Thursday, December 25, 2014

Coolidge's Tree


The White House tree symbolizes not just the holiday but faith as well. 

Calvin Coolidge & community Christmas tree, 12/24/23

There’s always debate around Christmas. One topic is church’s intrusion upon state. People scan the details of the lighting of the National Christmas Tree for symbols of  “Christmas” rather than “holiday.” 

There’s controversy over the White House Christmas card as well. President Obama’s first card, in 2009, for example, read “Season’s Greetings,” not “Merry Christmas,” a fact that so irritated Representative Henry Brown (R., S.C.) that he introduced a resolution defending the sacredness of Christmas: “I believe that sending a Christmas card without referencing a holiday and its purpose limits the Christmas celebration in favor of a more politically correct holiday.”

Another Christmas topic, however, is the material bounty of the holiday. The Los Angeles Times, for example, recently reprinted a defensive column by Dinah Lenney, a Jewish writer and actress. Lenney, married to a non-Jew, portrays Christmas as an American force so darling and powerful it overwhelmed her family. Failing to buy wreaths, erect a tree, or leave a carrot for Rudolph forced her into the role of the Grinch. So Lenney, clearly a caring mother, bought a tree and gave her children a chance to celebrate Christmas. But she herself chose not to celebrate, to remain the “bristly, conflicted, slightly sheepish American Jew that I am.”  Such arguments are usually framed as “Christmas versus the Rest.”

The questions of Christmas and state, and of its bounty, were actually addressed by the president who inaugurated both the outdoor-tree tradition and the presidential Christmas message: Calvin Coolidge. Our 30th president, who served from 1923 to 1929, loved Christmas. But he loved it carefully. The president’s actions in regard to the holiday reflect insights that shine like the Christmas candles — but also like Hanukkah lights.

In the autumn of 1923, the new president and other Washingtonians had a new idea: an outdoor White House Christmas tree. On Christmas Eve, Coolidge and his wife Grace walked over to the Ellipse. There a magnificent 48-foot fir awaited them, decorated with 2,500 green, red, and white bulbs donated by the Electric League. Coolidge pressed a button that lit up the tree, yielding a sort of fireworks effect that Americans love to this day.

It is unlikely that either the president or the first lady initially saw the Christmas tree as a tree of the national government. It was to the District of Columbia Public Schools that Grace Coolidge gave permission to erect the Christmas tree in the autumn of 1923. As the planning proceeded, people referred to the tree as a “community Christmas tree.” The tree’s provenance also mattered: The fir came not from a “national” place but from a place associated with Coolidge’s home state, Vermont — the forests around Middlebury College.

Even in that first year, some stakeholders in the tree project liked the idea of going national, marketing the tree as a “National Christmas Tree.” But someone, probably the White House, pushed back. The label given the tree the following year represented a compromise: “National Community Christmas Tree. In 1927 newspapers were still labeling the tree “the Washington community tree.” The element of locality abided, even through the years of the activist Franklin Roosevelt: In 1942, for example, Washington schoolchildren took the lead in decorating the tree, collecting ornaments around the region.

What was going on? Coolidge was such a ferocious federalist that he spoke of the United States in plural. The point here was simple: The United States had no national faith, and Washington was not all-powerful. He, a Christian from Vermont, was a guest in a largely Christian place, the District of Columbia. It was important for local authorities to keep Washington out of their realm. Coolidge restrained the federal government not because he was an early presidential iteration of Ayn Rand but because he feared state would intrude upon church. Protecting churches, or states’ rights, or town government, was what low-tax, small-government politicians like him restrained government for.

Eventually the small-government types lost their Christmas-tree battle. The lighting of the White House tree is today rated a “national” or “federal” event, as per the beginning of this story. For fans there is even a website, nationaltree.org. But Coolidge’s point is still there in the record for us to consider if we choose.

Coolidge’s philosophy was likewise evident in the presidential Christmas card. In 1927 the president wrote out a personal Yuletide letter to the nation, the first such greeting. His message was one of charity and good will. “If we think on these things, there will be born in us a Savior and over us will shine a star sending its gleam of hope throughout the world.”

Some will clearly deem such a phrase “too Christian.” They will not, however, be considering the rest of the presidential message. Coolidge meticulously placed his Christian imagery of star and savior in an ecumenical frame. “Christmas is not a time or season but a state of mind,” he wrote. “To cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenteous in mercy is to have the real spirit of Christmas.” Elsewhere, when speaking of faith, Coolidge departed from Christianity altogether, speaking of “the spiritual insight of people.” “The things of spirit come first,” Coolidge wrote. “Unless we cling to that all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp.” The government was built on faith, and not the other way around.

What Coolidge understood was that the absence of faith can create a vacuum. Into that vacuum fly the trappings of holidays — the material gifts that parents like the author in the Los Angeles Times find it impossible not to supply. To Coolidge’s mind, this could lead to “pagan materialism.” When you shared a faith, it was not the trappings that mattered, but the faith itself.

