We Are All Iowans Now (Except We’re Not)

Look, this impeachment trial has transfixed all of us.

This is not because there’s any real suspense over Trump’s eventual acquittal. The sycophantic fealty of the Republican Party preordains it. 

No, the spectacle is more about how the GOP is twisting Gordian knots into the very ideas of logic, common sense, patriotism, consistency, legality, principle, and basic decency. Conservatives have overruled all those concepts in favor of hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and fear, supplemented by a lust for power and a flair for Orwellian tactics.

It’s all very fascinating.

However, let’s step back from this constitutional calamity to look at the other major political event occurring soon: the Iowa caucuses.

Yes, next week, thousands of wholesome, downhome, gosh-darn, god-fearin’ Iowans will pull on their overalls, adjust their truckers caps, and mosey on down to wherever it is that one caucuses. Once there, they will take the chewing tobacco out of their mouths long enough to argue for their preferred presidential candidates. And then we’ll have a winner, a frontrunner guaranteed to rocket unimpeded toward their party’s nomination.

Except that’s all pretty much bullshit — and not just the stuff about overalls and chewing tobacco.

You see, only about half of the winners of the Iowa caucus have gone on to win their party’s nomination for president. And that accuracy is likely to decline further in the future, due to demographic changes. After all, Iowa is more than 90% white, while the rest of the country — especially the metro areas where most voters actually live — clearly is not.

Still, we fawn over Iowa because our society continues to devote more attention, give more importance, and provide more resources to the rural areas of our nation, despite the fact that rural America is rapidly declining in population, cultural influence, and economic output.

Basically, we just care a lot more about what old white guys think. 

For example, how many articles have you seen that consist solely of a reporter walking into some small-town diner and asking the locals for their opinions? 

And I’m not just talking about this election season. It is year after year, in diner after diner, that we hear from the supposed average America about the issues that matter to him.

Never do these reporters walk into a pupuseria in Los Angeles, or an Indian restaurant in Queens, or a Thai place in Chicago to ask the locals for their insights.

Apparently, that would be elitist, or politically correct, or electorally suspect, or some such nonsense. 

The truth, of course, is that the opinion of a Latina in California is simply not viewed as an authentic representation of the “real America.” That status is reserved solely for rural American baby boomers.

You can also see this in the idea that Trump’s tariffs — which affect places like Iowa more directly — are a fabled “bread and butter issue” that genuine Americans talk about around their kitchen tables. However, immigration reform is a “wedge issue” that appeals only to racial agitators and hippies.

Aren’t you happy to have that cleared up?

Still, given enough time, places like Iowa will eventually become so sparsely populated that even the most old-school journalist will ask, “Why are we still coming here?”

That is, of course, unless immigrants and young multiethnic families start moving in to reshape the area. At that point, you may see a reporter walk into a Des Moines carniceria and ask the owner — a Gen Z woman of Mexican and Korean ancestry — what she thinks about the candidates.

I can’t wait to hear her answer.


The Weakest Tough Guys Around

I’ve been called arrogant a few times in my life.

And it’s not just angry readers or the stray co-worker who have said that I’m bossy. I’ve had friends tell me that I was arrogant (whatever — they’re just jealous because I’m so much better than they are).

In any case, the dangers of arrogance are well-established. Pride goeth before the fall, hubris got us into Iraq, etc.

That’s all true of course. But it’s also true that genuine arrogance does not originate in confidence. Its root cause is its theoretical opposite, which is insecurity. 

Honestly, does anyone believe that our easily agitated president — lashing out over every perceived slight and spewing all-caps threats over Twitter — acts like a confident, secure individual who knows what he is doing? It’s textbook bullying that masks his insecurity.

By the way, if you think Trump actually does know what he’s doing, you are highly delusional.

Now, if we mix the hazards of insecurity with one of our culture’s favorite demons — toxic masculinity — we get a new, 21st-century problem that absolutely no one was clamoring for. I’m talking about fragile masculinity.

What the hell is that?

Well, fragile masculinity refers to the fact that “many men feel pressure to look and behave in stereotypically masculine ways — or risk losing their status as ‘real men.’” American machismo is a bastard, and this “unforgiving standard of maleness makes some men worry that they’re falling short.” These men are said to experience “fragile masculinity.”

OK, that all makes sense. But what can this disturbing phenomenon tell us about the times that we are living in?

You might be interested to know that politics “provides a way that fragile men can reaffirm their masculinity.” They do this “by supporting tough politicians and policies” that reassure others (and themselves) of “their own manliness.” 

And yes, a recent study has shown that “Trump appeals to men with fragile masculinity.”

Yikes.

Of course, you may be skeptical that researchers could measure something as ambiguous as fragile masculinity. Well, these scientists are way ahead of you.

The researchers didn’t just ask guys, “Hey, are you feeling fragile these days?” Although the responses to such a question would have been a hilarious YouTube video.

Instead, the study analyzed Google searches that indicated “a high level of concern about masculinity.” Specifically, the researchers identified phrases such as “how to get girls,” “penis enlargement,” and “testosterone,” among others. The scientists then looked at this sad grab-bag of phrases and, after accounting for demographic attributes such as education levels and racial composition, they discovered that Republican candidates “drew more support in areas with higher levels of fragile masculinity.”

Or as the researchers put it, support for Trump was higher “in areas that had more searches for topics such as ‘erectile dysfunction.’” 

So now we’re back to this being a fucking hilarious study.

In essence, there are a lot of very insecure guys out there who are motivated to support Trump because his unrepentant bullying and tough-guy talk makes them feel manly. These omega males appreciate a chief executive who boasts about the size of his penis on national television, because they fantasize about doing the same thing themselves (although if the study is accurate, they may not have any real reason to boast… ahem).

By the way, the researchers found that, like so many aspects of American culture, this all snowballed with Trump. The study found that there was no significant relationship between fragile masculinity and voting in previous elections, which suggests that “fragile masculinity has now become a stronger predictor of voting behavior.”

Furthermore, the researchers theorize that Trump’s “re-engineering of the GOP as a party inextricably tied to many Americans’ identity concerns — whether based on race, religion or gender — will ensure that fragile masculinity remains a force in politics.”

So how do we stop this scourge? How do we keep insecure, fragile guys from wrecking the nation as part of a pathetic, futile quest to feel manly?

Well, regardless of the course of action we choose, one thing is certain.

It’s time to man up.


The Assimilation Blues

We have heard from disgraced presidents and esteemed journalists, from nervous demographers and right-wing bigots, from talk show hosts and the oversampled, oversimplified residents of mythical Middle America.

Any they all agree.

Today’s immigrants — primarily Latinos — are just not assimilating. In fact, they seem determined to sequester themselves in ethnic enclaves and keep jabbering away in Spanish. They certainly are not merging into mainstream American culture the way previous immigrants (of good and pure European stock) once did.

Harrumph.

Well, there’s just one problem with that analysis. Actually, there several problems with it, ranging from petty ignorance to overt racism, but we’ll focus on one flaw in the argument: 

It’s not true.

You see, numerous studies have found that Latino immigrants “assimilate very well,” when looking at such factors as educational attainment, labor market integration, and yes, English proficiency. The assertion that Hispanics refuse to join American society is a well-known conservative talking point that has the unfortunate trait of being a pathetic lie.

Now, one can argue over what we mean by “assimilation,” and even whether the term itself is prejudicial. But there is no debate that Latino immigrants and their children are adapting to America very well.

Still, what about those sainted immigrants of yesteryear? We have all heard myriad variations of “My grandfather came here from Norway and never spoke Norwegian again!” Or perhaps it was “My grandmother arrived from Italy and banished everything remotely Italian from her house forever!”

At the risk of busting two myths in one article, I have to point out that this trope — the European immigrant who became “American” overnight — is ludicrous.

Hey, I’ve written before about my home state of Wisconsin, which had a thriving German-immigrant community well into the 20thcentury.

But since we’re on the topics of Germans — and how perfectly they assimilated into America — this might be a good place to point out that as late as 1938, the German-language Staats Zeitung newspaper was selling 80,000 copies a day in New York City.

This was right around the time when 20,000 Nazis held a rally at Madison Square Garden, an event sponsored by “the German American Bund, an organization with headquarters in Manhattan and thousands of members across the United States.” 

Yes, I said 20,000 Nazis in Madison Square Garden.

