None
of the individuals in the large field of candidates running for President this
year are very inspiring. They are all starting from pretty much the same
premises and are proposing pretty much the same programs. All that
distinguishes one from the other are slight differences in the way each would tweak
tax rates to pay for these programs. However, some of the candidates have
distinguished themselves by some specific lapse of logic they’ve demonstrated in
the course of their campaigns.
For
Kamala Harris, this lapse occurred when she reacted to Jussie Smollett’s claim
of having been the target of a racist, homophobic attack. Harris jumped on Smollett’s
report as evidence of widespread prejudice loose in the land. There was
actually a note of satisfaction in her voice, a note of triumphant “I told you
so!” as she waved the presumed attack as a flag of proof that vicious prejudice
was ubiquitous. The attack provided her with a platform from which she could demonstrate
the superiority of her indignation. As she ringingly declared that the attack
was nothing short of a “modern day lynching,” she raised herself head and
shoulders above all those lesser beings who didn’t perceive the profound
seriousness of the threat.
The
only problem was – it should have been obvious to anyone who logically
considered Smollett’s claim for a moment, that it was all a hoax. I laughed it
off and presumed everyone else would immediately do the same. I was shocked
when I saw how seriously the police and politicians such as Harris were taking
Smollett’s claims.
There
were a couple of reasons why I immediately wrote-off Smollett’s report as just
so much self-dramatizing fiction. First of all, it reminded me of the 1987 Tawana
Brawley case. I’m old enough to vividly remember the nation-wide uproar that
occurred in the wake of then 15-year-old Tawana Brawley’s claim that she had
been raped by a gang of white racists, including policemen and an attorney,
near her New York State home of Wappinger Falls. After being missing for four
days, Brawley was found, seemingly in a daze, in a wooded area. She was stuffed
in a large bag of feces. Her clothing had been partially torn off and some of
the feces had been used to smear her body with racial epithets.
At
the time, I thought it sounded rather unlikely that there would be a gang of would-be
Klansmen wilding their way through rural New York, singling out a passing black
schoolgirl on whom to perpetrate such a bizarre attack. Primarily I wondered
how and why any group of men would be carrying a large bag filled with feces. Or,
if they hadn’t been carrying the bag in preparation for a planned assault, where
would they have found pounds of feces on short notice for an impulse attack?
Besides,
I didn’t think that true racists, animated by a seething hatred of black
people, operated that way. I thought of the tragic death of Emmett Till who’d
been beaten and dragged to death after allegedly whistling at a white woman. I
thought of the deaths of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman, the civil rights activists
who’d been overtaken in their car at night along a lonely Mississippi road and
beaten, shot, and crudely buried. The racist attacks on those individuals had
been stark and brutal. There had been none of the juvenile elaboration that characterized
Brawley’s alleged attack. In contrast to real racist attacks, Brawley’s attack
seemed to be a highly exaggerated form of a swirly or a wedgie cruelly
delivered by a bullying gang of teens in a locker room. It just didn’t seem as
if white supremacists would pause to include such confounding humiliations in
their generally raw attacks.
However,
so many people used the occasion of Brawley’s report as proof of the ongoing
undertow of savage racism in our country, that their vehemence had me
half-convinced. When I heard people ranging from Al Sharpton to Bill Cosby rallying
to make the Brawley case a cause célèbre and to defend her during the long
succession of court cases that ensued – I began to doubt my own sense of something
amiss in her testimony.
However,
something amiss there was. Although to this day, Brawley maintains the validity
of her account and although she still has a few supporters, it is now generally
accepted that her report was fabricated. All the evidence pointed away from
there having been any rape or indeed any assault of any kind. There were no
wilding racists and the feces might have been supplied by Brawley’s own dog.
Many believe that Brawley was indeed a victim, but not a victim of white racism.
It seems likelier that she was the victim of her stepfather’s abuse. She was so
afraid of the beating he’d give her when she came home late after partying with
some boys, that (possibly with her mother’s help), she concocted the dramatic
predicament in which she was found.
After
almost a year, even Al Sharpton had to somewhat back off his efforts to make
Brawley a symbolic victim of white racism. A general skepticism arose when it
came to any such claims involving twisty attacks. But time has passed, and most
people now seem to have forgotten the cautionary lessons taught by the Brawley
case. When Smollett advanced his claim, even Al Sharpton charged once more into
the fray in full battle regalia.
It
seemed to me though that it shouldn’t take familiarity with the Brawley case to
make people skeptical about Smollett’s accusation. There was a much more
obvious problem with his charge. Simple logic should have alerted police and politicians
alike to the sheer phoniness of it, before squads of personnel were diverted
from more urgent duties in order to investigate Smollett’s claims which, even
if true, would have represented a relatively bland confrontation. Having a rope
hung mockingly around his neck and having some harmless, watery liquid splashed
on him could hardly be counted in the same category as the searing racism that
had been faced by Till, Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman.
The
underlying failure of logic in the Smollett case becomes apparent when you
consider - either the presumed attack was premeditated, or else it was
spontaneous. If it was premeditated, that meant that the attackers would have had
to walk back and forth, night after cold night (the attack occurred in the
winter), along a desolate Chicago underpass, waiting to intercept Smollett.
Smollett didn’t make a habit of going out to get a late snack from that nearby convenience
store, so the attackers, armed with their paraphernalia, would have had to
haunt that stretch near Smollett’s apartment – in the hopes that they could
catch him sometime or other. It would be a very improbable duo of attackers indeed
who would take so much time and trouble over the perpetration of such a trivial
attack.
On
the other hand, if the attack was spontaneous, that would have been a
remarkable coincidence. The attackers would have to have been standing around
with a rope and bleach in hand at just the moment that someone they could
identify as a gay black man walked by. Then they had to have immediately thought
up the symbolic threat they could lumber the man with, referencing old Klan
tactics. Why would men even be standing around with newly purchased rope and a
bottle of bleach/acid/water late at night in the first place? None of it makes
sense.
So
either premeditated or spontaneous – the attack doesn’t hold water. I would
expect someone running for President to have the sense to recognize that. Yes,
this actor’s allegation is a minor matter in the larger scheme of things. But
if someone like Kamala Harris exercises such poor judgement in the face of a
minor hoax, how can she be expected to exercise good judgment when it comes to
major international threat? If countries inimical to the U.S. start to rattle
their sabers (as will almost certainly happen) - could she be counted on to
distinguish an obvious hoax, an empty threat – from a real threat? Or would she
continue to put political correctness and a desire to showcase a pandering
support of beleaguered minorities ahead of logical appraisal?
Based
on her over-the-top reaction to Smollett, I don’t think Kamala Harris could be
counted on to make such crucial distinctions. There has to be a better
alternative candidate out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment