Please, John McWhorter, I Beg You -- Get Over Yourself

 
 
John McWhorter, in a recent piece for The New Republic, gave us his take on the newest effort from The Wire creator David Simon: Treme. For those of you on media blackout, Treme is a series chronicling post-Katrina life in New Orleans. (The word “Treme” is the local nickname for New Orleans’ 6th Ward, through which a number of the storylines in the series pass.)

Treme, shot with verve and style and featuring an impressive selection of local music, is brought to life by a sparkling script, a light but sure directing touch, and a cast which includes David Simon veterans such as Melissa Leo (Homicide: Life On The Street), Wendell Pierce and Clarke Peters (The Wire) as well as non-professional actors (Kermit Ruffins and the Rebirth Brass Band are a fixture; Dr. John and Elvis Costello cameo as themselves; and musician Antoine Batiste’s wife is played by New Orleans resident and Katrina survivor Phyllis Montana LeBlanc).

Some critics have argued -- rather oddly, in my opinion -- that Treme is overly earnest (one assumes they’d rather it were half-hearted and insincere); others complain that it never approaches the byzantine narrative and moral complexity of its predecessor series. That’s true enough so far, if also somewhat unfair. A day/week/month-in-the-life-of type of story will never approach the angularity and darkness of a well-executed crime drama; on the other hand, why should we expect it to?

More to the point, if we are entertained by a narrative (and Treme is nothing if not entertaining) -- and if that narrative has the additional virtue of neither demeaning nor glorifying its characters, nor insulting the intelligence of its viewers, then might we not just judge the thing on its merits and leave it at that? Might we not dispense with navel-gazing introspection into its supposed subtexts?

Apparently not, according to John McWhorter. To him, Treme:

is mesmerizing in its ways (I intend to keep watching) but leaves you beaten over the head every week about just how vibrantly real New Orleans is. Realer than where you live. Realer, really, than you.

which is, when you get down to it, quite a strange criticism. More on that bit of snark later, however, because John’s not finished. His takeaway from watching Treme is that

New Orleans is an occult matter that you can never truly “get” unless you’re a native or pretty close to it. The perky, hopelessly “white” tourists from Wisconsin with their nasal voices, the ones who get schooled by the street musician, can be taken as stand-ins for the viewer. Which makes the whole enterprise strangely unwelcoming.

Here’s the thing: Maybe he feels unwelcome because he’s watching some series that has nothing to do with what “Treme” actually is.

What's putting McWhorter off to the extent that he feels he's been made "unwelcome" by a series which, literally from the first frame, invites the viewer into the world it's depicting?

Avoiding idle speculation and judging by what he himself has written elsewhere, the most likely explanation is that what’s eating McWhorter here is The Authenticity Thing. That is to say, he’s sensitive to being lectured about what is or is not authentically X, where X equals some cultural or racial signifier or category.

Fair enough. No one likes being talked down to, and a lot of culturally toxic things are said and done -- and toxic artifacts produced -- in the name of an authenticity which is usually bogus anyway. This is especially apparent in Black American culture, and McWhorter has written eloquently on that very subject. (You can see it gets his back up, and I don’t blame him. As a lifelong black person, if I hear one more borderline nihilist wearing a black skin say some bullshit about “keeping it real”, I’m going to strangle somebody.)

In this context it would make sense for him to be bothered by the scene in Treme where

The surly street musician (who is just visiting himself, from Amsterdam) tartly informs tourists that it’s tacky to request “When the Saints Go Marching In”—that tune isn’t “real New Orleans,” apparently.

It would make sense when McWhorter writes (somewhat bitchily):

And if you live in the neighborhood the show is named after, Treme, the last thing you have any right to do is ask for quiet even in the wee hours, because, as Steve Zahn’s Davis McAlary character says, “This is the Treme, dude!” and the noise is what makes it real.

It would make sense, that is, if we were watching a series other than Treme.