The German American Bund “had parades, bookstores and summer camps for youth,” offering a vision that “was a cocktail of white supremacy and fascist ideology.” 

Also, there was that whole Nazi spy ring, made up primarily of German ex-pats, who tried to steal American military secrets and pass them to the Fuhrer.

So I’m pretty sure that rallying thousands in support of your homeland’s murderous ideology, and actively working to defeat your adopted country in a war, isn’t quite assimilating perfectly.

My intention is not to demonize European immigrants. Just to be clear, the vast majority of Germans who moved to America displayed great patriotism. Also, that Nazi spy ring was broken up by a German immigrant who hated fascists.

Plus, I married a fine Wisconsin girl of German ancestry, so there’s that as well.

The point is that we have allowed Latino immigrants to be slandered, slurred, and denigrated, insisting that they can never truly be part of America. And we have done this while shouting that the European immigrants of a century ago became instant patriots about nine seconds after they set foot on U.S. soil.

Neither assertion is true, and to perpetuate them goes beyond simple disservice to the truth. It advances the goals of racists and xenophobes. It harms America.

One final point about Nazis. Recently, students at a Georgia university burned the books of Latina author “following a lecture in which she argued with participants about white privilege and diversity.”

Burning books, of course, is a straight-up fascist move. And this begs the question:

When are those students going to assimilate to American values?


A Recurring Phenomenon

The downside of having 10,000 books that you want to read before you die is that, inevitably, some pretty good titles wind up languishing on your shelves for years. That’s why I only recently got around to reading a bestseller from years ago: The Devil in the White House… Sorry, I meant The Devil in the White City. Ha — I’m sure there’s nothing Freudian about that, nope.

Anyway, The Devil in the White City is a nonfiction book about two overlapping narratives.

First, we have the story of Daniel Burnham, the chief planner of the Chicago World’s Fair of 1893, which was an urban marvel of such grandiosity that its influence is still felt today in the fields of architecture, pop culture, and urban planning. 

Second, we have the tale of H. H. Holmes, notorious for being America’s first serial killer (or at least the first to achieve nationwide infamy).

Both Burnham and Holmes reached the pinnacles of their careers in Chicago at the same time, which is what gives The Devil in the White City its thematic structure. The fact that one designed buildings and the other strangled women is a dissonance that it’s best not to dwell on. 

In any case, one fact about the dual subjects of the book stood out to me.

You see, Burnham’s early life was one of mediocrity, if not outright failure. He sucked at school, bounced around from job to job, and only became successful in architecture after wiping out in other fields.

But he was a white guy who was good looking and charming, and society gave him numerous chances to fulfill his potential.

Holmes was a bald-faced liar who cheated people out of their money and displayed overt sociopathic tendencies.

But he was a white guy who was good looking and charming, and society gave him numerous chances to fulfill his potential.

White City, indeed.

Both architect and murderer benefitted from white privilege, which at that time was so ingrained that it didn’t even have its own name (it was just called “America”). And even though white privilege has been a powerful force in our society for centuries, many people still refuse to believe that it even exists.

Many of these people also refuse to believe that glaciers are melting and that guns are a problem, but I digress.

The point is that Burnham, for all his brilliance, simply never would have had a chance to thrive if he had been black. And he certainly wouldn’t have had the luxury of messing up repeatedly with little consequence. The guy knew that he would be ok, regardless of what he did, and eventually, he created something great.

Holmes was able to con and swindle people all over Chicago, kidnap women and children, and quite literally get away with murder because no one ever considered that this respectable white dude in a suit was anything other than a dignified member of the elite. The guy knew that he would be ok, regardless of what he did, and eventually, he created hell on earth.

Of course, Burnham and Holmes lived in a bygone era, and we have (hopefully) progressed just a little. But we have to wonder how many Latinos and African Americans of towering potential never get even half a chance to make an impact. 

Furthermore, we have to ponder if there are any well-connected white men who drip with incompetence but nevertheless achieve positions of great influence, ultimately doing nothing more than enriching themselves and unleashing misery upon the planet.

No — nobody like that springs to mind…


The Best Way to Start a New Year

Yes, 2020 is an election year. Also, an impeachment year.  And possibly the end of civilization as we know it if we don’t finally get serious about climate change and the surging menace of neo-fascist racism.

