of both the Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley tariffs. A recent analysis estimates that the Smoot-Hawley tariff, on average, doubled the tariffs over those in the Underwood Act.”

Me again: While economists and historians continue to debate how important the Smoot-Hawley tariff was in causing the Great Depression. They are only discussing degree, not reality. Whatever the extent of the tariff’s causative effect, that effect certainly was adverse, and the tariff was certainly bad policy. As figures from multiple sources indicate, world trade virtually collapsed following passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Thus, if that tariff was not the single cause of the Great Depression, it certainly made a bad situation worse.

        So, that’s history, but is it relevant today and will somehow the “Trump Tariffs,” enacted without recourse to, or consultation with, the legislative branch of our government, have a different effect? Below is what the economist wonks at the Harvard Business Review think.

        “A dangerous imbalance between U.S. production and spending since 1981 has produced the mushrooming trade deficit; only a reversal of this imbalance can close the gap. How the United States chooses to accomplish this reversal is perhaps the most important economic policy matter facing our nation in the years just ahead.

        Advocates of protection rest their case mainly on two premises. (ed: The case “for” protectionism, somewhat abridged for space considerations but meaning unaltered:)”

        First is the commonsense notion that high-wage countries like the United States cannot compete with low-wage countries…… Korean companies can always underprice U.S. companies. In free trade between such countries, workers in the high-wage economy face two disastrous options: unemployment or slave-level wages.

       Second is the “unlevel playing field” argument – that the competitive, open environment assumed by international trade economists simply doesn’t exist. While the United States plays by the rules of the free market, foreign governments support targeted industries with subsidies, selective procurement, and trade protection.

       The proper response to these problems seems clear: America should abandon the view that market forces dominate trade flows. It should act like other countries and manage trade to its advantage. Foreign imports should be strictly controlled with quotas until and unless foreign wage levels and industrial policies resemble those of the United States. Unless we protect our markets, the trade deficit will balloon even more and our manufacturing base will continue to shrink.

Fundamental truths

We (HBR) share with the new protectionists a deep concern over the record trade deficit but firmly reject their diagnosis of America’s trade problems, on these grounds:

        Since wage levels tend to reflect productivity levels, the truth is that the United States, like other high-wage countries, can compete with low-wage countries because its superior productivity compensates for higher wage rates. If developing countries had our skills, technology, and capital levels, their wages wouldn’t be so low. (Ed. note: This was truer 20 years ago than now, largely because US companies willingly exported manufacturing tech offshore)

The unlevel playing field argument evaporates before the facts: since 1981, when the United States last enjoyed a surplus in the trade of manufactured goods, the levels of protection have not changed much (except in the United States, where it has gone up). As for Japan, reputedly our most unfair trading partner, then, its proportion of the U.S. trade deficit hardly grew at all from 1981 to 1985.

Protectionists usually make their claims in terms of saving particular industries from imports, as with shoes, lumber, and steel pipe. Historically, however, the facts show that tariffs and quotas seldom save jobs for long or preserve the competitiveness of the industry to be “saved.” Meanwhile, of course, the consumer suffers through higher prices.

        While subsidies, tariffs, and similar practices affect the mix of trade over the medium run, they do not affect the trade balance, which is driven by a nation’s spending and saving patterns. A country with investment opportunities exceeding its domestic savings will borrow from abroad and run a trade deficit even if its costs are relatively low, its home markets protected, and its exports subsidized. Conversely, a nation with high savings relative to investment will run a trade surplus even if its markets are open and its products sell poorly. The recent deterioration in the U.S. trade position resulted from the decline in net national saving when the growing budget deficit far outstripped any increase in net private saving.

         It is unfortunate, if understandable, that these fundamental truths get little support in today’s environment. In this article we demonstrate the logic and empirical evidence behind them and expose other shaky arguments for protection offered over the years.” (A long and scholarly article follows)

I close with this: “Trump’s plans–whatever they may be, and nobody knows what they are, not even, or perhaps especially, not him–have nothing to do with past successful episodes of the right kind of tariffs as part of a pro-growth or pro-opportunity industrial policy mix.”

