PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ROUND TWO, By Louise Annarino, October, 7, 2012
If you think my last piece which suggested we do not need a bully in the bully-pulpit was mere spin on the lack of an effective response to Mr. Romney’s debate performance by President Obama and Jim Lehrer, rest assured it was not meant to be so. The willingness within human culture to overlook and even applaud bullying is more prevalent than we recognize. In schools, workplaces, even on debate stages it too often rears its ugly head. Tim Field, [bullyonline.org] who believes only the best are bullied, describes bullying in a way we cannot so easily overlook:
“Bullying is a compulsive need to displace aggression and is achieved by the expression of inadequacy (social, personal, interpersonal, behavioural, professional) by projection of that inadequacy onto others through control and subjugation (criticism, exclusion, isolation etc). Bullying is sustained by abdication of responsibility (denial, counter-accusation, pretence of victimhood) and perpetuated by a climate of fear, ignorance, indifference, silence, denial, disbelief, deception, evasion of accountability, tolerance and reward (eg promotion) for the bully.”
Tonight, while I sat in the atrium of the pizza parlor waiting to pick up a pizza, I noticed several middle school girls, accompanied by a few parents, enjoying a birthday party in the adjacent party room. The birthday girl stepped through the open double-pocket doors into the lobby area as the party seemed to wind down, only to have the other girls close the doors behind her and refuse to allow her back inside. The other girls laughed and teased her as she quietly asked them to open the doors. They would not budge; but only grinned and giggled. Her efforts to dislodge one door moved every girl to hold it fast against her. As she shifted to the other side, they shifted against her,relishing their power over her. As the intensity of her pleas increased in anxiety but not volume, their glee increased. The parents paid them no mind,as the jollity of the girls on the inside increased, and the girl shoved to the outside became more resigned to her powerlessness. As the fight went out of the girl being kept outside the group and the reliance on the kindness of girlfriends was lost in the darkness, the game became meaningless and was abandoned. The birthday girls’s wounded eyes belied her “thanks for coming” to the parting girls, still laughing over their prank.
How often do we see this type of interaction and not recognize what it is and the damage it does? When the suggestion of a faculty member at a university committee meeting is ignored by the group, only to be applauded 3 minutes later when a member of the faculty in-group suggests the very same idea, do we recognize bullying? In those moments the pretense of collegiality was forever lost. On the day of the John F. Kennedy assassination as a unformed Catholic school girl quietly bears the shouts of public school students as she walks home following early dismissal, “Ha ha! Someone finally killed your fish-eating president, you dirty Catholic!”,do we recognize bullying? In those moments safe passage on a city street was forever lost. Would we recognize it in what Mitt Romney did as a high school senior when he organized an assault on a fellow student stating, “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” and proceeded to cut his hair as Romney’s friends held him down? In those moments his pretense of innocent prankster was forever lost.
There is a fine line between strong leadership and bullying; the two can be easily and unfairly confused. I do not believe I have done so in this case. There is a mistaken belief that bullies pick on the weak. But, often they pick on those whose greater strength threatens their perceived dominance and control, whose greater strength they fear. I believe this is what drove Mitt Romney’s hyper-verbal aggression, unwarranted rule-breaking, and laughter-filled domination at the first presidential debate. He was too comfortable making others uncomfortable, too gleeful when breaking rules, too eager to distort-deny-ignore his own policies, too satisfied with his own evasions. To me, these are traits of a bully; not a leader one can trust. To me Romney’s fearful excitement, fueled by aggression, was far more significant than whether he won or President Obama lost the debate.
I also believe these traits are what drives the unwarranted attacks against Barack Obama by Mr. Romney and Teapublicans who fear the changing demographics seemingly embodied in an African-American president. I am not the first to remark upon this phenomenon. But, do we recognize the behavior we are watching as bullying? Perhaps we do not do so because our president is so strong. Perhaps we don’t because we fear by doing so he will be called weak. We cannot afford to ignore the bullying, because the world cannot afford a bully in the bully pulpit. Bullies often attack those whose strength they fear. There is no way to appease bullies;their fear is a bottomless pit. However, kind people instinctively try to protect the weak. Strong people instinctively hold back their strength to avoid worsening the bully’s fear. But, we need not deny our strength to make weak bullies feel better about themselves. That is their responsibility. The first step in confronting a bully is to define him as one.
President Obama must admit he faces a bully, and do what each of us who have faced bullies have learned to do – stand up to the bully and challenge his displaced aggression ,projection of inadequacy, subjugation,criticism, counter-accusation, abdication of responsibility, pretense of victimhood, denial, deception, evasion of accountability; perpetuated by a climate of fear and ignorance while insisting on approval. Bullies cannot be rewarded with a pretense that they are fair or strong leaders. When they are not attacking the strong, they are attacking the weak. And who will speak for the weak? The strong must be willing to do so. President Obama must speak for all of us: women, immigrants,people of color, LGBT community, middle class, poor, small businesses, corporations facing take-over, even mother earth. This is why President Obama’s supporters were disappointed in his performance;not because he lost a debate, but because he did not defend them against the bully.
I said it before, and I shall say it again, “Bullies must never be called winners.” We cannot allow a bully to be elected to the bully-pulpit. Anger at President Obama is misguided by our own fear of ,and distaste for, Mr. Romney. It is time to stand together;not let fear divide us. Mr. President, we are counting on you to lead us. every day, we face down these bullies during canvassing, phone banks, fundraising, writing Letters to the Editor, and blogging. We have your back. We know we can count on you to have ours. Bullies beware!
