In an earlier post, I argued this episode, including a post-Zimmerman verdict panel and Detroit bankruptcy filing discussion, one of the worst MTP shows I've seen in years; the lack of balanced discussion is absolutely appalling. This post is an attempt to provide a critique of selective excerpts; you can find the full transcript here.
David Gregory starts off his program with a couple of brief clips from Obama's impromptu discussion a couple of days earlier.
TAPE - President Obama:The fuller context of the first state is that he himself noted that he had said in an earlier statement that Martin could have been the son he never had and then rephrased the point. In what sense is it legitimate for the POTUS to personalize a case before the courts or when the DOJ, under his chain of command, is considering filing federal charges against Zimmerman? It's blurring the line between politics and justice and violating Zimmerman's right to fairness under our legal system; if not a violation of his Presidential oath, it is a violation of professional ethics and is not a good reflection on Harvard law.
“Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago... If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? (out here) and do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened.”
Among the things you will not hear a journalistic hack like Gregory note is the delay of several days after the verdict to respond (if he was going to respond at all); this is "leadership" or simply more "dithering as usual"? Second, how does it help for him to identify with Martin? All he really means is each had a father of color; we already knew that. We've already heard him talk or write of race issues; what did he add that was new to the discussion? Does he also identify with Martin's actions in attacking a neighborhood watch captain following a relative newcomer to the neighborhood in the context of a rash of burglaries? What about black boys back in Chicago, which he represented as a state and US Senator, whom have died at the hands, not of a Latino neighborhood captain, but other blacks? Where is Obama's concern in these cases? Can he, being raised by white grandparents or living in his $1.6M mansion, say that he identifies with the black victim of a drive-by shooting?
Going back to the first point, wasn't it more important for Obama to speak sooner than later? One blogger counted 8 revenge attacks last year and post-verdict lists at least 10 fresh revenge attacks against whites, 2 against Latinos, and 4 accounts of general rioting and damage to property. The victims of these black racist criminals had no connection with Zimmerman or the verdict. Did Gregory raise this issue? No.
Now let's move on to the second clip. First of all, Obama knows full well "stand your ground" is not relevant in this case; for him to raise the point is both incompetent and disingenuous. Zimmerman only shot once and only after he was physically battered, suffering a broken nose and bloody scalp, he could not flee (a duty if not stand your grand) because he was pinned to the ground. Obama is asking a rhetorical question--could Trayvon or anyone have shot someone simply because one is being shadowed? Of course not. Martin could have only shot in legitimate self-defense. Zimmerman was much shorter and pudgier than Martin and did not pose an obvious physical threat. And the same goes for Zimmerman; he had no right to use his weapon except under direct, serious attack.
DAVID GREGORY:
What a unique moment Friday was for this presidency, for any presidency. And, Congresswoman, I wanna start with you. Describe the impact of the president coming out at the White House speaking about race in such a personal and, frankly, off-the-cuff way.
MARCIA FUDGE:
I was very proud, quite frankly. I think that it was timely, but more importantly I think that he could feel the anger that was going around across this country. And he felt that he needed to respond in a way that I think took a lot of courage.
For him to basically say that we have a situation where a young man is basically convicted of his own murder, that someone can hunt you down and then say, "I'm afraid," and kill you; he made it clear that Trayvon Martin had rights as well. And he made it clear as well that African American men, for history, for a very, very long time, have had to deal with this problem.Wow, what a "thrill-going-up-my-pant-leg" moment for Gregory.. In my opinion, what a pathetic moment for his presidency, any presidency. What did he say that was different from the whole diversity industry? There are diversity awareness programs, course requirements, black history month, black leaders like Jackson or Sharpton whom have been preaching the same over decades. As I mentioned above, Obama has spoken or written on the race topic many times.
I really wasn't aware of Ms. Fudge until this interview, and I am not favorably impressed. She is proud because a leader is letting emotions cloud his judgment? What would have taken "courage" would have been to go beyond political correctness, of saying things that black people don't necessarily want to hear, about a poisonous culture, dependency on governments instead of self-reliance, a deteriorating family structure, etc.
What would have impressed me more was Obama ot resorting to victimization rhetoric, of paying tribute to the rule of law, of not exacerbating racial tensions over the verdict.
"A young man is basically convicted of his own murder?" That earns Ms. Fudge a nomination to this year's JOTY competition. According to Google Dictionary, murder is "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Martin was killed, not murdered. If Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, why would he called the police in the first place? Zimmerman didn't know Martin; he was motivated because he was neighborhood watch captain in an area hit by recent crimes. This speculation that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin based on race is unsupported by any credible evidence. And Zimmerman shot Martin only once and only after he had been battered by the much taller, stronger, faster Martin, a clear matter of self-defense. Our legal system requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the verdict didn't mean that Martin's death wasn't tragic or that Zimmerman exhibited good judgment. Martin got his day in court; even when local authorities cited a lack of evidence to press charges . Martin wasn't convicted of anything. All defendants, including blacks (as well as Zimmerman), are entitled to a presumption of innocence, no mobocracy.