But you know the really big development of the year thus far? That’s right — I have a new book out.

My latest novel is a sequel to my first book, and you can grab a copy here.

What’s it about? 

Well, The Bridge to Pandemonium furthers the adventures of Abraxas Hernandez, reluctant detective, and it will inevitably be the greatest Latino-themed murder-mystery black comedy that you will read this year. Here’s summary:

It was supposed to be an easy assignment. But when Abraxas Hernandez gets hired to follow a cheating spouse, somehow the whole situation devolves into a grisly murder. Hey, it happens. So Abraxas and his partner (and ex-girlfriend) Vic start investigating, only to encounter a freaky hodgepodge of suspects — including a band of religious zealots, a Marxist stripper, and a pair of secret government operatives who communicate mostly via veiled threats. Oh, and there’s also that frazzled tech millionaire who just can’t stop kidnapping people. In their quest to solve the murder, Abraxas and Vic shatter alibis, dodge bullets, and slam the occasional tequila shot. But when they discover the secret behind the gruesome crime, they learn the full scope of the terrifying scheme that has ensnared them. Plus, some other people start getting killed, and that is not cool at all.

Pick up a copy today. And thanks.


A Bug That’s Going Around

As we careen full throttle into the holiday season, it’s important to keep your stress level low, avoid getting sick, and maintain a positive attitude.

Of course, if you’re Latina, you can forget about all that, because it’s impossible for you to do any of those things.

You see, a recent study has revealed that “Latinas’ economic worries and anxiety about health costs are more intense than for other women overall.” In fact, Latinas are far more likely than other American women — especially white women — to worry about affording rent or a mortgage, getting decent health insurance for their families, snagging a job with good benefits, or keeping their family safe from mass shootings. And Hispanic women rank second only to black women when it comes to fear of white nationalism.

Wow, that’s a lengthy list of anxieties. And let’s not forget that almost half of Latinas report that they have experienced discrimination this past year, which is an enormous increase from the Obama era.

Of course, that implies that there is some kind of link between the well-being of Hispanics and the person in the White House. And that’s just crazy, really nuts and…

What’s that?

Oh, it seems that “half of Latino citizens and legal residents, as well as three-quarters of undocumented immigrants, feel unsafe because of comments made by the Trump administration.”

Hmm, it’s almost like having a raging xenophobic president target you specifically for all of the nation’s ills — and putting an overt white supremacist in charge of immigration policy — has a negative effect on people.

Well, researchers point out that “statements coming from the administration and the president really do have significant effects on Latino populations.” Specifically, the rhetoric and policies of this gang of bumbling sociopaths have not only “induced fear in undocumented immigrants, but they have also caused a substantial proportion of Latino citizens to have concerns about their safety.”

This refers to all Latinos — whether they are newly arrived, born and raised here, undocumented, or third-generation citizens — all of us.

For one concrete example of this plague, look to the fact that one-quarter “of undocumented immigrants said they were so frightened they delayed going to the emergency room for days,” which I’m sure is just fine with the contingent of Americans who love stuffing kids into cages and advocate for shooting people at the border.

But Trump’s words and actions “can be dangerous, and they can even kill when they create barriers to healthcare access.”

And what about all those ICE raids, and all the Latinos (many of them citizens) who have been arrested on their way to work or school? Well, studies have shown that “Hispanic Americans may experience worsening mental health when immigration arrests spike.” 

This stands to reason, as it can be just a little bit stressful to be walking down the street, minding your own business, and then be abruptly handcuffed by black-jacketed thugs who cart you away toward a waiting van.

Happy holidays indeed!

Researchers point out, in a totally unnecessary aside, that this “anxiety could have a detrimental impact on mental health, particularly among racial/ethnic groups that have been disproportionately targeted for arrest and deportation.”

And again, this psychological assault is not limited to the undocumented. Because these policies and actions have an impact on all Latinos, who “might also experience more discrimination, which worsens mental health.”

OK, now that we’ve established that every Hispanic has solid reasons to get sick and feel overwhelmed, is there anything we can do about it?

