The Tsuga’s View - Part 8

A Long-Term Look At Environmental, Political, and Social Issues, From The Perspective Of Michigan’s Oldest (and Most Optimistic) Tree Species

By Marvin Roberson

In a recent installment, I described the difference between Ideology and Values, and noted that the Right operates on Ideology, and the Progressives operate on Values, and I claimed that Values will always triumph over Ideology in the long run.

This plays out in how the two movements operate. The Right is generally opposed to things, while the Left generally advances an agenda which is positive, not reactive. This is made a more severe contrast by the fact that the Right (Ideologically) bases their opposition on people, while the Progressives base their support on outcomes.

What do I mean? A friend used to say “We hated what Bush did, but they hated who Obama was”.

In other words, the Left based their opinion of Bush on what he did, and the outcomes. The Right based their opposition to programs proposed by Obama based on the fact that he supported it.

Compare:

Senator Kennedy worked on “No Child Behind” because he supported the aims of the program, and he did not oppose it simply because Bush was behind it (now, ultimately, it was not a success, but that’s a different matter).

Obama proposed a slight variation on “Romneycare”, which was a Republican-based program, which was widely praised by the Right when it was implemented in Massachusetts. However, the moment it became “Obamacare” (simply by being proposed by Obama), the same folks who had praised it to high heaven now opposed it.

In other words, Kennedy (who epitomized the Left) supported a bill promoted by Bush, because Kennedy supported the aims of the bill. Republicans opposed a bill which they invented, because Obama supported it.

As an aside, speaking of Kennedy - the first time I ever went to DC to lobby on behalf of the Club, I was being shepherded around the Capitol by Anne Woiwode. As we were racing through the basement of the Senate, we rounded a corner and I bumped into Ted Kennedy. I said to Anne “That was Senator Kennedy!”. She smiled a bit sadly, and pointed out “Well, Marvin, you are in the basement of the US Senate, you might expect to see Senators here”.

In that same trip, I learned the lessons of this installment at my first lobbying training. One of the most important things I was told is that “We do not have friends and enemies in Congress. We have allies and opponents, and an ally on one issue may be an opponent on the next”.

What that meant, in practice, was that because we agree with some Congresspeople on some issues, and disagree with those same people on others, we should concentrate on the issues, and not the person. Expressing disagreement on an issue is fine, but demonizing the opponent on one issue might jeopardize their help on the next.

It’s also simply an example of how the Progressives have a consistent vision of what we want, and it’s based on outcomes which reflect our values. Whereas the Right often bases their position on who supports or opposes it (remember the Republicans indicating that they would oppose anything Obama did, regardless of whether or not they has previously supported it?).

This must be exhausting for the Right. First they have to figure out who they hate (that smart Black guy. That experienced, talented woman). Then they have to figure out what those people support. Then they have to oppose it, even if that means changing their own position until they twist in knots.

For some great examples of this, see “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks”, by Thomas Mann and Norman Oresnstein. Both authors are with the American Enterprise Institute, hardly a left wing think tank. They document a number of bills which were introduced by Senator McConnell, which he later filibustered after Obama supported them. Let me repeat that: the Senate Majority Leader filibustered his own bills based upon the fact that Obama supported them.

I have a cousin who once told me “If Obama supports it, that’s good enough for me, I oppose it”. When I pointed out that this meant that he was letting Obama determine his position on issues, he just looked at me blankly.

But this is a perfect example - we have long-term values, and we work for outcomes which will promote those values. They have people they hate, and their positions twist in the wind based on what those people support.

Of course our path is the long-term winner.

Next Time:

False equivalency, and how it fits into all this.

The Tsuga's View - Part 7

A Long-Term Look At Environmental, Political, and Social Issues, From The Perspective Of Michigan’s Oldest (and Most Optimistic) Tree Species

By Marvin Roberson

We interrupt this regularly scheduled column in order to bring you the following important announcement from our columnist:

OK. I admit it. He’s crazy. REALLY crazy. WAY more crazy than I thought. I still stand by the premise of the Tsuga’s View, but I just thought I should make that clear.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled column:

I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s. Consequently, television has been a bigger part of my life that I like to admit. However, TV provides a lens into how our society looks at issues of concern to Progressives. I’ll talk about that.

The way we watch TV has changed in the last 50 years. We used to have only 3 major networks (yes, kids, in most homes, 3 channels was all we got). We now have hundreds of options. We used to have TV series play one time a week, and that’s how we watched them. No TiVo, no Netflix, no binge-watching. If we wanted to see M*A*S*H, we waited until Monday at 9pm, and we watched or we missed it.