In the screenplay in question, however, Simon and his writers take pains to repeatedly (if not always subtly) turn the myth of authenticity on its head! Every time you turn around in Treme, the series is holding up something or someone that is ostensibly “real” (or speaking on behalf of authenticity) and pulling the veil off to show us that it’s not what we think it is -- and that by extension, the entire question of authenticity is moot.

What the hell television show has John McWhorter been watching, anyway?

Take the above Davis McAlary scene, for example. In it, he has just left his house -- stereo blaring at full volume, speakers pointed out the window at his hapless neighbors -- and has been accosted by one of said neighbors, whom Davis (without a hint of self-reflection) accuses of being a “gentrifier”. His neighbor turns out to be not only from New Orleans, but somewhat knowledgeable about the Treme’s musical history. Davis, who actually comes from a wealthy family, comes across in this and a few other scenes not as some saintly arbiter of authenticity, but as an entitled jerkwad with an inflated sense of his own hipness and charm. That cultural smugness buys him a well-deserved asswhipping in the most recent episode.

Or what about the “surly street musician” from Amsterdam who takes such issue with the “perky, hopelessly white” tourists for asking to hear “Saints”? His musical partner, the ethnically ambiguous violinist Annie, answers them courteously and tries to stem his tirade. She is shown, as the series progresses, to be a much more competent musician than he is, and in greater demand too -- especially, and ironically, with musicians playing “authentic” New Orleans music. Those musicians, interestingly enough, don’t do their thing with a lot of self-regard or moralizing of the type that McWhorter seems to see lurking behind every magnolia tree. They just get about their business (with our friend from Amsterdam sulking in the background in at least one scene). So much for Treme lecturing its audience about what’s “real”.

John McWhorter also seems to take almost everything personally when he watches Treme. He gets upset when John Goodman’s character, who is comically out of touch (he’s just discovered YouTube) and comically over-the-top in his passion for his beloved New Orleans,

savagely disses San Francisco as an “overpriced cesspool with hills” when, let’s face it, that’s a pretty “cultural” city too, and has suffered its share of natural disasters.

To which I have to say: Relax, brother! San Francisco is a big girl and can take care of herself. So can Portland, Oregon, even if

Another character says people there clap on beats one and three. Really? I’m sure more than a few thoroughly cosmopolitan, Obama-voting white people in Portland, as proud of their “reality” and their bond with black culture and its music as New Orleans folk are, would take umbrage at that.

Jesus! And here I thought the scriptwriters were just having some fun at another city’s expense. Turns out they’re Insulting White People -- many of whom probably voted post-racially!

It seems like McWhorter is not just taking this stuff personally, but taking it personally on behalf of someone else. Which, let’s face it, is kind of odd, especially from someone who helped popularize the word “victimology”. You might come to the conclusion that anyone who can’t stand to hear someone good-naturedly abusing a city -- on a fictional tv show, for chrissakes -- is a bit of a humorless tightass. You might well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.*

Treme has its flaws, of course. John McWhorter may have something interesting to say about what those flaws are. Eventually.

With that in mind I’d like to offer him some friendly advice: Watch it again, John, preferably after a stiff drink -- only this time, try to pay attention.

And please, get over yourself.





*Bonus points for any reader who knows what TV series I'm quoting here.

REPRINT: Why There Aren't More Black Republicans, 3 of 3

This blog post is reprinted from one I wrote on sodahead.com under the name CarbonMike (link to original here).

********

In Parts One and Two of this blog post, I’ve been addressing the question of why working-class and middle-class black Americans don’t support the Republican party more strongly. Republicans are in the electoral doghouse with the bulk of black Americans despite having very similar stated values, and the picture is scarcely any better with other “natural constituencies” such as Hispanics. Why? And how can they change this?

As to why, I’ve put forth two reasons.