The phrase ("someone can hunt you down... and kill you") is gross distortion. People on neighborhood watch do monitor suspicious unfamiliar people; as I wrote above, Zimmerman reported Martin to authorities. Martin confronted Zimmerman, a tragic mistake; he probably didn't realize Zimmerman was armed. The implication that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin dead or alive is unjust; I am unaware of any evidence that Zimmerman had a history of shooting suspects or that he only pursued black suspects. The rest of Fudge's statement is just over the top. Ms. Fudge in entitled to her flawed opinion, but not her own facts.
DAVID GREGORY:
Tavis Smiley, you were critical of the president. You said on Twitter, "His comments were as weak as pre-sweetened Kool-Aid. He took too long to show up and express outrage."
TAVIS SMILEY:Actually, Obama has communicated extensively on race and had previously discussed the Zimmerman case. Obama is supposed to be the post-racial President, not the racially-divisive one, sworn to uphold the Constitution, including Zimmerman's right to a fair trail. Second, Smiley doesn't seem to understand this is local issue, not a federal issue; police powers fall under the states. The Rwanda example is a bad one for libertarians; what happened there was a violation of human rights, but Rwandans are not Americans
I appreciate and applaud the fact that the president did finally show up...A week of protest outside the White House, pressure building on him inside the White House pushed him to that podium. hat's lacking in this moment is moral leadership. The country is begging for it, they are craving it. And I disagree with the president respectfully that politicians, elected officials, can't occupy this space on race. Lincoln did, Truman did, Johnson did; President Obama did. He's the right person in the right place, at the right time. But he has to step into his moment. I don't want him to be like Bill Clinton, when he's out of office, regretting that he didn't move on Rwanda. I don't the president to look back, David, and realize that he didn't do as much as he could have in this critical moment.
This is not a bigger issue like Truman's decision to integrate the military. There's not an epidemic of neighborhood watchmen killing young men. Two main issues with Smiley's shallow analysis here: first, he is not specific about what constructive steps Obama should but hasn't taken. Second, he's not pushing on things Obama can influence like government policies hurting the ability of black Americans to find work and the counterproductive war on drugs, which particularly impact the black community.
DAVID GREGORY: Janet Langhart Cohen wrote in the Washington Post, journalist and author, on Tuesday that he had imposed himself in this silence about race. And she wrote this: "During this period of self-imposed silence, we have watched our criminal laws become radicalized, our race criminalized. Blacks continue to be faced with punishing unfairness and inequalities, soaring rates of unemployment, discriminatory drug laws, disproportionate prison sentences, unequal access to health care and healthy food, unfair stop-and-frisk policies, and accidental shootings of unarmed black men by the police; even more are treated with indifference of contempt. We're told to stop complaining, to get over it, no one cares."Talk about a laundry list of social liberal's gripes. First of all, let's talk about morally hazardous social programs, which are not short-term fixes but encourage government dependency. Second, government is not the solution to the problem; it is itself part of the problem. Take failing public schools or the war on drugs. The issue is not "discriminatory" drug laws; it's economically illiterate drug laws. (Personally I think taking drugs is a stupid self-destructive thing to do. But there are unintended consequences to government actions.) Take another example from this laundry list I've discussed in the blog, the bit about access to healthy food, i.e., supermarkets. Just as Wal-Mart was looking to open 6 stores in the DC area, city councilmen looked to enact a higher minimum wage, effectively applicable specific to Wal-Mart. At last mention, Mayor Gray was considering whether to veto the bill. At least 3 stores are likely gone and the others may shutter. This was an unforced error; if Wal-Mart offers "unfair" wages, it won't attract applicants--and Wal-Mart often promotes from within.
I don't know what "self-imposed silence" Ms. Cohen is talking about; the racial grievance industry has been operating full-time since the 1960's....
MICHAEL STEELE:
I hearken back to the gun debate, and the president bootstrapped the gun argument with his initial comments the day of the jury verdict in a way that was disconnected. And if you look at the momentum behind that discussion, coming off of Sandy Hook, and the raw emotion from the American people saying, "We want something done here. Let's move on this."
What happened? The discussion dissipated. Then this was something that the president came out again and heralded, but then let the steam fall out of it. So my concern on this is it's great to step to the podium-- I tend to agree with Tavis. It's great to step to the podium to be in that moment, but then it's not so much leading but continuing to inspired the conversation so that it doesn't die on the vine--Wow, Michael Steele, someone I have been considering supporting as Maryland's next GOP governor, is talking about politically exploiting the senseless murder of first graders. No, Michael, the measures that have been discussed would not have prevented Sandy Hook. The monster stole his weapons from his mother, a registered owner, and murdered her first; he then broke into the school that fateful day. This was also a local, not federal, government failure.
I think, though, Michael isn't really taking on his party's base on the Second Amendment and a limited federal government; it's a more process-oriented critique of Obama's leadership--how Obama doesn't seem to know how to use the Presidency, even when he had the country behind him. I would argue that this is a consequence of Obama's divisive politics, his inability or unwillingness to compromise or negotiate, and his perpetual campaign mode.
