It Is Not About Religion

This essay began as a comment on something I shared on Facebook, regarding the Arizona Legislature passing their SB 1062, aka the "Hate the Gay Away" Amendment. The bill "protects" individuals' rights to refuse service to people they deem objectionable on religious grounds (mostly gays, but the bill would allow businesses to deny others as well). As I write this, SB 1062 has been passed by the Arizona legislature on nearly party-line votes (I think a couple of GOP State Senators voted with Democrats to oppose the bill) and is waiting for Governor Brewer to sign it.

I'm usually wary of comparisons to Nazis, but this one seems inevitable. Quite simply, how do you tell that someone is gay? Is it a "Good morning, welcome to McDonald's, are you gay?" sort of thing? Is a man holding hands with a another man gay? Because that makes President Bush gay. Or how about kissing; except Russians do same-sex kissing as a way of saying hello and I'm pretty sure they're mostly not gay. So, how do you tell? Or is it when someone feels uncomfortable around people who act and dress a little different than he or she, that we get to treat them differently?

The Nazis, after working to persuade people that Jews were a inferior and malevolent species realized that it was hard telling them apart from other Germans, so they made up "Jew Codes" and made Jews wear yellow stars on their clothes, which they billed them for by the way. I wonder how the Arizona legislature proposes to tell who is gay and who isn't, and do they plan to charge them for the honor of being singled out?

But all that deals with the practicalities of the bill. Let's get to the really important question, what is wrong with being gay? Some people insist that it violates their religious beliefs. Fine, if you believe that then don't be gay. But we have this thing in the United States called the First Amendment, and within that, called the "Establishment Clause," that says the government can make no laws regarding the establishment of religion. In other words, behaviors that are proscribed solely on religious grounds cannot be banned by government laws. If you were Catholic in the 1950s and couldn't eat meat on Fridays, it didn't mean your Protestant friends had to give up their hamburgers. It had to do with Catholic beliefs, and there was no compelling public good to be achieved by mandating meatless Friday; or harm to be avoided.

In the early 1960s, a future Georgia governor named Lester Maddox demanded that he, as a private businessman and restaurant owner, had a right to refuse service to anyone he wanted. Of course that meant black people back then. To emphasize the point, Maddox offered pickaxe handles to white patrons who wanted to help him refuse service. The federal government's point of view was that a person entering a business that was open to the public had an expectation and right to the same services as any other patron, as long as they weren't doing anything against the law or -- within reason -- disturbing other patrons (the fed maintained that just being there was not -- within reason -- disturbing). Interestingly, this is the same argument that gun rights advocates use when they pack heat in Starbucks and other public businesses.

I'm a straight guy, why do I care? Because liberty isn't divisible. This bill, which is billed as protecting religious freedoms, does nothing but mock and undercut them. It empowers individuals to deny services to people on the purely subjective basis of not liking something about them. Wrap it in religious language all you want, but we in the United States have settled law that says that is bunk. Can I refuse to serve people who aren't dressed for church on Sunday, on the grounds that they disrespect the Lord's day? How about refusing someone wearing a yarmulke? How about someone wearing a gun? Am I allowed to refuse someone sporting a Confederate flag on his T-shirt because I object to celebrating treason against my country?

As I noted, SB 1062 is on Governor Brewer's desk for signature. She is under intense pressure from the business community to veto it. Tourism dollars and things like the Superbowl hang in the balance. Tweeting your opinions to @NFL and @NBC about holding the Superbowl in a state that sanctions hypocrisy and hate would add clarity to her decision.

Labor, and the GOP's Betrayal of Conservative Principles

Last night workers at Volkswagen's plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee voted on whether the United Auto Workers would play a part in their plant. The vote went against the UAW by 712-626. This has been characterized by some as a devastating loss to the union. I think that is the wrong judgement.

It matters that the vote happened at all. That is pretty impressive in a part of the country where anti-labor forces are allowed to obstruct organizing efforts and otherwise violate federal and state labor laws at will. In this case, the UAW didn't even initiate the effort. Plant workers, with the apparent blessing of VW, courted the UAW. As the drive took shape, Tennessee's Republican Governor and junior Senator went on a blitz to stop the unionization effort. The Governor and Senator were joined by a host of usual suspects; Grover Norquist led the charge.

The various opposition parties made dark mutterings about communists, intoned about "foreign influences" (German labor unions) penetrating their state, and generally tried to scare the bejesus out of the 1,500 plant workers. Images of Detroit abounded, and President Obama's name was thrown about with wild abandon.

It worked, this time. The victory may be Pyrrhic however. The GOP has to own an anti-worker blitz at a time that workers are hurting and concerns about income disparity have achieved traction. This will come back to bite them.