Well, medical professionals are actively trying to recruit more Latinos for clinical trials, so that we can better understand how these maladies affect the Hispanic population specifically. You see, Latinos are severely underrepresented in clinical trials, so doctors don’t always know if there are subtle differences in, for example, reactions to drugs that are caused by genetic differences.

As such, doctors really want Latinos to sign up for medical studies.

So the good news is that if you’re going to be sick and stressed as hell, maybe you can get paid for it.


Fair Is Fair

During the first 186 years of the U.S. Constitution’s existence, only one president was impeached. And yet, within the last 45 years, three different presidents have faced impeachment.

Is this a consequence of increased polarization, where opposing political parties seek the ultimate punishment? Or is it a random historical coincidence, and a vast amount of high crimes and misdemouners just happens to be taking place during a relatively short time span? Or has Congress only now noticed the impeachment clause hiding in the Constitution, and thought, “Hey, as long as it’s there, we might as well use it”?

Well, personally, I think more presidents should have been impeached throughout history, so maybe it’s just that our predecessors overlooked some pretty egregious shit.

In any case, this impeachment process is different from the others, and not just because we are seeking to remove a brittle, easily agitated igmoramus who was never qualified to be president in the first place.

No, it’s because the issue of fairness has never before been such a concern when we’re discussing whether or not we should evict someone from the White House.

You see, Republicans are obsessed with being fair to Donald Trump. Their arguments throughout this entire process have had little to do with the facts (there is little dispute about what happened), or the appropriateness of pressuring a foreign government to interfere in our electoral process.

Instead, when they are not pushing idiotic conspiracy theories or shrieking like lunatics, they are demanding fair treatment for our beleaguered president.

For example, Republicans are very big on identifying the whistleblower. “Who is the whistleblower? Is he the whistleblower? Are you, them, or it the whistleblower? Hey, I think I’ll name someone I think is the whistleblower, even if it’s against the law and opens the door to death threats!”

Now, all but the dimmest of Republicans know that it simply doesn’t matter who the whistleblower is. All that matters is whether what he/she reported is true. And by the way, all the allegations have been verified about six thousand times now.

So even if Hilary Clinton were the whistleblower, it wouldn’t matter when assessing Trump’s innocence (although that would be a hell of a plot twist, and I’m sure someone’s working on the screenplay right now).

When they not insisting that they need to know the whistleblower’s identity (for absolutely no valid reason), Republicans are bemoaning that Robert Mueller, the FBI, and just about everyone who has investigated the president has some deeply held bias against him that corrupts the very act of looking into Trump’s criminal behavior.

Again, even if every single person involved in investigating Trump possessed a seething contempt and loathing for the man (and really, who could blame them?), it would not matter.

Bias is irrelevant as long as the facts are correct. If someone commits a crime, we do not say he can walk solely because the cops and the district attorney don’t like him.

Unless the GOP is willing to argue that this imaginary bias provoked investigators to plant evidence and make up transcripts — which I’m shocked they haven’t done yet — then this too is a pathetic smokescreen.

By the way, I’m old enough to remember Bill Clinton’s impeachment, and I have no recollection of anyone claiming that Kenneth Starr had an obligation to be fair and unbiased. Granted, much of the public debate at that time centered on whether a blowjob counted as “sex,” but the point remains.

Among the other accusations of unfairness is the GOP opinion that this process is being rushed, or that Joe Biden and his entire family committed far greater crimes.

At the risk of indulging absurdity, it should be pointed out that even if Biden shot someone on Fifth Avenue — to make up a totally deranged example — it would have no bearing on whether or not Trump should be kicked out of office. Impeachment is about the president’s behavior, not the possible shenanigans of his political rival’s kids.

Speaking of children, I can’t be the only one who thought it was odd when Republicans lost their minds over an impeachment witness making a pun about the president’s son’s name. These same defenders of the sanctity of childhood have no problem stuffing other, brown-skinned kids into cages. But hey, they’ve got their priorities.

And those priorities include shrieking that the impeachment process is a grotesque travesty of justice.

Um, no — a grotesque travesty of justice would be, for example, what happened to the Central Park Five. 

Oh, that’s right. Trump was one the loudest voices perpetuating that particular injustice.

And that’s what is so interesting about the GOP’s new and sudden interest in fairness.