I would also argue that Obama has failed to outline an initiative to help the black community, for instance, by reforming wage mandates that limit low-skill employment opportunities, drug prohibition laws which contribute to violence and high incarceration rates, and morally hazardous domestic policies that contribute to unstable family structures and establish a vicious circle of dependency on government.
MARC MORIAL:
Tavis, let me make my point because my point is that in order to move a piece of legislation, in order to move action steps, the president can in fact lead. And the president is also in an environment of continuing obstruction, that you know well, that report on.
TAVIS SMILEY:May I get in a word here? There's a difference between opposition and obstruction. This country is on an unsustainable fiscal course. We have had decades of "progressive" government failure, from urban public schools, housing, etc. The Democrats had super-majorities in the 111th Congress; they managed to pass a number of pieces of legislation with no or limited GOP support, including a massive stimulus, ObamaCare and so-called financial reform. These 2 gentlemen need to explain why their policy preferences got short shrift while Obama held a strong hand. Blaming the GOP is convenient, but in fact Obama has not put forth a comprehensive proposal on the racial issue. I think in part this is because Obama sold himself as the post-racial President and sought to distance himself from the more strident approaches of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Respectfully, Marc, nobody's argued that he has been up against a headwind. The obstructionism is real.
But more to the point, Obama has been very cautious and nuanced. He has a reputation for "leading from behind"; the major legislation I cited above were not based on his original proposals; if his proposals got voted down, which would have been highly likely--and damaging to his credibility I see him as more of a fine-tuning than a "big picture"guy; go back to the stimulus; he was pushing infrastructure,` alternative energy, and education than say, streamlining business taxes.
TAVIS SMILEY:
I don't think that we have a litany here of things, of moments, where he's tried to have the conversation. To the contrary, respectfully, he's tried to avoid the conversation.;Number one.;Number two, when he says a politician can't have an impact on this, yes, he gives a wonderful speech, but he basically kicks it back to the community, to community leaders, to business leaders, to celebrities and athletes, and that's real, but the president can't absolve himself from it.. Number two. And finally, number three, I don't know how the president argued that he doesn't believe that he can have a role in leading us in a moral conversation. This is not a political issue, this is a moral issue. I don't know how he obviously can't lead us in a conversation on this, but he can on gay marriage? ;He can on a litany of other--I would like to believe that Obama recognizes the limited nature of effective public policy, that Obama has full faith in individual liberties, associations in the private sector, etc., but there's no question Obama firmly believes in the primacy of the public sector. I don't believe in Smiley's victimization philosophy. But Smiley's implied allegation that Obama has "led" on the issue of gay "marriage" is laughably absurd. Several states legalized gay "marriage" before Obama flipped to support the issue. Contrary to Smiley's assertion, this is fairly typical of Obama's "leadership" from behind and where Smiley seems inconsistency, I see Obama as being, as usual, cautious, not wanting to stake out a position on a controversial issue unless he thinks that he has a majority behind him. Gay "marriage" has been less popular among black voters, Obama's strongest power base, and so that's why I think he pretended to be in favor of traditional marriage. But, as I've cited in the blog many times, Obama opposed DOMA in 1996, not a stand consistent with traditional marriage. I know Sean Hannity and others were fooled by Obama's kabuki dance on this issue, but I never was.
DAVID GREGORY:
Okay, but what is this, in particular? I mean, the president spoke about wringing bias from our lives. These are intimate conversations between blacks and whites that are very difficult to have in a big public setting. But I think when you start boiling it down, it is the question that I thought he was asking, which is: What is the "this" ? There's no federal program that can deal with this. So how does he lead and on what does he lead:
CHARLES OGLETREE:
There is no federal program that would lead on this. But for me-- he gave a State of the Union address this past year, he talked about the idea that we have to do something about guns, and he talked very candidly about that. He talked about Gabby Giffords, he talked about all the victims. He says, "We want a vote. We simply want a vote." And that was him saying, "I want this to happen," and there was a vote, and it failed, right? So he's been pushing that issue on and on again.
In terms of what he's done for the community, it's very obvious when you look the things that make a big difference. He's been pushing a jobs plan from the beginning, without success.Finally, David Gregory notices the elephant in the room. Ogletree tries to form one on guns and the jobs problem. A couple of points here: the right of blacks in crime-ridden areas with poor police protections to be able to defend themselves is critical. Ogletree is confusing symptom with disease. A lot of violence has to do with the underground drug trade; we need to discuss decriminalization (if not legalization) of the drug economy. (I personally don't believe in drugs, but I think more people die from drug-related violence than drug usage.) Second, Obama's "jobs program" is more of the same ineffective winners-and-losers policies that failed with the 2009 stimulus and similar issues. Giveaways to states for politically connected public safety and teacher unions are unfair, expensive, counterproductive, and morally hazardous. Raising the minimum wage will actually lower the number of low-skill available work hours; if you want to improve the job supply, get government policies out of the way of the hiring policy. Things like wage rules, health benefits, etc., are counterproductive. Ogletree may be a decent lawyer, but he's a lousy economist.
