The Truth Behind Birtherism

As Donald Sutherland reminds us in JFK, the key question to ask about a conspiracy is not “who?” but “why?’ What he means is that conspiracies aren’t carried out for fun, but for some demonstrative reason. In Stone’s ahistorical view the murder of JFK was carried out because Kennedy was starting to challenge the military industrial complex. In the view of those who think the moon landing was a hoax, the government faked it to assert dominance over the Soviet Union. I’m reminded of this litmus test for conspiracies, because today Breitbart.tv breathlessly released, and Drudge echoed, early 90s promotional material from Obama’s publisher that touted the fact that he was born in Kenya.

A ton of writing has been done about the psychological background of the “birther” movement. It’s been seen as being rooted in an racist unease about the president’s background, and its hard to argue with that logic. In fact, there was a 2008 Presidential candidate who demonstrably wasn’t born in the United States, John McCain was born on a military base in Panama, and while that counts as US soil, it’s easy to imagine unease from right-wingers if the same could be factually illustrated about Obama. And let’s not kid ourselves, Obamas familial background is far different than almost every other president, as the son of a foreigner he’s at least half first generation American. He’s a far cry from the landed aristocracy of Jefferson, the Roosevelts, or the Bushes. His ethnicity clearly causes consternation amongst some folks, a fear that has been exemplified in the “birther movement.”

Despite the fact that it’s the domain of racists and looneytunes, I’ve always kind of liked the “birther” conspiracy. Not because I think Obama is subverting the constitution, but because I find conspiracies sexy and mysterious and interesting. Conspiracies are always more interesting than the real story, and it’s cool to think that there was some global liberal cabal that determined that a small child born in Kenya was the chosen one, and all sorts of trickery would have to be employed to ensure that he could one day arise to the highest office in the land. That’s where the conspiracy starts to fall flat, if there was a group of international liberals hell bent on bringing down America, why would they think that some African child was the best conduit to bring about this change, and what kind of slow burning conspiracy necessitates planting a birth announcement in a newspaper 45 years before the main phase of the conspiracy starts.

But you know what, let’s ignore the fact that the “birther” conspiracy makes no sense, and get back to the original question, “who benefits?” To hear the right tell it, it’s an attempt to overthrow the constitution. This overthrow has included a tepid healthcare bill, the continuation of an exploitative banking system, the continuation of a wasteful war on terror. None of these things are good, but they are hardly a departure from the status quo of American politics. The people who have benefitted in Obama’s America are the same folks that always have.

With one notable exception. In a Redel Traub Report exclusive allow me to offer my groundbreaking hypothesis about the real power players behind Obama’s phony citizenship: Tea Party Republicans. Since Obama’s election, the Tea Party has become the dominant force in the Republican party. Observe the myriad Republican incumbents defeated or forced out of office by challengers from the right. The latest victim was Dick Lugar, a 36 year incumbent, primaried out of office by a Tea Party candidate with a propensity for comparing his opponents to Hitler. If anyone has seen their stock rise since Obama’s election, and decidedly Jamie Dimon has not, it’s the hard right wing of the Republican party. It’s the perfect smokescreen, endlessly bitch and moan about Obama’s phony birth certificate, when they’re the ones behind the whole damn thing!

Gingerly Boarding the Hockey Bandwagon

As a function of the fact that the professional sports teams I root for are generally bad, and my family isn’t big on attending games, I’ve only been to one playoff game in my life. Strangely, my one experience in witnessing the postseason live was a 2007 Ranger’s game that I watched from a skybox. I’m a little foggy on the circumstances, but somehow me and aspiring Noise star Mark Iosifescu, of the band Angels in America, found ourselves in a luxury box with a bunch of Wall Street types who apparently had some connection to his father. Now this was before the market crash of 2008, so there was no impetus for us to occupy the skybox. We ate free food, met a Ranger legend or two, listened to these guys talk about the ingenuity of Credit Default Swaps, and watched the Rangers lose the game and get eliminated from the playoffs.