You see, this is the same party that dismisses wealth inequality and shoddy healthcare as the price of freedom. They care little that well-documented racial imbalances exist in every facet of American life. They do not concern themselves with the fact that the electoral college screws over the will of the people.

The concept of fairness never enters the GOP equation for any of those issues.

To Republicans, being fair means being nice to the president, and shutting up as they plot their right-wing power grab.

That’s all it has ever meant to them.


Unity at Last

As we all know, Latinos are a vast demographic, consisting of about 18% of the American population, and as such, we have an enormous range of backgrounds, philosophies, and behaviors.

Hey, we can’t even agree on whether we are Latinos, Latinx, or Hispanic. So what possible unifying force could exist to bring us together?

Well, there is something: 

It seems that the vast majority of us hate the president. 

Yes, recent polls find that somewhere between 70% to 80% of Latinos disapprove of Trump. For context, keep in mind that this is a much higher number than the percentage of Americans who believe in democracy. Really, it’s incredibly difficult to get three-quarters of a group to agree on anything, but our illustrious commander in chief has found a way to accomplish it.

Digging even deeper, we find that over half of all Hispanics say the situation for Latinos has worsened since Trump took office, and a significant percentage of us are literally terrified to be living in America right now.

I’m no statistician, but I can say with confidence that those numbers are horrific on multiple levels. And those few Latino conservatives who have stuck by our doddering chief executive have noticed this, with more than half of them admitting that “it is hard to support Republican candidates right now.”

Yes, it is indeed difficult to endorse a political party that exists for no other reason than to demonize ethnic minorities and “own the libs.” 

The fact is that the GOP’s cultish devotion to Trump and open embrace of bigots has galvanized Hispanics to vote for somebody — anybody — else.

So your socially conservative tio — the guy who praised Ronald Reagan and thought Bush Jr. wasn’t such a bad guy? Yeah he ain’t voting for Trump.

Indeed, “while different generations of Latinos can still hold divergent views, these views appear to have become more muted” under the onslaught of Trumpism.

This is because “some conservative, older Latinos may believe in more stringent immigration measures or restrictions, [but] they may draw the line at putting kids in cages.”

Hey, that’s more than you can say for the average GOP senator.

The disdain for Trump among Latinos has brought together different generations and subsets of the Hispanic population, with most of us agreeing that a man who pals around with Nazis and mocks Central American refugees may not have our best interests at heart.

This hasn’t stopped our delusional White House occupant from claiming that he is super, mega popular with Hispanics. However, “while the president claims Latino support is growing, that is not based in reality. In fact, he has brought down the overall likability of the entire party.”

Wow, who could have predicted that the entire GOP would suffer for aligning itself with a xenophobic moron who is unable to go more than eight minutes without insulting a Latino, a woman, and/or a world leader? Well, actually, pretty much everyone said that this would happen, but Republicans are not big on listening to anyone who isn’t a Fox News contributor, so they are honestly surprised at this development.

Yes, it seems that you can’t stuff the racially loaded toothpaste back into the tube.

Still, it will be a great day when Latinos can forge strong bonds over something other than our shared hatred of a bigoted Baby Boomer. 

Maybe we can all agree that pupusas are better than hamburgers, or that Adam Sandler movies suck, or that Carlos Santana should have a statue put up to him on the National Mall.

Clearly, it’s time to start debating the really important stuff.


A Brief Respite

I’m going to take a rare week off from saving the world one blog post at a time in order to enjoy this Thanksgiving holiday with my family.

So there’s no new article this week. Certainly, I’m not going to say anything about the ongoing shit-show that is the impeachment process… nope, almost got me going there, didn’t you?

Anyway, be sure to take some time this week to give thanks that we live in a country with so much prosperity… even though the richest 1% are currently hording so many resources that it boggles the goddamn mind. I mean, seriously, people! What’s it gonna take to… wait… pull back… not gonna rant. Just gonna give thanks.

As I was saying, we can all be grateful that our country’s leaders are calm, rational people who value facts and expertise over conspiratorial nonsense and never engage in cult-like behavior that…

OK, skip that. It’s a damn lie.

Deep breath.

Let’s settle on this: Happy Thanksgiving.

Yes.

See you next week.