MARCIA FUDGE:This is a lie and grossly incompetent. What the Supreme Court said is that a majority of states cannot arbitrarily extend extraordinary scrutiny to states for past racial issues no longer relevant. It did not declare the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, just the pre-clearance process applies to some states and not others. It didn't even say you couldn't do pre-clearance--it just has to be based on an objective relevant criteria fairly applied against all states.
You look at the fact that we have a Supreme Court that just gutted the Voting Rights Act.
MARCIA FUDGE:This piece of work is now confounding black issues with "progressive" domestic policies. Yes, the House majority is concerned about all-time high enrollment in food stamps years into the Obama "recovery", The corrupt political crony alliance between farm state legislators and "progressive" food stamp advocates is just the sort of thing that makes reforming either program all but impossible. The farm bill policies actually make a number of foods more expensive than they should be for lower-income folks. As for affirmative action, if you're referring to restoration of color-blind equal protection, it's not a matter of partisanship, but of constitutional principle. As for Title 1, there is not only a question of dubious federal involvement in local education, there's a question of accountability for tax dollars being spent.
And they're trying to do the same thing with affirmative action. You look at a House of Representatives who, just last week, took food stamps out of the farm bill. You look at this past week where they have decided to block Title 1.
But not all black are low-income. So don't conflate the issues.
DAVID GREGORY:I had to stitch a number of excerpts together here. First, let's speak about the Zimmerman discussion. The allegation that Zimmerman was "ordered" not to pursue Martin is false; the gist of the exchange, from my perspective, is that the ball is now in our court; we can take it from here. Don't put yourself in danger; you've done your part.
How about the particular issue of the law that seemed to loom so large over this situation, and that is the Stand Your Ground law. In Florida, 21 other states they have a law that really redefined the concept of what we consider to be self-defense. The attorney general was in Florida this week and he spoke about it in a way that the president echoed later. Here's what the attorney general said.
TAPE - ATTORNEY GEN. HOLDER:
It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. // These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if - and the "if" is important - no safe retreat is available.”
DAVID GREGORY:
--self. In this particular case, you had the police officers who told George Zimmerman, "Don't pursue this young man."
MICHAEL STEELE:
That's right.
DAVID GREGORY:
"Don't do that." He gets back into his car, he says he feels a threat, and he follows him --
MICHAEL STEELE:
Anyway.
MICHAEL STEELE:
Well, and that's what the facts tell us. But the question now becomes is this a proper role for the federal to go into or--
DAVID GREGORY:
Versus the states?
MICHAEL STEELE:
Versus the states. To go into all 21 states now and tell them how to change their laws or to remake their laws? No. I mean, this is something that's going to have to get worked out state by state. You have 21 states, other states out there as well, so it's not just Florida.
So when we start this conversation, you have people talking about, "Well, I'm going to boycott Florida. I'm not going to perform there, I'm not going to go there." Well, you're not going to go to the 21 other states? There's got to be some level of consistency, number one. Number two, on the political side of it, again, the facts of the Trayvon Martin case, this was not brought into it. This was not the underlying argument that was made. The defense backed off that--
MARC MORIAL:
--so who is the attorney general--
MICHAEL STEELE:
But, Marc, do you know who's used the Stand Your Ground law in Florida the most is African Americans.
CHARLES OGLETREE:
In fact, Michael, it's not just in Florida--
CHARLES OGLETREE:
The reality is that another group pushed Stand Your Ground, but African Americans have been using it around the country--
TAVIS SMILEY:
I predict that you will never hear the N.R.A. say that if Trayvon Martin had had a gun, he'd still be alive.
But in fact, the police weren't on the scene and Martin was moving to an unknown destination. Zimmerman was trying to track Martin for the police; what are they going to do if they arrive at an old location and don't find Martin there? I don't think Zimmerman should have ever left his vehicle...
The Stand Your Ground law was not material to the Zimmerman case because Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and being assaulted at the time of the shooting; he couldn't flee. But in terms of the provocative nonsense from a journalistic hack like Smiley: the reason Zimmerman was acquitted had to do with the fact Martin assaulted him, breaking his nose and bloodying his scalp. No, Martin could not have used a gun against Zimmerman unless Zimmerman initiated hostilities--and that doesn't mean being followed. Similarly, Zimmerman could not have used his weapon except in self-defense.
I'm disappointed with Steele's role in this discussion; he make a process-related discussion of Stand Your Ground (not being used by the defense) instead of a conceptual one. And he buys into Gregory's summary of the dispatcher call.
Why did Holder raise a phony issue? Because Obama is trying to implement gun control. The argument seems to be that gun-related violence would go down if people didn't shoot at others in self-defense: it's all about criminalizing the victim. If the law thinks you didn't have to kill another person to get away, you can be charged. Stand Your Ground basically restricts the grounds where you can be charged for defensive use of a weapon. As Steele and Ogletree point out, blacks often are ones likely to use Stand Your Ground--because of black-on-black violence.