I mention this as a prelude to my piece today to offer up my slight Ranger bonafides. I’m not the world’s biggest Ranger fan, but I’ve held a passing interest for them for some time. Part of my inability to take my Ranger fandom to the next level is my lack of familiarity with hockey. I’ve never played the sport, I can’t even ice skate. I could pick up a basketball and approximate some kind of semblance of resemblance to the game I see on TV, but with hockey that’s an impossibility.

Similarly, I have basically no concept of the rules of hockey. I’m getting a better understanding over the course of this playoffs, but I still don’t understand a lot. One thing I really do enjoy, is how the refs are constantly making the safe signal. They do this in response to potential offsides, potential penalties, or seemingly anything else. The next time you watch a hockey game, check out the refs and you’ll see the regularity with which all of them are calling things “safe.” My lack of hockey knowledge makes watching it kind of exciting, whereas I know intimately what leads to a “basket interference” or a “catcher’s interference,” I have no understanding of what a hockey interference is.

In case you’re wondering what’s inspiring all of this hockey talk, the New York Rangers are currently in the Conference finals. They hold a 1-0 lead over the rival Devils, following last night’s 3-0 win. Earlier this year, during the NBA lockout, I began to fancy myself something of a Ranger’s fan. I wouldn’t watch full games, or periods, but it gave me something to watch during commercials. The Rangers had a knack for scoring while I was watching, and I began to see hockey as something that wasn’t inherently boring.

Fast forward to the playoffs. Playoff hockey has always had a reputation for being exciting, and now I see why. First and foremost, everyone is going batshit nuts. The fans wave towels over there head, bang on the glass, and generally act as though they are living and dying with each play. The announcers scream out their play-by-play, and the whole thing generally feels like a gladiator match. Hockey is like the fog of war, the play is almost entirely serendipitous and the whole thing feels like a violent free for all. That’s been another thing I’ve really come to appreciate, the sheer violence of hockey. As far as I can tell, you can pretty much jack up anyone at any time.

This isn’t to say I’m fully on the hockey bandwagon, I’m still not watching full games, but I’m slightly invested. I’ve never seen a team I like win a championship, so I’m not going to neglect a team 7 wins away from one, just because the sport feels vaguely Communist and I don’t really know anything about it. 

Obama and Gay Rights

One thing that's been conspicuously absent from the news media is any reporting on how Obama is fairing in the various Democratic primaries. It makes some sense, Obama is certainly going to win each one handily, there are no somewhat notable protest candidates, but it would be interesting to see the number of protest votes that are cast against the incumbent. Well, drowned out amidst the noise of the noxious victory for the anti-gay marriage amendment in North Carolina, was the interesting news that Obama almost lost the West Virginia Democratic Primary. Obama has never been very popular in West Virginia, he lost big to Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and the Democratic establishment of the state has been reticent to publicly support Obama. Their Senator Joe Manchin has said that he's unsure of who he's voting for. What makes the West Virginia result interesting is that the man who won 40% and 10 counties, Keith Judd, is a federal inmate in Texas. Judd is something of a wack job, his Project Vote Smart biography lists among his special talents ESP-the ability to predict the future. Certainly, the vote in West Virginia was no big endorsement of the Judd platform, but more of a reminder that Obama remains deeply unpopular among some more conservative Democrats. In North Carolina, a state Obama narrowly won in 2008, 20% of the Democratic electorate voted for "uncommitted" yesterday. It's within this context that Obama's somewhat covert support for gay marriage makes some sense.

There has been a rising chorus urging President Obama to come out forcefully in support of gay marriage, as Vice President Biden did over the weekend. For his part, Obama claims that his views on the issue are "evolving." A number of high profile Democrats, including Ex-DNC chairman Ed Rendell has urged Obama to "man up," and publicly support gay marriage. Obama's support for gay marriage seems to be something of an open secret, his administration has ended "don't ask don't tell" and he's pledged to support a bill pushed by Sen. Diane Fienstein that would end the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama's hesitance raises some interesting points, the first being that there is basically no upside for him to do it. Gay rights supporters as a constituency are already behind the president in big numbers, and his public support could alienate some voters in key states. The second point is that maybe Obama doesn't believe in gay marriage. There has been a tendency amongst progressives to assume that Obama is ideologically "one of them" and his capitulations and failures in their eyes have been caused by the political environment. People equate his skin color and personal narrative with progressive values, despite the fact that he's consistently acted like a centrist Democrat. Obama is being interviewed on ABC tonight, and the speculation is that he's going to "come out" with his support for gay marriage.