Reason One is that Republicans are wrong on race -- publicly, loudly, and frequently. Black people in the demographics I’ve mentioned understand perfectly well that Democratic politicians are often misguided or just plain wrong and often take them for granted; they simply prefer that to being treated with outright contempt.

An excellent example is the way conservatives speak to each other and to liberals
about the black electorate. I’ve seen conservatives assert or imply -- several times in
the comments section of my blogs, and countless times in public political discourse -- that black people only vote for politicians on the basis of race. The assertion is ridiculous on its face, but it’s easily falsifiable by taking even a cursory look at the historical record, as I’ve done here. ( A parallel and often-made conservative assertion -- that black people only vote Democratic because they’ve been gulled into doing so -- collapses readily with a bit of historical analysis, as I show here in the discussion of the 19th century political machine Tammany Hall).

Whether it’s stated flatly or framed as a question (“why did blacks support Politician X on the basis of his race?”) it’s essentialist, it ignores the facts, and it’s damned insulting. Conservatives who make the assertion or ask the question reinforce the very phenomenon they think they’re investigating. Black people, like every other ethnic group, vote their perceived interests and will not trust a party which they read as hostile to those interests, period.

Reason Two is that Republicans appear not to apply their political philosophy fairly and consistently; that people think those values are too fluid to be trusted. I argue that there’s nothing in core conservative doctrine that working and middle class black people find disagreeable; what they seem not to like is the selective application of that doctrine.

In other words, If core conservatism means a healthy skepticism toward government power, then conservatives can’t only be skeptical when government tries to use its power to help people -- especially lower-income people of color -- otherwise they’ll continue to lack credibility (and struggle to get votes) in the demographic groups I’ve mentioned.

So how can conservatives/Republicans gain ground with people of color? How can they get out of the doghouse?

The first and most obvious part of the solution is for conservatives to ask intelligent questions and listen carefully and respectfully to the answers. Conservatives need to stop asking “why are black voters so gullible” (I’m paraphrasing) and start asking what their concerns and needs are.

If you are a conservative and your first thought upon reading “concerns and needs” was “welfare”, then YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM -- because, as I pointed out in Part One, working people in the black electorate are interested in reforming and shrinking welfare, not expanding it. Property and business owners in the black electorate are interested in expanded opportunity and a more balanced taxation and regulation environment, just like conservatives are -- they vote Democratic at least in part because they’ve been insulted into doing so. Republicans: either shut up and listen to these people, or continue to write off their votes.

What else can conservative politicians do in good conscience to increase their standing with the black electorate?

Since the demographic in question is a heavily urban one, Republicans also need to develop a comprehensive urban/metropolitan strategy.

This would be at variance with a popular losing strategy for Republicans: bashing cities. Black voters who have decided to put down roots in urban/metropolitan areas will not be inclined to trust a political party that says good people and good values can only be found in small towns.

If someone asked me to compile a list of core principles for successful urban conservatives/Republicans, the following would be at the top:

[1] Operational correctness in government (If You Can’t Run It, We Won’t Trust You To Reform It)

It’s been axiomatic in American conservatism, at least since Reagan, that government is the problem instead of the solution. Over time this has morphed into an increasingly rigid and impractical set of conservative positions; it has become standard Republican practice to run against not just the incumbent government, but even the idea of government.

The problem is that metropolitan areas are densely populated, built-up environments where government infrastructure and services of one type or another -- fire, police, sanitation, roads, public transportation -- support much of the fabric of daily life. Urban voters -- not even just black people, as the electoral numbers show -- are less and less inclined to trust conservative governance if conservatives appear to dislike government too much to bother operating it correctly.

The mishandling of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath and the conservative response to it are a profound negative example of this: from George W. Bush’s prior use of FEMA as a hiring hall for Republican political operatives, to Bill O’Reilly’s breathtaking televised statement that the lack of a timely and competent Federal response showed that black people need to reject “gangsta” culture (I swear I am not making this up) and stop relying on government to help them.

