Talking Points

“Never discuss religion or politics…”

It’s a conventional wisdom so ingrained in our psyches, we barely question it at all.  If we did, we might ask who originally coined the idea, and we’d find out no one really knows.  

For how long has it been around?  We’re not quite sure of that either, but we do know it goes at least as far back as 1840, when it appeared in The Letter-Bag of the Great Western: or, Life in a Steamer by Thomas Chandler Haliburton.  Now, if only there were some major historical event that took place in the time around 1840; something by which we can judge the value of such wisdom...

The idea pops up again in 1879 in an essay on “Etiquette Conversation:”

“Do not discuss politics or religion in general company.  You probably will not convert your opponent, and he will not convert you.  To discuss those feelings is to arouse feelings without any good result.”

Let’s be honest, while we may not discuss politics with those we disagree with in order to avoid an immediate discomfort, we are still discussing it with our like-minded partisans and getting just as riled up about the absent opposition, if not more riled without the hindrance of the other side’s opportunity to correct misrepresentations or misperceptions.  And while that may still spare an ugly confrontation in the then-and-there, it doesn’t prevent one for all time.  In fact, it only builds up to a larger eruption down the line.

Leading up to the Civil War, as the two sides were retreating to their corners, President Lincoln was incredibly frustrated by the way his positions were being reported and distorted, or outright fabricated, to the people in the Confederate States.  To prevent further destabilization of an already precarious situation, President Lincoln kept his retorts to his inner circle, but if all sides had not broken down lines of communication and instead had spoken and listened to each other and understood each other, a Civil War may have been avoided.  Lincoln was desperate to do just that and would have compromised greatly to prevent war.  It’s not with certainty he could have managed it, but maybe.  And is that maybe not enough to grasp onto when faced with the darkest of alternatives?  

While you think about that, consider another conventional wisdom, and one we know a little more about: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Politics has never been an easy topic.  Parties have never been especially cooperative with each other in an overarching way, but the divide does appear to be more dangerous today than in most times past.  In the current election cycle, one presidential candidate actually said the opposing party is an enemy by which that candidate is proud to be judged.  

We cannot continue down this path. Before the divide is insurmountable and failure for all is inevitable, we must come together.  Without any bias or malice, or even with a little of both, we must talk and let the fruits of discourse point us to a truth, instead of letting talking points perpetuate long held wisdoms that keep us apart in ignorance and prevent us from working towards real productive solutions where they can be reached.

We must break with etiquette and talk about the issues that matter to us all.  When choosing between civil discourse or Civil War, we must choose the former. We don’t win points when we refuse to work towards solutions. No one won the Civil War, we just stopped losing.

Make It Count

In the not too  distant future, our nation could be celebrating one of Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or Ben Carson Marco Rubio or Mark Kasich or Ted Cruz on President’s Day.  But thanks to a few of these candidates, we could be looking at a very different nation.

As some of the candidates continue to push their campaigns deeper into the hearts of their respective bases, lines are being rewritten, and with it, what it means to be American.  What it means to be conservative or progressive.  And one particular campaign is aiming to redefine another word for our nation: what it means to be socialist.

Bernie Sanders, the self-avowed Democratic Socialist, is proudly touting European countries as his model for America, which includes free college and universal healthcare.  It’s not a surprise that many are cringing at the word “socialism,” as America is a capitalist country and, depending on your perspective, far more successful and powerful than the European countries Senator Sanders wants us to become.  But America is not entirely not socialist as it is.  

We have taxes, and a progressive tax rate at that, to pay for public utilities, schools, parks, arts, entitlements, etc., and while the progressive system may be in the crosshairs of many Republicans, most of the programs that are funded by taxpayer dollars are not.  Not only programs that we all get to appreciate, like the utilities, roads, parks and arts, but also the programs that not all of us benefit from directly, like public schools and entitlements.  It’s not because of the goodness of everyone’s hearts, despite Governor Kasich’s best efforts, but because we do all need them.  If the less fortunate among us are not educated or fed or cared for and are left to suffer, then our country will look more like European countries, but from centuries ago, with lords hiding behind castle walls and battlements.  On a completely pragmatic level, it is in the best interest of everyone to keep any of us from falling to into a desperation which would push one to do something their better nature would otherwise prevent them from doing.  