As I said previously, gay rights supporters are fully behind Obama. Say what you want about conservative or tea-party Republicans, but they don't take ideological impurity. They are unafraid to run challengers against incumbents to force the incumbent to move rightward or get voted out of office. The effect has been a highly partisan GOP, but that's what they're supporters want. Democrats have been more willing to allow variance in political belief, and it's made them a "big tent" but it's also made them an unfocused and disappointing political party in many ways. My own feelings about this are somewhat unclear, is it better to get a bad Democrat into office or to force the debate leftward and risk alienating moderates?

Update: Well, It appears that The Redel Traub Report has restaked it's claim on being "the most influential site on the net.," because mere moments after this post went up ABC released a report that Obama had come out in support of gay marriage(notice that I predicted this in the 2nd paragraph). It's a good thing too, being anti gay marriage is indistinguishable from homophobia and let's not pretend that it isn't. Fundamentally however, Obama's endorsement makes no difference, gay marriage is a states issue and I don't think there were many people that didn't think Obama supported it. What's interesting is how Obama reacted to the collective pressure of activists and his fellow politicians, if only Democrats had the same courage to mobilize around something that Obama could tangibly affect like the justice department's ridiculous raids on Medical Marijuana dispensaries and or the McCain-Levin act which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Election Round Up: You Right

I’d like to start off my column today with a hearty apology to you, my dear readers. I’ve left you in the lurch, unsatiated in your desire for a trenchant and hilarious take on the latest news. I’ve been slacking, I admit it, but let me shout out from the mountaintops today that “I’m Back!” I’m about to be like Michael Jordan in 1996 on this site, I’ve had my foray into the uncharted waters and now I’m ready to reclaim the throne and ascend to even greater heights. Screw it, I’m Grover Cleveland in 1892, back by popular demand, with the populace wondering what they’d done to lose me in the first place, because I sure as hell didn’t lose the popular vote. You won’t have the Redel Traub Report to kick around anymore, and I think we can all breathe a little easier at this prospect. If there isn’t news to write about, I’ll make the goddamn news. You give me the pictures, I’ll give you the war, we’re about to turn this into a little yellow journalism and I’m Citizen Kane.

Today, however, we won’t have to manufacture the news, I’ll offer you a potpourri of election news.

The Obama campaign and his various media surrogates are up in arms over Mitt Romney’s refusal to condemn a women who said to him at a rally Monday that Obama is"operating outside the structure of our Constitution."  And he "should be tried for treason." In college, I used as my catch phrase “you right” a colloquialism of “you’re right.” It meant that I clearly recognize that what you are saying is true, but I don’t really care. So let me offer a “you right” to the Obama campaign. Of course it’s ridiculous to assert that Obama should be tried for treason, but what have the Republicans, both their base and their elected officials, done this election cycle that isn’t ridiculous? What have the Republicans done for the past 20 years(and probably longer) that hasn’t been utterly ridiculous and wrong headed?  Moreover, when has Mitt Romney ever seemed to illustrate a strong moral fortitude, a willingness to take an unpopular stand, that would cause you to think he would ever call out this woman. Mitt needs people like this to keep his slim electoral hopes alive, and he sure as heck isn’t going to take a tough tact against such inflammatory statements so shortly after he finally wrapped up the Republican nomination amidst great consternation from their base. I understand that Democrats think they can score political points, but this election is not hinging on Romney’s failure to rebuke this woman 6 months before the election, so please save the fake outrage for Rick Santorum’s views on gay marriage.