In other words, the true contest is not “Church versus State,” “Christmas versus the Rest,” or even “Christians versus the Rest.” The tension can be found between people who respect (or try to respect) “things of the spirit” —i.e., faith —  and those who do not. You can stand for secular humanism on principle, and many admirable souls do. But it is important to recognize that secular humanism rules at a cost, that materialism does not have all the answers, and that faith is not always dangerous. Indeed, faith can protect individual freedom and selflessness in a way that has nothing to do with Santa, dreidels, or Christmas-tree ornaments.

— Amity Shlaes chairs the board of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation and serves as presidential scholar at King’s College.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

The Album of the Year: The War on Drugs - Lost in the Dream

December 2, 2014  |  3:42pm


Adam Granduciel was in a rut. It was mid-2013, and the mastermind behind Americana psych-rock outfit The War on Drugs had come to a standstill with the album he’d been crafting for more than a year. He wasn’t want of ideas—he had plenty of those—but something had changed. He didn’t feel like himself. Coming off the breakthrough success of 2011’s Slave Ambient and extensive touring, he’d started asking questions: Was the band going anywhere? Were they connecting with anybody? Was this what he should be doing with his life? Was he contributing anything of note to the canon? Months earlier, on the morning of Feb. 17, Granduciel awoke “feeling like a totally different person.” He started experiencing heavy bouts of anxiety, suffering from debilitating panic attacks. He couldn’t focus, and he felt his world getting smaller. He worried about his age, about his impact. He worried about death, about the future. Everything was suddenly up in the air, on hold—including the then-unfinished Lost in the Dream LP, the band’s career-crowning third full-length and Paste’s number one album of 2014.
A creature of habit, Granduciel tried taking matters in his own hands. Having lived in the same three-story house in Philadelphia for a decade where he had cultivated his own musical style, he began changing his routine and life choices to help curb his anxieties. He quit drinking and smoking. He quit eating meat. He broke up with his girlfriend of four years. But some of the issues he just couldn’t shake. “It was a lot of different things just infiltrating my ability to live comfortably inside of myself,” he says.
Then something happened: the mixing of the record. With the songs all tracked and demoed, Granduciel and sound engineer Nicolas Vernhes went to work in the studio. Soon they were altering songs, moving things around, deconstructing certain elements and rebuilding others from the ground up. There wasn’t a riff or chord or beat on the album that wasn’t carefully calculated and mapped out. And while there are some phenomenal moments of mayhem on the record, each was deeply embedded in method and motive. Creatively, it was the push that Granduciel needed, but emotionally, it was a different story. “I had a really hard time,” he says. “Over the course of the day, I felt very shattered—just kind of shaking all the time. It was being afraid that you’ll have another panic blowout or something, and not really being able to manage your anxieties and your fear. I think some of it too is second-guessing whether or not you’re moving in the right direction, [musically and personally].”
Then, as the months wore on, after much back and forth between studio time and home retooling, Granduciel, despite his panic-stricken haze, finally completed the album with the help of his newly assembled band. He knew what he had—and he knew he had to share it, to get people to hear it, no matter what. “I knew I would finish it,” he says. “I just needed that last bit, that last push to get over Heartbreak Hill in the Boston Marathon or something.”
It was the first step in a long, ongoing healing process—helping to quell some of those large, looming questions—but it wouldn’t be the last.
section_break.gif
Despite its recent expansion into a six-piece, The War on Drugs has always been more of a solo project than a big collaborative effort. The band got its start with its 2008 debut, Wagonwheel Blues, which Granduciel wrote and recorded alongside creative counterpart, friendly rival and War of Drugs cofounder Kurt Vile (who left after Wagonwheel Blues to pursue a solo career). Three years later, Granduciel found his place in indie greatness with Slave Ambient, exposing him to a wider, more receptive audience.
Lost in the Dream, however, reaches an entirely new level. Front to back, it’s hard to find a flaw on the album. From the catchy lead-in piano hook on “Under the Pressure” to the show-stopping chorus on “In Reverse,” the record is an emotional, ethereal experience. Each song is structured on the band’s already strong foundation—rich guitar layers, deep synth textures, wall-of-sound atmospherics, soaring guitar solos, catchy vocal melodies, poignant and cutting lyrics, uptempo beats and wailing organs—but builds upon it ceremoniously. It finds Granduciel growing more comfortable in his own skin.
“I had a little bit of a better idea of what I wanted to do,” he says when comparing it to Slave Ambient. “I had a little bit more money to spend in the studios, and I could spend a little more time on it, to really hack away at songs.” It also meant being more receptive to other members’ contributions while not relying so much on experimentalism. “I became a lot more inclusive of [keyboardist] Robbie [Bennet] and [bassist] Dave [Hartley] in the fold. I knew that I wanted there to be more piano, and I knew that I wanted it to be more classic-sounding.”