Professor of Economics J. Bradford DeLong, U.C. Berkeley  

Appendix:

Below are quotes from the last eight American presidents related to free trade and or tariffs. I find it interesting that one of the more critical comments is from the last Democrat, not a Republican.

John Kennedy   

“Economic isolation incompatible with political leadership”

Lyndon Johnson

Johnson was apparently so busy dowsing Vietnam with Agent Orange that he had little to say on economics other than “Damn that’s a big deficit”

Richard Nixon

“Tariffs are just another entitlement that saps incentive”

Gerald Ford

Proponent of free trade, even with Japanese export pressure

Jimmy Carter

Advocated fair and balanced agreements lowering the barriers to trade

Ronald Reagan (Trump's idol, but a committed free trader!

1985: Vetoed import tariffs on textile goods

1985: Articulated goal of Western Hemisphere free trade, (actually proposed concept behind NAFTA in 1979)

George W. Bush 41

“Make Americas a zone of peace, free trade, and democracy”

For NAFTA because exports critical to economy

Bill Clinton

“Our tariff reductions were largest tax cut in world history.”

Data point: NAFTA increased exports to Mexico by 11%

Fair trade will liberalize China (jury still out)

Bush 43

“Free market provides fairest way to allocate resources”

Tariffs over free trade, for steel industry/20 months later repeals steel tariffs he imposed in 2002  (Bush decided in March 2002 to impose tariffs of 8% to 30% on most steel imports from abroad for three years. The decision was heavily influenced by the desire to help the Rust Belt states, but the departure from Bush’s free-trade principles drew fierce criticism from his conservative supporters. After a blast of international opposition, the administration began approving exemptions.

Barack Obama

“NAFTA needs to be amended”

Supports trade & globalization but opposes CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) job losses.

Political Ignorance, Racism. and Poor Journalism - a Modern Trifecta.

       

      A friend, for whom I have great affection while disagreeing on matters political in many cases, sent me the usual “what about this?” e-mail. “This” referred to an article which he said was “over his head” (I know better) which was based on analysis of an article (the writer, a conservative, of course) of the Trope “White Privilege.” The author’s conclusion was that actions based on “remediating” (my word, for want of a better descriptor of what was a long article) White Privilege all lead to Socialism.

       The author, similar to most writers of his persuasion and far too many who should know better, apparently recognizes only two degrees of Socialism. None and absolute. I say this because many of us use the word “Democracy,” understanding that we actually don’t live under such a system and no one else, save perhaps a commune of hippies with a bong in the woods) has, since Athens. What I’m pointing out here is that those of the Far Right use the term to describe our governmental system, with the tacit understanding that it really isn’t a “pure” democracy by any means.

       These same “Rightists” love the word “Capitalism” and Free Market” (do ya feel me John Stossel?) although we actually live and work under a regulated market economy, far from the Robber Baron era of the 19th century. So, what’s my point? It is that many of those of the Right embrace, nay, wear on their sleeves, terms such as Capitalism, Free Market and Democracy, even while understanding that these only really apply to our economic and governmental systems with a relatively great deal of nuance and degree. These same folks are, by all indicators unable (more like unwilling) to apply the same broad definitions or understanding to the term Socialism. All the above was simply stage setting for why the author decries “White Privilege” in the essay.

       While rambling along the way to his conclusion, he makes many assumptions about “this leads to that” which are simply guesses. He also concludes that, because some extremist concepts re: White Privilege (and we are in agreement on some of these) are rather outré and or unproved and unprovable, the entire concept is simply incorrect. This was the point at which my inner historian called bullshit and although I had other things to do I was forced to answer this e-mail.

What follows is my response:

“You want scholarly? This is off the top of my head.