Interestingly, VW had asked "third-parties" to stay out of the union vote effort.

Before getting into the question of why the GOP and the political right are so opposed to labor unions in general, its helpful to look at the ways that unions are a boon to business, industry and conservative politics (here I ask readers to note that I use conservative in its correct sense. When I refer to what the wing-nuts have coopted I use the word in quotes ["conservative"]).

First of all, the American labor movement has been overwhelmingly conservative. While today's GOP wants you to imagine Wobblies storming the factory gates (or Winter Palace), in fact the AFL/CIO for years was the mainstay of conservative Democrats. They rallied their forces against FDR's preferred 1944 VP candidate Henry Wallace and we got Harry Truman instead. In the 1950s and 60s they largely drove the Democrats' anticommunist wing occupied by the likes of JFK, LBJ, and Hubert Humphrey. Labor put the brakes on the Democrats as they courted marginal constituencies in the late 60s and 70s. Look, in retrospect, slow-rolling minorities seeking a place at the table is nothing to be proud of, but it kind of meets the essence of conservatism; go slow, be deliberate, think about unintended consequences.

In the early 80s, labor poured money into Solidarity, the Polish dissident labor movement that did a damn sight more than Ronald Reagan to end the Cold War. When Polish workers struck in 1980; first in the Gdansk shipyards and, then, through the entire country, it ripped away whatever shreds of "rule by the proletariat" were left of the old Soviet system. And America's house of labor was front and forward with money and moral support.

Organized labor is good for business, in part because it relieves a lot of businesses of the cost of administering health and retirement programs. It is popular to point out the ruinous expense of maintaining pensions and health care for retired auto workers; I won't debate that they were costly, but the auto manufacturers did not have to pay the cost of administering those programs, that was borne by the UAW.

Labor is also good for business and industry because it provides standards for workers to train to, and follow. Workers who are trained through union sanctioned apprenticeships to the journeyman and master level know what they are doing. I know I always feel safer  knowing a union electrician fixed the wiring in my house.

Labor does push business and industry to pay workers better. But even that is conservative and good for business - as long as you define "good" as good for the long haul and not good for next quarter's balance sheet so you can churn your stocks and make a quick buck at your company's expense. Henry Ford figured out years ago that if he paid his workers well enough to buy the cars they were building that they would work better and he would get richer. Ford was not a bleeding heart. He understood enlightened self-interest.

Similarly, a nation that pays its workers well invests well. Such a nation wants workers to be happy, healthy, wealthy and wise; so they can fully participate, be invested, in the life of the nation. And those too are conservative values.

So, why the GOP opposition? It is partly historical. Reflexive GOP opposition to union efforts in the 30s opened the door for Democrats under FDR to lock up the labor vote as a key element of the Roosevelt coalition. In zero-sum politics anything that hurts your enemy helps you.

Going back to Henry Ford, who bitterly opposed unionization, he thought that the union diluted the workers' sense of loyalty to him and his company. He may have been right. The workers may have liked Henry's wages and paternalistic views, but they also knew that Henry was getting on in years and would not be at the helm for long. Would another generation treat them like family, or would they become expenses in a ledger? A modern comparison is Walmart. Sam Walton was a latter-day Ford in many respects. He took pretty good care of his workers and looked poorly on unions. His heirs have not done well by their workers and are one of the contributors to rising welfare and medicaid expenses because they refuse to pay a living wage and expect taxpayers to subsidize their paltry wages.

Labor remains a core piece of the Democrats' coalition, although private sector unions have been on their knees for decades. That makes any UAW inroads into the South particularly troublesome. Southern states have been historically hostile to organized labor and have also -- historically -- had the most poorly paid workers. In the worst economy since the Great Depression, the GOP probably does not want workers in the GOP's geographical base putting two and two together and starting a regional push to unionize.

GOP hostility to labor has been a feature of the party's right wing for a century. Republican moderates realized the value that labor brought to the table and worked with them. George Romney had the labor vote in Michigan pretty well locked up. Richard Nixon was endorsed by the Teamsters in '72, and the AFL/CIO refused to campaign against him that same year.

Democrats haven't always been there for labor either. I suggest that labor's decline and the dearth of conservative Democrats that started in the 70s are related phenomena and not good for the Democratic party.

But, given the GOP's current rank hostility toward labor, Democratic diffidence is tolerable and acceptable. Labor's attitude toward the two parties reminds me of Jean Seberg's line in Paint Your Wagon: "Well Joseph, I may not know what I'm getting, but I know what I've gotten."