SYNERGY OR SERENDIPITY? RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN OFFICES OF SECRETARIES OF STATE,BY Louise Annarino,August 18, 2012
SYNERGY OR SERENDIPITY? RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN OFFICES OF SECRETARIES OF STATE,BY Louise Annarino,August 18, 2012
Synergy is two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable.
The Suppression of the African-American vote deserves a blog entry all its own. I recently wrote about the general suppression of early voters in Ohio. Such behavior is disgraceful. But, suppression of the African-American vote is truly beyond the pale of thinking Americans.Perhaps no one is thinking. Perhaps the intent is not so deliberately racist as it appears. However, I find it difficult to believe what is happening in Ohio and simultaneously in so many states had not been planned.
General systems theory would remind me of serendipity; perhaps it is simply a “surprising happenstance” that the votes of those groups who so strongly supported Barack Obama in 2008 are being systemically suppressed throughout the country during the 2012 election. 95% of African Americans in the U.S., 97% in Ohio, voted for Barack Obama in 2008. “With population growth and increased voter participation among blacks, Latinos and Asians, members of all three groups cast more votes in 2008 than in 2004. Two million more blacks and 2 million more Latinos reported voting in 2008 than said the same in 2004. Among Asians, 338,000 more votes were reported cast in 2008 than in 2004.” http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election An even higher turn-out among these groups is expected for the 2012 election.
It is estimated no fewer than 93,000 persons voted on the week-end before the November 2008 election. Since not all county election boards keep a daily tally of voters this number may be far lower than actual votes cast. There is no way to prove the race of voters on that or any other week-end. However, we do know that African-American churches “Souls to the Polls” projects bus hundreds of thousands of African-Americans to early voting after church services on Sundays, including the final Sunday before election day. We do know that getting to the polls, early or on election day is a struggle for single mothers, students, older persons, those relying on public transportation, and those working longer hours for less pay. We have a collective a memory of who was left standing in long lines, who had to leave the lines without voting in 2004; and who formed long lines throughout the interior hallways, and out the door to wrap themselves in a line extending around Veteran’s Memorial and into the parking lot on week-ends in 2008. African-Americans stood witness as far larger percentage of voters in-line than the percentage of African-Americans living in Ohio. For African-Americans, wek-end voting is a necessity, not a convenience.
The recent efforts in Ohio,Pennsylvania and other states to make it more difficult to vote are being justified using the same arguments which were used to deny African-Americans and women the right to vote; which later were used to impose a poll tax or literacy test to deny African-Americans their place at the polls. Now, we face a bigger hurdle. The systemic institutionalization of voting rules meant to turn voting rights into mere privileges as a means of controlling whose vote will get cast,and counted.
We elected an African-American president, while white men thought they could still hold onto power. Putting a woman, Sarah Palin,on the Republican ticket was not enough to overcome the changing demographic. What’s next, a woman president? An African-American woman president? A Latino, Latina or Asian president?
I believe what we are seeing is synergy, not serendipity. Racism coupled with the power held by state Republicans to regulate voting is threatening our elections. On NPR this morning a man was questioned about his opposition to congressional candidate Christie Vilsack. His reason for opposing her, “No way. It’s a man world”. It really isn’t; not any longer. The only way to keep the U.S. “a man’s world” is to suppress the vote of those who would easily and happily live in a multicultural America.
On August 6, 2012 The Honorable John Lewis (D-GA) stated on his facebook page: “47 years ago today, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. It is a shame and a disgrace that today we bear witness to a deliberate and systematic attempt to make it impossible for some among us to vote. It is an affront to those that suffered and struggled, and especially to those who gave their lives so that others would be free to choose their own elected leaders. We must resist every effort to make it harder and more difficult for people to register and vote.” Yesterday, I listened to an interview of Congressman Lewis on CNN where he was asked whether the racist environment during his civil rights days marching with Dr. King for the Civil Rights,where he was set-upon by dogs,hosed,beaten and jailed was worse than what we see and hear today. Congressman Lewis said (I paraphrase) “It is the same. But then, it was only in the South. Today it is everywhere in the country.”
The struggle for the right of African-Americans to vote continues as we demand the restoration of week-end voting in Ohio, the removal of unobtainable documentation requirements for and end to voter ID in Pennsylvania, and a slew of other burdens and obstacles to voting across the country. If the vote of one person can be denied, the vote of every person can be denied. While it is clear what is being denied to African-American voters we must recognize it could also be denied to every voter, even to those like SoS Husted. He and his party may not always hold power. They should not forget they are simply one of us, as we are all part of the whole. The precedent he is setting treats the right to vote as a privilege to be controlled and doled out according to the whims of those in power. This is dangerous to all Americans.
Once again, African-Americans are on the front-lines defending the constitution we all love, witnesses to the need of those in power to oppress even it means their own self-destruction. We must stand together or we will fall together. As Sen.Robert Kennedy once said, “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” African-American,white,Latino,Asian,men,women we must stand together against the folly we are witnessing.
Leave a comment
Filed under COMMENTARY, POLITICS
Tagged as 2012 campaign, 2012 election, African-American, Barack Obama, civil rights, Congressman John Lewis, Democratic Party, election 2012, feminism, literacy tests, Obama campaign lawsuit in Ohio, Obama. Romney, Pennsylvania voter ID, politics, poll taxes, racism, Republican Party, Robert Kennedy, Secretary of State John Husted, sexism, vote ID laws, vote suppression, voters