Empathy Is for Suckers

Recently, CNN profiled a former neo-Nazi who now rejects white supremacy. Years ago, the woman (identified only as “Samantha”) inexplicably found something appealing “in the white power activists who presented themselves as intellectuals,” and she soon “became a dues-paying member of a white power fraternity called Identity Evropa.” 

This is a common route to extremism, which is why progressives get just a little annoyed when racist ideology is presented as edgy intellectualism or a valid point of view. 

In any case, Samantha worked for Identity Evropa to test new applicants — of which there were many — to see if the newbies were sufficiently “fluent in white power ideology.” And she focused especially on women, who were told the fascist movement was “a great way to be family-oriented.”

So what eventually drove Samantha out of Identity Evropa? Was it the deranged hatred toward Jews and racial minorities? Was it the violence that often culminates in the actual loss of life?

No, she left because — to absolutely no one’s surprise — angry men who despise blacks and Latinos usually loathe women as well. Apparently, a guy who is willing to attack total strangers based upon the color of their skin may not be the most respectful toward the ladies. Hey, who knew?

Samantha’s male peers in Identity Evropa tried to persuade her to stay, telling her that her body “could hold a lot of Nazi semen and make many Nazi babies.” Despite such smooth talk, she left, and today she receives death threats from her former pals. According to CNN, there are “other women who, like Samantha, spent about a year in the alt-right before quitting, unable to take the abuse anymore and fearing for their safety.”

Indeed, “the alt-right is far more hostile to women than previous iterations of the white supremacy movement,” with many experts insisting that its “not even possible to have an alt-right movement without the underlying misogyny.”

Now, we can all be happy that Samantha is no longer a Nazi. But in reading her story, there is one crucial element missing.

You see, Samantha only left the alt-right because she was being oppressed. In other words, she was fine with dehumanizing ethnic minorities. Hell, she enthusiastically promoted hatred toward non-white people. Only when women became the object of scorn and derision did she say, “Whoa, not cool.”

Samantha, and many right-wingers like her, possess an almost total lack of empathy for anyone who doesn’t share their background. Such individuals will alter their repugnant views only when — or if — it affects them personally.

Science backs this up. Researchers have found that liberals and conservatives display equal levels of empathy. However, liberals are far more likely to have empathy for all people. But conservatives tend to have empathy primarily for their own group

In one study, researchers found that Americans who felt more connected to “people like themselves” tended to support Trump’s ban on travelers from Muslim countries. They also displayed “less empathy toward immigrants.” The opposite was true for those Americans who placed less importance on their own group.

One could also look at how the conservative movement still largely views gay people as deviants, sinners, or debauched weirdoes who deserve second-class citizenship at best, and capital punishment at worst. Yes, a few libertarians and younger Republicans aren’t down with the whole virulent homophobia thing. But for the most part, the GOP is just fine with gay Americans having fewer rights than straight citizens.

The exceptions, as you can guess, tend to be those Republicans who have gay family members. Oddly, they often change their minds when it affects their loved ones.

The most infamous example is that loveable war criminal, Dick Cheney, who was “a leading Republican at a time when his party was campaigning on forbidding gay marriage.” During this time, Cheney “voiced support” for his daughter Mary, a lesbian.

How about that? He voiced support for his daughter.

Should we applaud now? 

It is highly unlikely that Cheney would give half a damn about gay Americans if his daughter weren’t a lesbian. And the man clearly didn’t care about, say, Iraqis to the same extent.

An indifference to the rights of others — or in extreme cases, to the very humanity of others — continues to vex the conservative movement. What can one say about people who justify jamming kids into cages, in large part because those kids speak a different language? And why should we celebrate people like Cheney or Samantha, who will definitely, absolutely do the right thing… provided that they have some kind of personal stake in the outcome?

Perhaps it is simply asking too much to consider, even fleetingly, how our actions affect people who don’t look, act, or worship the exact same way that we do.

But is it really that difficult?


  • Calendar

    November 2024
    M T W T F S S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Share this Blog

    Bookmark and Share
  • My Books

  • Barrio Imbroglio

  • The Bridge to Pandemonium

  • Zombie President

  • Feed the Monster Alphabet Soup

  • The Hispanic Fanatic

  • Copyright © 1996-2010 Hispanic Fanatic. All rights reserved.
    Theme by ACM | Powered by WordPress