We are all a part of this and we need to work together to make sure it thrives.  That is what socialism should mean in America.  Not 1% of this and a tenth of 1% of that is against 40% of this.  There’s nothing social about that.  That’s divisive.  It shouldn’t matter how much more one has than the other, as long as we all have enough.  It behooves us all to have a functioning society, and we need to be reminded of that instead of turned on each other to the point where we want others among us to specifically have less.

On the other side, Donald Trump campaigns on deporting millions of Mexicans, banning Muslims and advertises support from white supremacist groups.  That has led some to suggest he’s running a nationalistic campaign.  And when Trump leads in most Republican polls with that brand of campaigning, it nudges other candidates to follow his rhetoric, and that gives the Republican party more than an air of nationalism.  But does that word have to be a negative in America?  

In other countries, where being a nationalist means you look a certain way, you sound a certain way, it’s a defined negative.  But in America, more than any other country, you are what you make of yourself, and you’re an American if you make it so.  An American doesn’t look like anything on the outside (apologies to Native Americans) and that is one thing that makes the melting pot that is America so great, and that’s what nationalism should mean here.  Love of this country, in all its forms, should be what brings us together, not divides us.  Again, we’re all in this together so we can’t be working against each other.  Again, that’s not how a society thrives.

So before we go forwards to this redefined future America of President Sanders or President Trump, let’s look back at a president who helped define the country we live in today.  President Lincoln gave the famous “A house divided” speech in 1858, years before he became President and the Civil War.  The speech was a call to act against slavery because, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.”  But as President, to push back the tide of war, he was willing to compromise… another taboo word in the partisan climate of today.

President Lincoln is known for leading the Union in the Civil War and, effectively, ending slavery in America.  But he tried very hard to make sure arms were not raised against fellow Americans.  To do that, he was willing to allow slavery to continue in the south, so long as it didn’t spread.  He was willing to enforce fugitive slave laws and he was willing to let the Confederates claim their small victories, just so he wouldn’t have to trigger the burgeoning war.  He was willing to compromise the day to win the future.  This wasn’t because he was tolerant of slavery; he didn’t compromise on principle.  The end of slavery was his goal, but more importantly, he didn’t want Civil War.  Why?  Because we’re all in this together.  Lincoln didn’t want brother killing brother, but more importantly, he knew if abolition was forced on the South instead of willingly given, it would not truly take hold and a division would last and it would not be ideal for America or the slaves.  And over a century and a half later, we’re still grappling with that division.

Americans, from every corner of the country, share this land, and as long as we do, we need to work together build a functioning society that works for everyone.  One where we aren’t continuously undermining each other to the point where victory looks like making sure the other side loses, even if nothing positive happens.

Socialism.  Nationalism.  These words only mean what we make them mean.  Let’s stop focusing on labels and start making what we do and who we are mean something.  And for everyone’s sake, let’s make sure it means something positive.  

Iran Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow

On January 20th, 2016, we find ourselves stuck between two ideals.

The first is the ideal set on the same day, twenty-five years ago when President Reagan took office and the Iranian hostage crisis ended moments later.  This was a time when America slammed Iran with sanctions and assisted efforts of war against the country that committed acts of terrorism.  When Americans were united in their love of country, if inspired by a hatred of the enemy.  A time when America demanded respect under the leadership of President Reagan, as opposed to when the Iranians embarrassed President Carter in hostage negotiations.  For many on the right, these Reagan years are the ideal to attain again.

The second is the ideal of the future which President Obama believes in and the one he hopes his Iranian Nuclear Deal helps to bring about.  It’s a future where we no longer have to worry about Iran taking hostages or sponsoring terrorism and, most importantly, building nuclear weapons.  It’s a worthy ideal, but who is it worth the most to?

Consider that the Deal came about because Iran was building their nuclear weapon capabilities.  Does getting caught doing something wrong and then holding the threat over our head something that garners trust?  The continued ballistic missile tests sure doesn’t.  And the assurances coming from Iran that ballistic missile enhancement will continue, especially as long as the Unites States continues to exert influence in the Middle East and support Israel, makes things worse.