Republicans take note: it doesn’t matter how good your ideas for reform are. People of lower economic classes, who depend on, say, emergency response services more than wealthier demographics, quite reasonably assume that anyone who doesn’t care about running government properly can’t be trusted to reform it.

[2] Acknowledging public infrastructure as a market enabler (If We Build It, Business Will Come)

We’re a big nation and we want to do big things in the world; we want to lead. This requires a big government, and it requires lots of infrastructure, much of which is simply not profitable for the private sector to build or operate. (More on that in a comment I made here.)

Dogmatic conservatism says that government investment in infrastructure is somehow destructive of free enterprise, when the truth is that done right, it allows free enterprise to flourish.

You are reading this text courtesy of a “socialist” computer network that was originally designed and built (using taxpayer money) as a post-WW3 command and control network and only later became “the Internet”. The fear and vehement denunciation of all things “socialist” by online conservatives is puzzling, given that they’re so enamored of The World Wide Web and HTTP: both creations of a government-sponsored laboratory in Switzerland (CERN) built and maintained by the socialist democracies of Europe. The idea that any of the above are harmful or antithetical to free enterprise is of course ridiculous on its face. Private enterprise and free markets require public infrastructure.

The robust and vibrant business sector in my city (New York) transports goods on public roads, has its physical assets protected by public police and firefighters, arbitrates disputes peacefully in a civil court system, and fills entire skyscrapers every day with workers who arrive on public transportation.

By contrast, every country in the world where the government is “small enough to drown in a bathtub” (to quote one anti-tax conservative) is either a backwater or a failed state. To be credible among black city-dwellers, especially microbusiness owners who lean on infrastructure more heavily, anti-tax/anti-government conservatives need to either go try to make their fortunes starting software companies in the Hindu Kush, or start talking about rightsizing (as opposed to just downsizing) government and public infrastructure.

[3] Demanding Excellence in Police Services (The Job Is Hard But You Have To Do It Right)

In our federal armed services we demand professionalism and operational correctness without excuses. For example, if you’re the captain of a USN ballistic missile submarine and you run your boat aground on an exercise -- even if no one dies -- you’ve had it; your career is over.

One of my film school students is a former Navy pilot. She one time landed her FA-18 Hornet on a carrier deck at night -- after her right engine failed on final approach! The LSO graded her landing just like he would have any other. (She caught the third arresting wire, so she got an “OK” with an emergency underline). God help her if she had screwed the pooch and bent her bird, one good engine or no -- and I’m assuming conservatives have no problem with that.

So why, when an agent of a municipal armed service makes an error causing injury or loss of life, do we immediately hear a conservative chorus of “stressful job” and “life on the line” and “split-second decisions”? Conservatives -- and the rest of us for that matter -- can respect and appreciate the job law enforcement agents do while at the same time acknowledging that some on-the-job mistakes can and should be career-enders.

Working-class black voters tend to live in neighborhoods which require more intensive police services than wealthier ones, so they suffer disproportionately from the effects of sloppy or unprofessional policing. That makes this a key issue for them.

(It’s worth mentioning that conservatives’ disadvantage on this issue is almost entirely of their own making, because Democratic politicians don’t necessarily have a sterling record to run against. Note that, for example, the notoriously brutal Newark, NJ police department did not conduct any substantial reforms under the watch of former Democratic mayor Sharpe James, who also happens to be black.)

The platform I’ve outlined above is meant to mark the beginning, not the end, of this discussion. I haven’t painted a complete picture by any means; I’ve just done an outline sketch. It’s going to be up to conservative and liberal thinkers and politicians of good conscience, and the people they serve, to add to the list and fill in the details. My intention here was to point out a few possible ways for us to improve political discourse and lay the groundwork for better and smarter politics and government, and in so doing bring new life and new force to the American experiment. (Financial crisis or no, we’re not finished yet.)

Thanks for sticking around until the end! See you in the comments section.