       Interesting, semi-scholarly article, but it does contain one of the basic flaws of much editorial writing that separates and distinguishes fact and social research from opinion. That is, that the writer started with an opinion and organized "facts" (really opinions) to demonstrate the point. Not saying I completely disagree, but here, in this case, is what the writer did, He started with the thesis that Socialism is bad or wrong for society and has probably thought so for decades. In all probability, he hopes the reader doesn't realize that there are degrees of every system, including Socialism. Agree or disagree with him, but that is factual and evident in the article. He had the conclusion before he started. He then shapes everything around this "opinion."

       As I intimated above, there are degrees to every political/social/economic system. We accept (or most of us do) that the unrestricted monopolistic capitalism of the last half of the 19th century (we learned it as the age of the "robber barons") was wrong (see Sherman anti-trust act). Some today would disagree, claiming that it's fine for the resources of the nation to be commanded by a few and used for their individual gain without regard for their fellow citizens. These people would also agree that workers "belong" to industrialists and should expect no better treatment than the owner decides to allow them. They put a monetary value on intangibles such as opportunity and status rather than diligence of effort.


       To take two examples of this central thesis - "earned" vice "unearned" wealth. The Bush family wealth comes from the fortune amassed through some truly shady dealings including Nazi Collusion and was originally kick started by the Opium trade. ( https://www.mondialisation.ca/the-bush-family-saga-airbrushed-out-of-history/5512738 ) That said, the current crop of Bush boys, while not criminals (except for the odd DUI) have all benefitted from a huge running start in their respective careers, none of which they earned themselves. Was GHW a nice guy? Probably, and a good pilot and fair first baseman, too, but the connections he made at Yale (Skull and Bones brotherhood) had far more to do with his success than raw ability ever did. Did his connections with Saudis cloud the early view of Al Qaeda? Almost certainly. On to George W. Could any rational thinker believe that he would even be able to spell "White House" if not for the family ties and money? He may be the prime example of "White Privilege" of the last 50 years. Certainly, that is true in the current Washington climate.

       Do I believe there is (or was) such a thing as White privilege? As a historian I must.

 The record of post-Civil War race relations demands that I do.

 The fact that one racial sector of America once had the "privilege" of owning another, based solely on pigment, demands that I do.

 The fact that it was necessary to enact three Constitutional amendments to try to deal with that fact demands that I do.

 The fact that for about 100 years, the Jim Crow South and, to a more subtle degree, much of the North, remained racist, demands that I do.

        We can never know what might have been, race wise, in America, because Black Americans, legally thrust into "equal" status, were never allowed to exercise that status, instead being told in overt and more subtle ways that they needed to stay in their "place."  

The fact that white persons get lighter sentences for exactly the same crimes, especially drug crimes and that a young black man is 3 times more likely to get jail time, a felony conviction, and loss of some civil rights for precisely the same drug related infraction (http://drugwarfacts.org/chapter/race_prison ) demands that I do.

 The fact that a white college student (Brock Turner) can repeatedly rape an unconscious woman, including penetrating her with a "foreign object" behind a dumpster and be sentenced to six months in jail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner#Sentencing ) , while, until this century, almost any rape without violence of a white woman by a black male was a death penalty issue in much of the South, (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2153368717702700 ) demands that I do.

       So yeah, there is White Privilege and has been, since the day in 1619 when Dutch traders brought African slaves taken from a Spanish ship to Jamestown, in North America. Of course, that should be no surprise considering the vicious record of the Dutch in Cape Colony where race is involved.

       One thing I am relatively sure of is that without the constant undercurrent of racial bias underlying American society into the present, the claim of White Privilege would have no basis on which to stand. White racism created the conditions for "white privilege" to be delineated. If we had placed all Americans on equal social footing in 1865, finally honoring Jefferson's words in The Declaration, It's hard to say where we would be, but it probably wouldn't be here. Here's an 1893 quote from a Georgia politician named Tom Watson, addressing the whys and wherefores of racial division in the South and by whom. Here he was addressing poor white farmers:

        “You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars both.”  Sound familiar?