It would have helped if Ogletree had pointed out the police powers under the tenth amendment and the limited options under federal law. The "evidence" that Zimmerman acted for racial reasons is not credible; he shot because someone was beating the hell out of him. If there was such evidence, why didn't the prosecution use it in trying to pin a second-degree murder charge on Zimmerman? This is not the Rodney King case.
MARC MORIAL:Talk about the racial grievance industry working overtime! 101 excuses, all completely bogus. Morial is in a state of denial. The Voting Rights Act decision was not "superficial"; in Morial's twisted view of the universe, this is like a parole board deciding to extend, rather than attenuate a state's sentence to extraordinary scrutiny for past voting anomalies. Majoritarian abuses of power violate the tenth amendment; this is not superficial but substantive. The only thing superficial is Morial's understanding of constitutional principles.
The most important thing is that the Stand Your Ground law is one of the things that has incited and ignited, I believe, this movement across the nation which I think, David, is the beginning of a new civil rights movement to challenge these issues, because of what the congresswoman has said. The landscape has changed. The Voting Rights Act decision by the Supreme Court, which was striking in its superficiality; the Trayvon Martin incident; and everything from the police officers not arresting George Zimmerman at the very beginning, to the need for a special prosecutor, to the fact that the special prosecutor herself did not participate in trying the case; to the composition of the jury; to the way in which the case was tried; all the way to the verdict strikes people as just mountains of evidence--
The shooting of Martin was tragic both parties showed bad judgment: Zimmerman got out of his car, and Martin chose to confront an armed man. The local police said they didn't have the evidence to charge Zimmerman, and the jury verdict bears that out. This trial was politicized from the get-go: the DOJ's involvement with rallies, the governor's naming a special prosecutor,... I don't believe that the jury knew that Martin had a history of getting into fights, etc. The prosecution wasn't sharing its evidence on a timely basis, a violation of legal rules; everything was stacked AGAINST a Zimmerman acquittal...
As for Morial's delusional hopes of a new civil rights movement (with limited appeal other than the 1 in 5 characterizing themselves as liberal or "progressive"), he's simply returning to the last few decades of polarized rhetoric and victimization, instead of self-actualization. No, I think we are finally going to see the dawn of a new age of awareness in the black community that "progressive" governance has failed them, that black political leadership has done little to address their problems, in fact, has led Detroit to bankruptcy and unsustainable debt and promises on the federal level.
DAVID GREGORY:Gregory FINALLY brings a salient fact into discussion. Smiley's response is basically dismissive and evasive and deliberately misleading. It is true that most whites are killed by whites and most blacks are killed by blacks. But the murder victim rate is multiple times higher among blacks than whites (up to 7 times), despite blacks comprising just 13% of the population, the number of convicted black murderers is roughly comparable to the number of white ones, the percentage of black-on-black murders is roughly 10 points higher than the percentage of white-on-white, and the percentage of black-on-white murders is almost double than the percentage of white-on-black murders. Smiley simply defines away politically inconvenient statistics.
Can I put something else on the table that goes to the racial profiling debate, that is provocative. It was from [Richard] Cohen in the Washington Post..Where is the politician," he writes, "who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? This does not mean that wild racism has disappeared and some judgments are not the product of invidious stereotyping. It does mean though that the public knows young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. "In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population yet they represent 78% of all shooting suspects, almost all of them young men."
TAVIS SMILEY:
.He acknowledged that, number one. Number two, most blacks are killed by other African Americans and most whites are killed by other whites and I'm sick and tired of having this debate as if there's something unusual about that. You kill people in the communities where you live and work and rob.
MARCIA FUDGE:There is no doubt that more affluent households, regardless of race, can afford to hire better lawyers.But arguing that police, particularly in many major cities headed by mayors or police chiefs of color, not to mention a more racially diverse police force itself, are systematically prejudiced seems to be an unfair judgment of their professionalism. As in the case of Smiley, Fudge is dismissive of politically inconvenient .
But back to your point about New York City, one of the reasons that African American men tend to make up a disproportionate number is because of profiling. You've got two kids on a street, in New York in particular with their "stop and frisk" policies, they're going to pick up the black kid. Not to say that the white kid wasn't committing a crime, but the black kid gets in the system and never gets out. Or they decide, "You know, but he's from a good family. Let's put him in a diversion program," but the black kid gets a record. Profiling has a lot to do with those numbers as well, and they are skewed based on the perception that black kids--
statistics.
MARC MORIAL:No. The way that you improve opportunities for black teens is others is by getting government out of the way of hiring like wage constraints (minimum wage) and mandated benefits, occupational license reforms, and the like, not by the government spending money it doesn't have to artificially create a small number of jobs that benefit only a tiny percentage of black teens. You have to address the disease, not symptoms. Obama still hasn't understood the truth that government policies are like putting hurdles on the track of employment. A sprinter (i.e., the free market) always runs faster when there are no hurdles to jump on the way to the finish line.
But one thing that's going to have to be on the table is the economic opportunities jobs. And the obstructionism about summer jobs, jobs plans, jobs training that's taken place in this nation after the recession, when this unemployment rate is so high. It can't be done with a law enforcement approach alone. It has to be done with an economic opportunity approach. So I hope that this conversation is going to confront the very challenging issue of economic opportunity.
DAVID GREGORY:And so Michael Steele kisses the ass of the god of political correctness. Of course, the national media chose to hype a case, which is no doubt a tragedy which should never have happened, where two men exercised bad judgment and one was killed. The fact that Martin beat the hell out of Zimmerman before Martin was shot is simply glossed over. The fact that a black teen victim is over 20 times more likely to be shot by another black is lost in the discussion. Steele is correct in the sense that blacks seeing the incident as racially-motivated is a fact of life.
But is this the wrong issue? Is it wrong to inject race into the Martin case, Michael Steele, as some conservatives and others have argued, that this is the wrong moment?
MICHAEL STEELE:
I think it’s not the wrong moment to inject race, I think race is a part of it, as the congresswoman noted, is an underlying theme or feeling, that particularly the African American community takes away from that. And it has to be addressed, you just can’t leave it on the table because you don’t believe it’s there.
I think Obama contributed to the problem by personalizing the tragedy (Martin as the son he never had, etc.), letting the DOJ get involved in rallies, etc. He painted himself into a corner, with unrealistic expectations of the federal prosecution of Zimmerman, etc.
Before closing this discussion, one of my favorite economists (of color), Walter Williams, whom wrote a recent piece called "Black Self-Sabotage". A few excerpts:
The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today. In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households.
The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today. The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it's 90 percent. But if that's a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.
Along with the decline of the black family comes anti-social behavior, manifested by high crime rates. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites.
NeighborhoodScout came up with a report titled "Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America." They include neighborhoods in Detroit, Chicago, Houston, St. Louis and other major cities. What's common to all 25 neighborhoods is that their makeup is described as "Black" or "Mostly Black."
Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? Only black people can solve our problems.Turning now to Detroit:
DAVID GREGORY:The prior context was that Snyder didn't think there would be a Detroit bankruptcy. The problems turned out to be worse than expected. Snyder is spot on that this was a failure, although he doesn't quite blame Detroit voters for electing "leadership" that routinely kicked the can down the road, not unlike how Obama and the Dems are doing the same on federal entitlements and exploding health costs, and made unsustainable promises to city workers/retirees, despite a thinning tax base and lack of a diversified economy. And despite noncompetitive high tax rates, public services are getting short-shrift, public schools are failing, etc.
We have some of those stats. You have 58 minutes average response time for high priority calls; 50% of the parks closed since 2008; 40% of the streetlights don't work. How have politicians let the Motor City down?
GOV. RICK SNYDER:
Well, again, if you look at it, this is 60 years of decline. This has been kicking the can down the road for 60 years. And my perspective on it: Enough is enough. I think there needs to be more accountability in government.
DAVID GREGORY:Snyder gives a "the world is complex" response. One big step is to realize that government is part of the problem. You need to migrate, if you haven't already, from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan. You need a sustainable public budget and an end to public sector collective bargaining rights. I would argue you look at things like serious school choice (and say, looking at New Orleans educational reform in the aftermath of Katrina). You need to better leverage Detroit as a gateway hub to US-Canada trade. You need a streamlined tax structure, lower barriers to entry for business formation. A full proposal is beyond the scope of this post, but this provides a start.
You've got $18 billion in debt. A friend of mine I talked to said, you know, "Is this America?" Look what's happened. How do you recover? You've got some 20,000 retirees there who rely upon pension checks, which is grossly under-funded. How do you find a way back? How does a city like this turn itself around?
DAVID GREGORY:Snyder is not direct here. He basically notes that they should be represented at the bankruptcy proceedings. Certainly part of ongoing/future pensions can be made, an argument social liberals often make in ducking social security reform, but the bottom line is that Detroit failed to fund the retirement promises it made, and the Baby Boomer retirees will exacerbate funding issues. Detroit can't pay out money it doesn't have and still pay the rest of its bills, even cut to the bone. It's obscene that future residents will have to pay off unsustainable promises because past voters put inept politicians into office. Higher taxes will only exacerbate business exits from Detroit, putting city finances into a death spiral. I don't know what the court will ultimately decide, but I would imagine guaranteeing a certain level of benefits on the pension side. I think the healthcare promises will definitely be downsized.
Can you possibly make good on all those commitments made to retirees for these pensions?
DAVID GREGORY:I have already condemned this exchange in my miscellany posts. Ford never said that, but he did indicate that he would veto a proposed bailout--and in fact the Feds never did end up bailing out NYC. Conservatives also opposed the government loans to the automakers. But notice there's a world of difference between the private and public sector: the auto industry produces cars...and the government produces rent-seeking bureaucrats. The government is a monopoly, a consumer, not contributor to national wealth. The government has a sticky high cost structure. A bailout is only a short-term "fix". It's not going to address structural problems like an unsustainable pension plan--only a bankruptcy can resolve those types of issues.