However, what has not changed is the relationship of major TV shows to our society (by “major”, I mean the very popular shows, seen by many, on major networks, not the niche shows seen by only a few). Television has not driven values in our society so much as it has reflected them. Yes, there are some exceptions, but in general TV has followed social issues, not preceded or driven them. This makes sense - TV executives want to sell their product, and viewers want a product they like, one which reflects their views.

If we accept this premise, then think of what it means in terms of where TV values have gone in just my lifetime.

When I was little, I used to watch reruns of “I Love Lucy”. This was a show about a married couple (Lucy and Ricky Ricardo), who were played by a couple who were married in real life (Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz).

When Lucille Ball got pregnant in real life, this was written into the show. However, it was unclear how this happened, since the networks would not allow the characters to share a bed. In the scenes which take place in this married couple’s bedroom, they are shown in separate single beds! Not only that, but they were not allowed to even use the word “pregnant” to describe Lucy’s pregnancy, on the grounds that it was too “provocative”.

Another show was called “Julia”. It was about a single (widowed) African-American mother of one, who was a nurse. It was remarkable for being the first portrayal of an African-American, or a woman, as a professional on major network TV. It was the first inkling many white, suburban people had that African-Americans faced the same issues at home and work as they did.

Another major starring role for an African-American was “Sanford and Son”, about a junkyard owner and his son. There was also an Hispanic fellow who lived in a broken down van in the back of the junkyard.

In “The Beverly Hillbillies”, a recurring character was “Miss Hathaway”, a secretary at a bank (not an executive). A recurring story line was her fate as an “old spinster”, and her desperate efforts to find a husband, an make her life complete.

This was seen even in the rare instances where women were characters with professions. In “The Dick Van Dyke Show”, a character named Sally was a writer on a major TV show. However, even as a professional with equal standing to the men in the office, finding a husband was her major task in life (this show also featured 2 twin beds in the bedroom of the starring couple).

Even “The Monkees”, which was a show in many ways devoted to progressively upending many conventional stereotypes, reflected other attitudes prevalent in society. Rarely did a week go by without a crude, stereotypical portrayal of one group or another. Native Americans saying “Ugh. How”. Asians talking about “flied lice”, and getting big laughs. All of these portrayals would be considered incredibly racist and offensive today.

So consider what TV told me in the 1960s: Couples did not have sex. No one knew where babies came from, and we couldn’t talk about it. It was very unusual for an African-American to have a professional job, picking trash was much more likely. Hispanics were homeless, and lucky to have a van to sleep in.  Women were subservient, not professionals, and desperate for a husband if they didn’t have one.

Now consider what I saw when looking around major networks just this week: A world-famous African-American pathologist attended a same-sex wedding, accompanied by his caucasian girlfriend (“Rosewood”).  Women were Secretary of State and Vice-President (“Madame Secretary” and “Veep”). A single woman of color was the most powerful “political fixer” in Washington, DC (“Scandal”). A transgender actress portrayed a transgender character (“Orange is the New Black”).

What is important about these portrayals is that in the 1960s, they could not have been on TV at all. Later, they could have been on TV, but it would have been a big deal (“Have you seen Will & Grace? 2 of the MAIN CHARACTERS are GAY!!!”).

But now, these characters are on major shows. And what is important is that the shows are not about subjects like the blackness of a world-renown pathologist. They are about a world-renown pathologist who happens to be black.

Our major TV shows today are of course not perfect (look, they’re TV, right?). However, programming delivers a view into values held by current society. And the fact that Progressive progress is simply an integral part of most TV shows is an indication that we’ve come a long way over the past 50 years.

And yes, I’m sure you can write me with TV shows which do not fit my claim (although “Duck Dynasty” did get cancelled). But my claim is not that TV reflects a perfect world. My claim is that Progressive values have so permeated our society that when we see them in major TV shows, it’s unremarkable, even though the same things 50 years ago would have been unthinkable.

Next Time - The difference between judging people based on their actions and judging actions based upon the people who took them. Guess which way I claim the Left and Right come down on this issue, and why the false equivalencies peddled by the Right are doomed to fail.

The Tsuga’s View - Part 6

A Long-Term Look At Environmental, Political, and Social Issues, From The Perspective Of Michigan’s Oldest (and Most Optimistic) Tree Species

By Marvin Roberson

I was recently talking with a friend of mine about this column, and she challenged my assertion that things are getting better in terms of implementation of progressive values. She acknowledged that in many of the examples I’ve given, things are improving long-term.  However, she noted that even if the overall progress is positive, I had to admit that there is regression sometimes.