       So, when Whites decry black opinions and attitudes as biased, which they sometimes admittedly are, they too frequently look outwardly rather than reflect on how their forbears and in many cases, they themselves, have engineered, created and exacerbated the status quo over the previous 100 years. 

     Solutions? I don't have a clue, but the claim that White Privilege is linked to socialism does disservice to hard working black entrepreneurs who have faced far more daunting obstacles than anyone named Bush or Trump ever has. Having said that, I think we'd all be better off if Affirmative Action had been unnecessary because we had already truly provided "equal opportunity." Sadly, in education, where now we do strive for equal access, we're also trying to overcome a legacy of bias. Anyone who thought Brown v Board instantly levelled the playing field is too dumb to even tie their own shoes.

       Six or seven generations of "Why try, the deck is stacked?" (perceived by some persons of color,  true or not, and perception is the determinant of action) is difficult to overcome. Lest we think that’s only a “Black thing” There are Irish who still cannot speak of the English and their actions during "the famine" rationally, and that's been 170 years. That is also the root cause for violence which, while abated at present, still simmers. There are many parallels, but at least the Irish, being Caucasian, weren't also "marked for discrimination" simply based on pigment. When others chide Blacks for not assimilating like their Irish, Italian, Polish forbears did, they somehow miss the whole color thing, the only time they overlook color, since I know some incredibly bigoted second and third generation Western Europeans. Does this validate extreme claims such as that “being able to grasp and solve complex mathematics is “White Privilege.” I think not. I also believe such claims obscure and weaken the understanding of the real racial issues we face as Americans.

       Finally, as for the author's "Socialism" bias, as I said earlier, there are degrees of every political system. People who "have", sometimes portray Socialism as Communism (state Socialism), which is not what any nation other than Russia for about 70 years and North Korea and Cuba claimed to have, but we all know they had dictatorships, far more akin to Oligarchy, which is actually Capitalism on steroids. Think I'm wrong? Look at the similarities between Trump and Putin. For an even more stark example look at Argentina under Galtieri (early 1980s) or Chile under Pinochet (1973-1990). Both were extreme right-wing Governments yet looked just as much like Soviet era Russia in terms of class difference, brutality towards their own and concentration of power. Cuba was (only) somewhat of an exception. 

       There are those who would posit that some things in the interest of human decency should be the right of all citizens. (Like Health Care, of which Medicare is actually a successful socialist example) What is very troubling to me is that while most of the foaming at the mouth anti-socialist crowd proclaim their Christianity just as loudly, they act in the opposite manner. This may be (is) the most glaring contradiction in terms on the planet.

       Should we, like Sweden, provide free drugs to addicts? I don't think so. Should we arbitrarily take from Peter to give to Paul (or vice versa) and "level the playing field?" Don't think so. Should Paris Hilton be able to live as she does because her grandfather amassed a fortune by hard work? Harder question, but I think not. Should a C student who can barely read be President because his daddy was? Andrew Carnegie one of the original Robber Barons famously said, "The man who dies rich, dies disgraced." So yeah, I support the idea that after reasonable bequests, Jeff Bezos' billions should revert to those who sent them to him. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates agree and are already doing so. I also believe that decent medical care should be the right of all citizens, and I believe (actually I know, because both Brookings and Johns Hopkins studies support it ( https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html ) that some "socialist" concepts such as single payer health care systems are a good idea and work better. Who doesn't think so? Drug companies whose profits are in the range of four to five times the average for other US corporations.

       So, when someone bitches about Socialism, ask yourself who pays his salary and how he attained the status he has. Of course, we have the hypocrites like Paul Ryan, who only got where he is because of Social Security survivor's benefits and now wants to dismantle the system which sustained his widowed mom. Weird, huh.”

Mikey