Speaking of Santorum, he graciously offered Romney his endorsement last night. In an email. At 11 PM. Jeepers Rick, relax with the enthusiasm. But you know what? Rick Santorum’s endorsement carries almost no weight. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that Santorum is popular or a power player in the Republican party just because he was Mr. Romney’s most significant challenger. That was dumb luck and basically by default. The rest of the candidates eliminated themselves by blowing their chance when they had it and Santorum was lucky enough to not really have a chance to blow it in the early stages. I’m not going to rehash the whole ugly affair of the primary, but suffice it to say the owner of a small pizza chain was a serious contender. I don’t really understand why Santorum would want to marginalize his endorsement. I’m sure Romney would have welcomed a joint event, but I guess Santorum is still too bitter that he won’t get to realize his dream of banishing all gay people to Newt Gingrich’s moon colony, to appear with his once bitter rival.

Lastly, The Huffington Post’s banner right now links to a Matt Taibbi article that proclaims this election to be the “Most Boring Election Ever.” Taibbi’s point is somewhat true, but HuffPo looks a little silly running that article when half their articles are about the election in some respect. Let’s be a little careful about dancing in the endzone before the election has really started in earnest. The ruling in Citizen’s United ensures that literally 100s of millions of dollars are going to flow in with the sole purpose of defeating Obama, and strict voter ID laws in some swing states will hurt Obama as well. This election is boring right now, but a Romney victory would be an absolute disaster, sending America down the path of austerity that Europe is currently revolting against. While the 2008 election turned into an electoral vote landslide, Obama only won by 7% of the national vote in an amazingly good cycle for Democrats. It ties into my first point about the woman that called Obama treasonous, the liberal media wants to both marginalize and demonize the Republican opposition. Well, “you right” but let’s please not underestimate the real damage they can do. 

On Osama Bin Laden's Death

Just about a year ago today, I was watching the Celebrity Apprentice in beautiful Madison, WI.  We were in the midst of another exciting boardroom showdown, where Mr. Trump was surely praising Meatloaf and Gary Busey as “transformative artistic minds” and “geniuses”. Suddenly , the broadcast stopped and we were taken to a news bulletin. The NBC anchors breathlessly reported that they were expecting to cut live to the White House where President Obama had a momentous announcement, though they didn’t know what exactly he was announcing. I had recently gotten into Twitter, so I immediately started doing some research to see what the instant consensus about what Obama’s announcement was going to be. The responses ranged from pessimistic prognostications about a coming terrorist attack to the discovery of WMD in Iraq to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Eventually it became clear that Obama was going to announce the death of Osama. It was a transformative moment for me, a time when I realized that Twitter was truly the best repository for breaking news.

            At the time I didn’t really know what to think, and I still don’t. Obviously fuck Osama Bin Laden, but the celebratory atmosphere around his death was weird. 10 years after 9/11 his death didn’t pack the same emotional weight, I had long given up the visceral anger I felt on that tragic day. In many ways the years after 9/11 couldn’t have gone any better for Osama, he drew the U.S. into two unwinnable wars and saw the collapse of the U.S. economy. Al Qaeda had largely been marginalized, my professor Alfred McCoy estimated that it was only about 100 men spread across the globe, but they had baited the U.S. into eroding constitutional rights at home, and committing war crimes abroad. The death of Bin Laden probably didn’t have a major effect on the logistics of global terror, and certainly didn’t lead to any draw down in the war on terror.

            Isn’t it interesting the amazing symbolic power murder can have. A decade ago, terrorists flew our own civilian planes into the military and financial centers of our country. I don’t mean to belittle the tragedy of 9/11, but it was largely a symbolic act. It illustrated that the impenetrable fortress America wasn’t quite so safe, that the trillions of dollars we’ve spent on defense couldn’t protect from some wily men with boxcutters. Now a decade later, it was us celebrating the symbolic victory. Bin Laden wasn’t involved in the day to day operations of Al Qaeda, if indeed that organization even had day to day operations. Osama was a symbol to people across the globe that America could be attacked and you could get away with it.  The U.S. finally got their man, and it was certainly a victory, but like 9/11 it was a victory of the pyrrhic variety.