As is the case in a lot of different cities. The role of federal government is an obvious question here because the federal government has intervened when the auto companies needed a big bailout. You go back to the 1970s and that famous headline of the New York Daily News when New York City was in trouble was this: "Ford to City: Drop Dead."
GOV. RICK SNYDER:
Well, I'm not going to speak for the federal government.
Snyder is not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. But he knows that over two-thirds of the American people oppose a city of Detroit bailout (why should the American people pay for the consequences for Detroit voters electing a string of ineffectual, corrupt local officials kicking the can down the road?), and any Republican legislator voting for a bailout will never survive his or her next primary. This is dead on arrival in the House.
TAPE - PRES. OBAMA:Gregory makes the trivial point about the fact Obama last fall was talking about the (corrupt) auto industry government intervention. Obama is lying, of course: GM and Chrysler did file for bankruptcy--which Obama and other Dems opposed, claiming consumers wouldn't buy cars from a bankrupt automaker. The difference is that the Obama Administration manipulated the bankruptcy to favor its crony union allies over bondholders. A big part of the auto bankruptcy picture was unsustainable union contracts. The automakers constantly shed lower-margin markets, painting themselves into a corner. After all, if you can make a good quality small car profitably, you can also compete at the higher end.
We refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM:
Right [i.e., the automakers are making a comeback vs. the city]. And that's a really important distinction because people are assuming that, when he said, "We're not going to let Detroit go bankrupt," that he meant Detroit, the city. It's two different entities. But the City of Detroit is the poster child for the de-industrialization of America, David. Since 1950, which was the heyday of Detroit's burgeoning auto industry, there were almost 300,000 automotive or manufacturing jobs in the city, 300,000. Today, it's 27,000; that's a 90% decline in good-paying manufacturing jobs.
So the real question is, not just about tearing down blight, is what are we going to do as a nation to create good-paying middle-class jobs in a country that has a policy of being completely hands off with the economy?Okay, what country is this demagogue/former Michigan governor (Democrat, of course) living in? If any rational human being believes the US is a true free market, that person is either totally ignorant or insane. This is a ludicrous exaggeration, economic illiteracy of the highest degree. On every major economic freedom scale out there (by Cato, Heritage and others I've looked at in prior blog posts) the US has continued to slide under the Obama Administration. Regulation is like a $1.7T tax on the economy. The idea that government was responsible for the industrialization of America and can save it is detachment from reality. Ford and other automakers prospered despite government, not because of it. Government, if anything, has exacerbated de-industrialization by protection of union monopolies and various regulations.
Granholm ignores the fact that the agriculture industry today employs probably near 2% of the worker population--but we are the world's leading producer and exporter of several commodities. The same type of Malthusian apocalyptic warnings have always been issued; I remember when I was a UWM faculty member, Wisconsin Bell was phasing out telephone operators; where would they go? Now there is a thriving wireless industry, including software app publishers. I may not know where all the jobs will come from--but trying to hold onto obsolete business models is part of the problem, not the solution.
Granholm fails to note several salient facts about Detroit--a lack of economic diversity and signs of deterioration which Time noted as early as 1961. Noncompetitive tax polixies and free-spending politicians are only a part of government failure in Detroit.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM:Ah, the hubris of delusional central planners. What we need is less meddling by the government, driving up economic uncertainty and exacerbating employment problems. As to the earlier Granholm quote: No! No! No! Until you address the problems (versus the symptoms) of incompetent government, a noncompetitive business environment, etc. you will not be able to rebuild Detroit. Great engineers can move anywhere; they can work over the Internet.
We have to have a manufacturing policy, an advanced manufacturing policy, and give the ability for states to develop clusters that will help them compete.
DAVID GREGORY:
Some of the criticism, Governor, from conservatives who say, "Look, you've had 50 years of Democratic rule in the City of Detroit. You've had unions not only in Detroit but in other cities who are pursuing pensions and retirement policies that are completely unsustainable," and that there has been some level of denial, even you. In 2009, Time magazine interviewed you, and the question was, "Will Detroit ever really recover, in your honest opinion?" You said, "Absolutely. We have great bones in the city and as a state. We have more engineers in this region than in all the other states, plus Canada and Mexico, combined. We're in a tough period because we have an auto crisis and a financial crisis, so we're hit harder than any state in the country." And yet, what you're saying today is it's much bigger than the financial crisis that--
JENNIFER GRANHOLM:
But the whole point of my saying that is Detroit does have great bones but what we need is a strategy nationally, like other countries have, to keep and create good-paying middle-class jobs here. And we need a Congress that would support that strategy.