On the other hand, the recent hostage situation of our Navy men and woman- or non-hostage situation- may have been a sign of progress.  While the situation was upsetting, it is fair to say that it could have been much worse, and twenty-five years ago it was.  But as we stand today, is the Iran that President Obama is choosing to trust, but verify (a nod to Reagan) closer to the Iran of twenty-five years ago or the idealized Iran of twenty-five years from now?  It’s very possible that Iran will become the country we want it to be.   The youth in Iran is supposedly pro-Western and secular, but we’ve heard that before and things have not changed much.  So what assurances do we have, other than the hope that things will finally change if we’re nice to them?  Or do we have one more card to play?

We gave Iran their money, but there’s something they still want: the ability to do business with the world.  In other words, an opening to the international community, something President Obama believes in, and something President Obama should still use to achieve his ideal.

Iran made one of two choices with the Deal.  The first is they decided that having nuclear weapon capabilities wasn’t as desirable as being part of the international community, or two, they’re lying and will take the billions they can get until they’re caught continuing their nuclear proliferation.  If it’s the latter, then they’re an enemy and every and all options should be on the table.  War has changed; the rules of it should, too.  But if Iran chose the former, and they recognize being part of the international community is their best interest, then the community has the power to set the criteria.

The West can’t make laws in Iran, but they can influence them.  Iran may receive their unfrozen funds, but the community doesn’t have to do business with them.  If Iran wants to reap the communal benefits, it has to do so under the terms of this civilized community.  It has to recognize the rights of women, of members of the gay and lesbian persuasion, of the right of our ally Israel to exist, and it has to stop fomenting strife between the factions within Islam.  This doesn’t just help Iran, it could help bring us closer to peace in the Middle East and it breaks away at the breeding ground for groups like ISIS.  Living in an environment where it’s the law to jail someone for expressing something contrary to the leadership or where it’s honorable to kill someone because they’re gay or were raped breeds the kind of person who believes it’s acceptable to cut someone’s head off or burn them in a cage for disagreeing with them.  And again, if Iran made the decision that being part of this community is more valuable to them than having nuclear weapons and being an enemy, then we still have power in negotiations.  These terms should have been central to the original Iran Nuclear Deal.  That’s the biggest critique of the Deal as it is: it was made in the ideal world of the future, where Iran is the worthy member of the international community.  But they’re not.  Not yet, at least.  But it’s not too late get there.

We’re stuck between two ideals.  One makes us feel safe and strong, and knowing we’ve done it before makes us believe we could attain it again, and that adds some comfort.  The other?  The other could leave us better than we ever were.  It’s noble to aspire to that latter ideal, but aspirations aren’t enough.  If we want to salvage the leverage we had with the Deal, we need to push the issue and we need to push it now before the Iran of today enters the community and empowers the current leadership as they are, which allows them to continue being this Iran long into the future.  And that is not anyone’s ideal.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Andrew

First off, it would have made for a much better title if we were discussing Mario here, but unfortunately we’re dealing with the son, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Governor Cuomo recently criticized the uber liberal Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, for standing with Rob Astorino, the Republican Westchester County Executive, at a press conference where they called for increased federal funding for New York in the looming national transportation bill.  And Cuomo’s not alone.  Democratic Congressman from Brooklyn, Hakeem Jeffries also took exception to Astorino’s involvement.  And why are they taking exception?  Because Rob Astorino is Pro-Life.

Let’s forget for a second that Cuomo chose to forgive de Blasio for also standing with Republican Congressman Dan Donovan, also Pro-Life, at the same press conference.  And let’s forget that Cuomo has waxed un-poetically about the necessity to find balance when working with the Republican-led State Senate in New York.  And let’s forget that Cuomo had a particularly contentious race with Astorino just last year for governor.  And let’s also forget that Rep. Jeffries is a potential challenger to de Blasio in the next mayoral election.  Let’s forget that because it’s not the point they were making and it’s not the problem that Cuomo and Jefferies, and Liberals in general have chosen to make recently, and it’s a big problem.

Government is supposed to be about making life better for the people it represents.  There are differences of opinion between the parties as to how to go about doing that, but not always.  Sometimes, like when your constituents of all stripes are about to lose tens of millions of dollars in transportation funding, there is no left or right way to address it.  When issues affect us all equally, it calls for our elected officials to come together in bi-partisan fashion and work towards solutions.  But too many Democrats and Liberals today think bi-partisanship is a sin.  Giving the other party even the opportunity to voice their grotesque thoughts and provide them the opportunity to infect others is shameful.  If a Republican proclaims they are Pro-Life, then that’s the last they should be heard of.  Liberals want to bury their voice and mark their tombstone with “Anti-Woman” and be done with them.  There’s no conversation.  There’s no chance to find common ground.  They’re just wrong.