Double Dog Dare

So, for the last week or so, I have heard TV and radio journalists discussing the President flipping the bird, rhetorically, at Congress in the State of The Union address.

Here is what the President said:

" ...what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require congressional action, and I'm eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still, and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."

That really does not translate to "screw you, I'll do what I want." However, I have pretty much given up on the media's ability to 'get' nuance and understand -- and report -- the difference between telling Congress, "I want to work with you but I also have a responsibility to the people who voted for me and I will meet that responsibility however I can," and saying "screw you."

My mother once pointed out that FDR's "court-packing" proposal, decried by the GOP as unconstitutional, was anything but. My mother really liked FDR by the way. FDR proposed and defended a constitutional amendment to modify and fix the number of justices who sat on the court. It was debated and voted down and FDR dropped it. Where was the constitution violated?

Similarly, Obama proposes to use his executive powers to effect changes he thinks will improve things for Americans. His executive orders have effect if Congress let's them stand. They can legislate them away. No constitutional crisis here folks. Keep walking...

But, if Congress -- the GOP in particular -- wants to vote Obama's executive orders out of existence, then they have to go on record as voting to screw over American workers, something they go to great pains to avoid by legislative devices like the filibuster and distractions like "repealing Obamacare." The President has double-dog dared 'em. Let's see what happens.

And let's see if the media start paying real attention.

"...you go to the box, you know. Two minutes by yourself, and you feel shame, you know."

The title of this essay is taken from an early line in Slap Shot, the hockey movie with Paul Newman. It was one of my favorite movies when I saw it back in 1977 and though I haven't seen it in decades I always remember it as insanely funny, if perhaps a bit crude. Last night it was on satellite TV so I recorded it on the DVR and sat down this morning with my coffee and breakfast to enjoy it.

Things change in 37 years.

The movies was the template for many of the sports movies that followed: There is the old veteran seeking a last season in the sun; and a team of plucky losers determined to show up an unfeeling owner who is out to sell the team and could care less about the people themselves. How many sports movies have we seen since the late '70s that echo that plot?

The movie also depicts the plight of the rust-belt towns of the northeast, in this case Charlestown, Massachusetts. Charlestown, you may remember, saw its economy fold in the late 70s, while simultaneously being ripped apart by busing riots. A background theme is  the despondency of those towns as their industrial bases fled overseas and their work forces faced recession, unemployment and a future offering people shopping carts and a pleasant greeting.

And then there is this: The movie is incredibly misogynistic and homophobic; jarringly so. Indeed, as I watched it again, I recalled that I was taken aback by the language and sexism when I first watched it in 1977. I wasn't particularly shocked by the homophobia at the time. Actually both the term and concept were largely unknown. Only five years earlier the then Democratic front-runner Edmund Muskie, was doing everything he could to avoid meeting with a gay caucus during his campaign for the White House. 

I recall thinking at the time of a question I'd heard some old Navy Chiefs ask their young sailors when they trash-talked women around the base or on liberty: "Would you want someone talking to your daughter like that?" But that question by itself isn't enough. It should be asked along with: "Would you want your son talking to anyone else's daughter or son like that?" If it isn't it may do more harm than good.

But in 1977, we were getting "liberated." I wasn't entirely sure what we were being liberated from in 1977. Now I suspect the people getting liberated were the ones who ran Hollywood studios and had previously been expected to adhere to certain decency standards. They were definitely liberated from those things. But in the process, they popularized and celebrated behaviors that were -- well -- unconscionable. 

So back to that question: "Would you want someone talking to your daughter like that?" Of course not! Not my daughter! But as with many questions, this one, left by itself, contains a "yes, but." But, what about someone else's daughter, someone I don't know, someone that doesn't look like me, doesn't earn as much, doesn't do things I approve of, etc? What then?

The message of the movie is that it is okay to treat people shabbily or cruelly because of their gender or orientation. Excuses as to whether they "joined in the fun" or that it reflects an ethos of another era are beside the point. Reducing men or women to their body parts or what they do with those parts is as wrong as reducing people to the color of their skin, the pattern of their speech or the balance in their bank accounts. When you strip off the dignity to which a person is entitled simply by the fact of their existence, their personhood, you hate them in the classical sense of the word.

Slap Shot, funny as it seemed when it came out, does exactly that. It reduces people to something less, and permits other people to do the same. 

The title of this essay comes from an early line in the script. The team's goalie is being interviewed and is explaining what happens when you foul another player: You go to the [penalty] box where you spend two minutes by yourself and feel shame. This morning, I felt shame or mortification that a movie I once thought funny should, years later, turn out to be vile.  The shame lasted longer than two minutes, long enough to reflect on and type this essay. 

I won't watch it again..