Let me just quickly say, David, you talk about the pension. Moody's has said that cities across the country have $2 trillion worth of pension, unfunded liabilities. This is not just Detroit. There are 50,000 communities across the country that have lost factories since the year 2000. This is not a Democratic problem; this is a problem across the country.I feel like I'm repeating myself here. Central planning is guaranteed to failed. Obviously Granholm is unfamiliar with Mises' compelling critique of socialism: in the lack of competition, you don't have a credible baseline. No, we don't need more industrial policy--we need less of it. And trying to trivialize Detroit's pension plans by saying other cities also have unsustainable pension plans (maybe they have a more diversified economy and/or better city leadership than Detroit has had....) Most businesses started migrating from defined benefit to contribution plans by the 1980's; they knew pension plans for Baby Boomers were unsustainable. Why didn't government see the writing on the wall? Let me point out during the 5 years I was a professor--at state universities/branches, I was under a defined contribution plan. There's really no excuse, whatever Granholm says.
CHUCK TODD:For once, Todd, a typical "progressive" shill, at least addresses government failure. Unfortunately, he still tries to blame the private sector. Of course, diversification will happen organically if government fosters a business-friendly environment, including a low tax burden, less meddling, etc. And part of the problem with the automakers was government protection of labor monopolies. Todd had a great frank discussion of the city's political leadership going until he felt the need to somehow bash the private sector.
It was a machine politics--If I told you that a city on the border of America's largest trading partner couldn't figure out how to diversify its economy, you have to sit there and say that it's not just poor city governance. Poor business leadership, poor governance on a-- it is sort of remarkable that Detroit, where it's located, has not ended up in the position--
DAVID BROOKS:A lot of this goes beyond government. We have declining church attendance, a sexually-obsessive culture, unstable family structures, a failing education system that sets inadequate standards, etc. Government is part of that by promoting a victimization philosophy, morally hazardous social programs, enabling government dependency.
It's not American decline, it's class. If you're in the less-educated, whether you're African American, Latino, white, Asian, you're seeing collapsing social structures, you're seeing 70% of African American kids born out of wedlock; 65% of Latino, high percent of poor white kids. And so what you're seeing is this collapse of order on the bottom. If you're born into a certain class, there are certain railroad tracks. You just go along the tracks, and--
JENNIFER GRANHOLM:
Well, that's the whole point is what is-- if we want Congress to act on anything it is on a strategy to keep and create middle-class jobs in America. You're right, but we're ensuring the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and that large scope of poor, the group is getting larger.
So how do we create, in a global economy, middle-class jobs in America? Other countries are doing this; we have not. We can learn from Germany. We think that, because we are exceptional as a nation, that we ought not be borrowing best practices from other countries. But in fact, the other countries have figured out how to crack the code to create advanced manufacturing jobs in their nations. Why can't work? It's because we have gridlock in Congress that refuses to have any hands on when it comes to the economy.What a load of horse excrement! No, government is NOT the solution: IT IS THE PROBLEM. The way you grow jobs, including middle-class jobs, is by growing the economy, period. And you grow the economy by getting the government out of the way: you reform dysfunctional tax policies. What Granholm is saying is as idiotic as saying sprinters will run even faster if you put more hurdles on the track. Bureaucrats and politicians don't work the same way as Adam Smith's invisible hand. Let consumers and suppliers work their own magic.
DAVID GREGORY:Here is Brooks kissing the god of political correctness on the backside. What Brooks said was racist: speak for yourself, Brooks! If a white hoodlum kid beat the hell of an older black guy, and the black guy shot him, I would have no problem whatsoever acquitting the defendant. For Brooks to make such a prejudicial assertion might appease racist blacks, but it is contemptible.
But again, I come back because I want to make sure to represent that other side as well. Some conservatives have said, "Look, this was the wrong moment to inject race into the trial," their view, and for the president to speak out in this way.
DAVID BROOKS:
Yes. I guess I would disagree with them. I think if the young man had been a white kid and the older guy had been a black guy, it would be a different verdict. And the president said that, and I think that happens to be true.
CHUCK TODD:Again, a glimmer of an insight by Todd. Obama is not a proactive leader. For example, ObamaCare and Dodd N. Frankenstein were not his initiatives; they were results of odious legislative sausage making. He basically cheer-led and tweaked things from the sideline. He was unwilling to risk political capital. First of all, he did comment--unwisely--at the beginning with that discussion about Martin being the son he never had. But second, he posed himself as the post-racial President. With an approval rating in the 40's, is he going to choose this battle, given his even worse ratings among whites already? I think he's trying to steer a middle ground here, trying to give his traditional black support base some moral support while trying to manage their expectations.
You know, what was interesting about the conversation that you were having at the beginning of the show, and the debate particularly with Tavis of, you know, too much caution when it comes to this. You know, actually, in many ways, that description of President Obama on many issues where he's too cautious, he waits too long to speak out, he waits too long to use the bully pulpit
What Todd hasn't mentioned is that Obama is already so polarizing that he was asked to stay away from the Senate negotiations on immigration. Using the bully pulpit will do little more than exacerbate partisan gridlock in Washington.