Republicans, then, are left to stew, frustrated that they’re not being heard and upset that they’re falsely labeled as racist, misogynist, homophobic, and anything else that demeans and discredits them.  They’re left to go further to their side where the anger builds.  And Republican politicians, who are being shouted over and cannot be heard by even the moderate Democrats, are then forced to cater to that rightward anger if they hope to get elected.  In the end, what we’re left with is a deeply divided nation and a government that represents that divide, where very little is accomplished.

That’s not how government should be.  It’s not the Jets and the Sharks.  Our representatives should not be sticking to their side of the court, snapping at each other.  The goal of the battles shouldn’t just be to beat the other side.  At some point, there is supposed to be a common cause and politicians and citizens shouldn’t be censured and censored when trying to find it.

So bravo to Mayor de Blasio, County Executive Astorino, and Congressman Donovan for acting responsibly in a world where, thanks to people like Cuomo and Jeffries, doing what you’re supposed to do is equated with courage, because opposing viewpoints are seen as disqualifiers.

An Open Letter to Governor Chris Christie

Dear Governor Christie,

During last week’s fourth Republican Presidential Debate, you rightfully criticized Hillary Clinton for her proud declaration claiming Republicans are the enemy by which she would be most proud to be judged.  You said that as opposed to her role of divider, you claimed you would be a unifier, but on the same day you also emphatically announced you will not meet with anyone from Black Lives Matter.  I think you see the issue I’m having here, and I ask you to reconsider your stance.

Now I understand your reasoning: you do not want give people who chant about and promote the murder of cops the time of day (and I’m going to stop here for a second to make it clear that I am giving Christie the benefit of the doubt and accepting that that is his reasoning and this isn’t really just a political ploy to win over the hundreds of thousands of police officers and their unions, as well as their staunch police supporters.  And I can easily give that benefit here because I’m also writing here in a universe where Christie actually reads this letter).  But it doesn’t have to be police vs. Black Lives Matter (BLM).  There doesn’t have to be a demon in this struggle.  In fact, I’m pretty sure it isn’t that way, but by providing such a powerful and public voice in this rift, you are if not drawing the official line in the sand, then you are at the very least deepening the divide between the police and those supportive of them and the Black Lives Matter movement and those sympathetic to their cause.  And that’s not only not in the spirit of unifying, it’s dangerous.

As long as people who disagree with each other don’t speak to one another, then the only voices we hear are like-minded ones that push us further into our corners and rile us up all the more.  Just look at what has happened in our colleges and universities.  Students are fed one side of a narrative and then fed it again and again until they won’t even hear the other side.  When University of Missouri students asked the now-former University President Tim Wolfe what he thought oppression was, they didn’t even allow him a chance to respond before deciding he doesn’t understand.  They have the audacity to ask him if he wants to google it first.  And then when he tries to answer, they’re quick to cut him off to express their instant indignation at his opening line.  When a journalist tried to document the protests at the Missouri campus, students, led by faculty, invoked their First Amendment right to keep the press away from them, and when the journalist tried to explain that the First Amendment protects his right to be there as well as theirs, the students, again led by faculty, only shouted over the him to drown it out and physically forced him back with glee.  In Yale, a recent panel on free speech was protested by those who only want to protect safe speech.  The panel was interrupted by protesters who wanted their voice to be heard the loudest and panel attendees were spat on as they exited.  And a recent national survey on free speech by the Buckley Program found that half of the under-grad students polled feel intimidated to express views that differ from their professors and fellow students.  And when you add all this up, you get what happened last Thursday at Dartmouth College, where a group of BLM protesters took to the library, but when white students just went on with their studying, the protesters couldn’t handle that not everyone was right there with them and they assaulted and cursed at the unmoved library-goers for their “white comfort.”  This is the danger of unchecked groupthink, and if you do not like it, Governor Christie, then the worst thing you could do is stay on your side of the line and leave bad enough alone.