She noted that “We’re moving in the right direction long term” is of little comfort to those who experience the actual effects of regressive policies. In the current political environment, people are being discriminated against, and rights are being devalued, solely based on color, religion, and gender. Telling folks who are experiencing this bigotry that “It’s OK because things are getting better long term” is not much help.

She’s got a point. There is no question that regardless of long-term outlooks for progressive policies, people get hurt during the “backlash” periods. And this is happening right now. No question about it. People are getting hurt.

However, I’m not claiming that everyone, all the time, in every issue, will experience the benefits of progress. I’m claiming that the overall trend is towards Progressivism, even as there are periods of setbacks.

It is rare that any issue gets set back far enough to erase all progress. In other words, even during periods of setback, the worst of it is not as bad as the worst was in previous times.

Below is a graphic illustration of my point (thanks to volunteer Sarah Tresedder for another wonderful graphic):

 

In this graphic, the black, line is the graph of actual progress (according to me). The red line is the average.

Note that the average goes up, as I’ve described. However, also look at the peaks and valleys. The high points of each peak get higher each time, as do the low points. In other words, even during setbacks, not all progress is lost. And after the setback, we reach more progressive heights over time.

This is illustrated by my friend herself. She is a highly talented professional, and the CEO of a non-profit. There are setbacks in women’s rights happening right now. No question. However, even during this period, she is still experiencing the progress made during previous periods.

A century ago, she would not have been allowed to vote, much less run a non-profit and supervise a number of male employees. And even during the pushback we’re experiencing right now, no one is suggesting rolling back the 19th Amendment. No one is suggesting outlawing her right to run a company.

So progress that has been achieved is almost never rolled all the way back (I say “almost never” because I never us superlatives...I’ll wait a minute while you think about that assertion).

In addition, it is almost never the case that progress in all areas is rolled back significantly all at once. Partly that’s because each type of progress (gender equity, environmental issues, etc.) has its own constituency and its own enemies.

So almost never is there a monolithic “roll back everything” movement (no matter how much it might feel that way). And the moving target of various constituencies makes that almost impossible, even if it were to come to pass.

To recap: Things are moving in the Progressive direction over time. Everyone experiences at least some of this progress, even during the regressive periods. Even the regressive episodes move in the Progressive direction, over time.

Next time - I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s. Consequently, television has been a bigger part of my life that I like to admit. However, TV provides a lens into how our society looks at issues of concern to Progressives. I’ll talk about that.

The Tsuga’s View - Part 5

A Long-Term Look At Environmental, Political, and Social Issues, From The Perspective Of Michigan’s Oldest (and Most Optimistic) Tree Species

By Marvin Roberson

OK. He’s here. President Trump. And it’s bad. Really bad. Worse than any of us expected. Things are going to get worse. Good policies are going to be dismantled. People are going to be discriminated against, they are going to be hurt, and they are going to die. No two ways about it.

I’ve had folks point this out to me, and claim that it contradicts my claim that from the Tsuga’s View, things are getting better overall. I stand by that analysis, even in the face of all of the above.

Remember - the Tsuga’s View is the long view - not a reaction to the immediate events of the day, no matter how disheartening or damaging. And the fact is, while progressive ideals lost the election, we won the vote.

Consider - 3 million more people voted for Clinton than Trump. More people voted for Democratic Senate candidates than voted for Republicans. While the Democrats did not take the Senate, as we had hoped, they gained, not lost, seats. And in fact, Trump won Florida by less votes than the number of people who wrote in “Mickey Mouse”, or other nonsense votes.

The way I have described this situation, is that the Conservative tide is going out, even if we get knocked down by some of the remaining waves.

As I said in an earlier edition of the Tsuga’s View, the fact that the Right has progress to attack means that there has been progress. After eight years of excoriating Obamacare, the Right is discovering that American citizens, even the ones that voted Republican, actually don’t want it repealed.

Look - in the long run, we’ve made huge progress. We will continue to do so. When we get knocked down by the remaining incoming waves, we’re not drowning - we’re claiming the beach left by the receding Conservative tide.

Buck up - it’s awful now, but it’s been awful before (think McCarthy, Nixon, etc). And in the long run, the Tsuga’s View is that we have, and will continue, to prevail.

In the next installment of “The Tsuga’s View”, I explain why sitting in front of a television for much of my youth reflects progress.