So challenge them on their beliefs, Governor.  Make them understand that the police force is not an institution of racism.  Allow that there are those who wear the uniform that do not do it, or anyone justice, but for every such case there are many and many more who do their best to preserve the dignity of the badge and the lives of every American of all backgrounds.  Show them that when you say All Lives Matter, that black lives are a part of that.  And give them the opportunity to show that while some have taken the Black Lives Matter movement to a wrong place, that they are not all there, and when they say Black Lives Matter, it doesn’t mean that white lives and blue lives don’t.

So just engage, Governor.  Come to an understanding that there are bad seeds undermining each side, but those seeds are a splintered minority.  And come together because the best way to stomp out those dangerous and unwanted offshoots is with a strong, unified group where an unwanted weed cannot take root.  Open with the joint proclamation that Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter.  Do it for the sake of unity.  It may not solve racism, it may not unite us all- it probably won’t, but it could start something.  And if it doesn’t... well, at least you gave it the old college try.

The Enemy Of My Enemy Is Me

“Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said ‘I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.’  You’ve all made a few people upset over your political years.  Which enemy are you most proud of?”

That was the final question of the first Democratic Presidential debate.  

The question of who poses the greatest threat to America was already asked, so this question was basically saying, “Okay candidates, tee it up.  Rile up the base.  Tell the part of this deeply divided nation, who will vote Democrat no matter what, who they should be even more angry and resolute against and how you stuck it to them.  Go ahead, power up that righteous indignation.”

It was divisive, sensationalist and irresponsible, and completely in line with CNN.

So who answered this poorly conceived question the best?

It depends.

On the one hand, Senator Jim Webb gave the right answer.  The enemy he is most proud of is the enemy soldier who threw a grenade at him, but he isn’t around to talk to.  Or in other words, the enemy Senator Webb is most proud of is the enemy of America.  His enemy is the one who stands between him and freedom and democracy, and he killed that enemy… Or he just wanted to tell about how a soldier threw a grenade at him and he’s the one who is still around to tell the tale.  And you have to think that would have earned him at least five to six percentage points in the Republican primary.

On the other hand, to understand the other top answer, we have to look at the context of the quote that inspired the question.

It was September 21, 1932 and Franklin D. Roosevelt was campaigning in Portland, Oregon, bringing his ideals of the New Deal to the Pacific Coast.  Specifically, he was there to deride the electrical power utilities who were doing all they could to control the industry that was becoming increasingly necessary to the everyday American life and should therefore be regulated as a public utility.  FDR accused the electric utilities of propaganda and buying commissions to ensure they held a monopoly so they could continue to overcharge for a shoddy product.

His point was that the power utility was putting their own needs above the needs of the rest of the nation.  The cardinal sin of the New Deal.  

The New Deal was built around the idea that the role of government should be to ensure the greater welfare of the people.  Any individual’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness should be unmolested so long as that pursuit does not interfere with the welfare of the many.  Proper regulation should then still take into account the needs of all: the consumer, the investor and the corporation.  He actually wanted to work with the power utilities to those ends.  Cooperation and coalitions was what powered the New Deal.  But if you were unwilling to work with America to make it great, then you were against America, and so he finished his speech with this:

“Judge me by the enemies I have made. Judge me by the selfish purposes of these utility leaders who have talked of radicalism while they were selling watered stock to the people and using our schools to deceive the coming generation.”

So in the context of FDR’s speech, former Rhode Island Sen. and Gov. Lincoln Chafee’s answer was actually best.  His “enemy” was the coal lobby.  He tried to bring them to the table to work on climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, but the coal lobby would not work with him.  In Chafee’s view, the coal lobbies made him- and America, for that matter- their enemy in their selfish pursuits, not the other way around.  Lincoln Chafee, therefore, speaks best to the ideals of the New Deal and what FDR stood for.

And the worst answer?  That belongs to Hillary Clinton.

Along with Chafee, Governor Martin O’ Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders called out the special interests they have fought against, though they didn't mention any offers of cooperation.  And when the question was posed to the former Senator, Secretary of State and First Lady, she also rattled off a bunch of special interest enemies she was proud of, such as the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies- and she even threw in the Iranians for good measure- but then she settled on who she is most proud to consider her enemy: the Republicans.

It’s important to understand that in that speech by FDR, and with that quote, he was answering the question of whether or not utilities like power and electrical development was a local issue or a national issue.  He happened to believe it was a national issue, but more importantly, he believed questions like these, ones that concerned the development of the nation and the welfare of its people, should ultimately be above mere politics.  He said:

“When questions like these are under consideration, we are not Democrats, we are not Republicans; we are a people united in a common patriotism. This is the spirit of my entire campaign. If the spirit and the method that I am applying to public questions are in line with that of progressive citizens of parties other than my own, I invite them to join me now, as I have invited them many times before. In the face of present national emergencies we must distinguish between parties and their leaders.

When the great possessions that belong to all of us--that belong to the Nation--are at stake, we are not partisans, we are Americans”

In today’s political environment, that spirit is needed.  Our nation is deeply divided and fractured, and over issues of much less significance than the ability to power a country and a home.  The spirit of patriotism, of uniting for the greater good is what we need now more than anything in a leader.  But Hillary Clinton saw an opportunity to take advantage of that divide.  She gave the likely left-wing viewers of the Democratic debate what they wanted to hear, instead of what they needed to hear.  She gave a list of enemies to build her cred with the angry liberal voters and then topped it off with the Republicans to send them into a frenzy and reinforce the belief that Republicans are the enemy, instead of partners in patriotism and the realization of the American dream.  We don’t have to agree on everything, but we have to at least understand that.

Hillary decided to build herself up, and in so doing, she helped tear the Union apart.  She put her needs of attaining the White House above the needs of the many who she seeks to lead.

So in the context of FDR and the New Deal, with that spirit in mind, the enemy by which we should judge Hillary... is herself.

Live And Let Die

Here are a few things you won’t see written here:

- That what happened in Charleston wasn’t a terrible tragedy.

- That it wasn’t based in ignorance and a hatred of black people.

- That racism in this country is a thing of the past.

- A defense for the use of the Confederate flag in the United States of America.

- The N-word.

It is around those issues that the conversation has gone since the shooting in Charleston.  The Confederate flag has to go down, and President Obama said the N-word on a podcast.

Gun control has been discussed as well, but an impassioned argument on gun control is another thing you will not get here.  I’m not a supporter of guns, but there are no gun laws that could have stopped the tragedy, short of banning all legal guns.  The problem with that is that all we would have then on the streets are illegal guns, and I am not comfortable with all of the guns out there being in the hands of criminals.  Or at least the vast majority of guns, since the police are outnumbered by criminals who likely only have their guns to cause mayhem and harm.

So with gun control being a non-starter, we return to race and hate.  We return to the heart of the matter, where the gun gets its power and its impetus.  And we return to the Confederate flag and the N-word.

Should President Obama have said the N-word?  No.  And I’ll take it a step further: he shouldn’t be allowed to.  And if you’ll permit me, just a little further: no one should.

The N-word was a way to demean and abuse black people.  It’s a holdover from a time when black people weren’t considered human and it’s a word that was held over black people to make sure they knew it.  It’s grotesque that it’s not only still used today, but it’s used by the descendants of the people who were tortured with it.  

These descendants use it today with the defense of re-appropriation, but they don’t have the right to re-appropriate it.  No one alive today who uses that word like it’s nothing was bought and sold as property.  None of these people were whipped to death or had their children ripped from their arms and sold off like cattle.  None of these people slaved under the hot sun with little hope of a better life.  The people alive today who call each other by that word are the people who those people hoped would be able to live a life without being called that word.

Using the N-word is a living reminder of the darkest period of this country.  A period of hatred and division.  A period whose shadow we still do live in, and I don’t believe that shadow can subside as long as we have living reminders.  We shouldn't forget what happened- we can't, but we need to let the hatred and the word become relics of the past and give them a chance to be only memories, and not perpetuate them and allow them to remain current events. That hatred and that word needs to be deprived of the oxygen used to utter it and be allowed to die.

The N-word is also, in many respects, synonymous with the Confederate flag.  A reminder and a symbol of that dark time.  If the Confederate flag can’t be saved or re-appropriated, then neither can the N-word.  And this is not a case for the salvation or re-appropriation of the Confederate flag.

If the Confederate flag needs to be placed in a museum, then so does the N-word.  And the Confederate flag needs to be placed in a museum.