Initially, the album was met with acclaim and buzz. But while buzz fades, the splendor of Lost in the Dream never did. As 2014 wore on, the songs did the opposite—they festered, intensified, grew stronger. For me, each track seemed to expand in size and scope. Soundscapes I hadn’t noticed before began to appear. Little details and nuances popped up—a synth change here, a drum variation there, a heartsick lyric I hadn’t deciphered the first few times around—and all the while, lead riffs chugged and burned and faded into a wildly sonorous collage that bled all over the place like sonic warfare. There’s a universality to the record, a familiarity ingrained in the music and lyrics themselves that strike a nerve. “I feel like I got over a certain hump that I had while writing,” Granduciel says. Deep down, he knew he had something special.
section_break.gif
A native of Dover, Massachusetts, Granduciel moved to Philadelphia “on a whim” about a decade ago after bouncing around from New England to Oakland and back again, figuring out what he wanted to do. He’d started to get serious about writing music, but he wasn’t sharing any of it. Then he saw a film that would impact him forever: the 2002 Wilco documentary, I Am Trying to Break Your Heart, which depicts the circumstances surrounding the band’s creation of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. “I wanted to be like that,” Granduciel says. “I wanted to be in the studio, I wanted free-flowing ideas, I wanted a roomful of gear. An opportunity came to move to Philly, and that’s what I wanted—to be a little more outward making music and taking it more seriously and thinking about it.”
While in Philadelphia, he worked as a property manager to help pay the bills before devoting himself fully to music, holing up in his house and accumulating gear and recording equipment. Throughout The War on Drugs’ existence, the home has always served as a safe haven and creative think tank for the writing and tracking process. It played such an integral part of Lost in the Dream, in fact, that it was enshrined within the album art, mirroring the music’s feeling of familiarity and comfort.
But something else about the album rings with familiarity: Granduciel’s influences. Each War on Drugs album has, to some degree, shown shades of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, Neil Young and plenty more, but perhaps none more overtly than on Lost in the Dream. The album takes the tried-and-true tactics of classic Americana and folk-rock and infuses it with layers and textures, fissures and peaks, tensions and releases. Granduciel marries modernity with tradition, taking what works and adjusting it slightly so as to add another dimension to the music. “Burning” could be straight out of a Springsteen songbook, but Granduciel has filled it with drum loops and synth samples; “In Reverse” could be something composed by Dylan, but its first three minutes are shrouded in swooning atmospherics; even the folksy title track, probably the least experimental track on the album, is anchored by ghostly tremolo guitars and a harmonica cloaked in reverb. Lost in the Dream makes the classics feel not only new but more relevant than ever.
In doing so, Granduciel makes the sound his own. “I wasn’t so much interested in trying to write something more modern [while] using these influences as much as I was just trying to like follow the method that I always have—and also trying to make my songwriting better,” he says. “I felt like we made enough decisions that propelled the record into something of our own.”
Like those influences, there’s a working-class element to the album. But while Granduciel’s muses might’ve anchored their dissent in economic oppression and social struggle, Granduciel grounds his in personal misgivings and emotional paralysis. These are internal, personalized battles, not external commentaries. It’s not the socially conscious Dylan but the inward-looking one that comes out on Lost in the Dream. (It should be no surprise, then, that earlier this year The War on Drugs covered “Tangled Up in Blue,” the first cut from Blood on the Tracks, probably Dylan’s most personal album. Like Dylan, Granduciel also uses a stage name; his real name is Adam Granofsky.) So, while Granduciel isn’t singing about getting a job for the Johnstown Company or working on Maggie’s farm, Lost in the Dream still channels those desolate feelings of isolation. The context is just more personalized. It evokes the problems plaguing the modern individual.
On “Eyes to the Wind,” for instance, when Granduciel sings, “There’s just a stranger living in me,” or, “I’m all alone here / Living in darkness,” the strife is all-enveloping, but what’s noticeable isn’t the anxiousness itself but the acceptance. “Just a bit rundown here at the moment,” he admits. Lost in the Dream is an album of the times, illustrating a period when people are learning to cope—when they’re beginning to realize things don’t always pan out as planned, or that settling is sometimes the only option left. For Granduciel, these fears are palpable. They’re real enough to reach out and touch, even if they’re difficult to grasp sometimes. Granduciel has gone beyond mere homage to his predecessors—he’s slipped into the role himself, taking up their me-against-the-world burden. Lost in the Dream is not mere shades or hints or echoes; it’s the real thing.
section_break.gif
Seeing the band at the Hideout Block Party in Chicago earlier this year, I wasn’t shocked at how well the songs translated live—given how much time and effort they’ve put into creating a full band experience—but I was pleasantly surprised. My wife and I were farther back in the audience, about 100 yards from the stage, but we could easily see Granduciel’s denim-jacket-clad frame hunched over his guitar as he went to town. Like ghosts, he and the band would appear and vanish behind waves of white smoke and red haze that were busy shifting in the wind. As a six-piece, the band’s sound filled out the festival, engulfing the crowd in gradients of guitar, swaths of keyboard and pulsations of drums and bass, as well as overtones of saxophone for some of the record’s more peaking moments.
Playing shows is more than a means for Granduciel to support his art; it gives him a firsthand glimpse of the fans connecting with his music. For a person who, months earlier, felt so closed off and desperate, playing shows offers a chance at validation. It gives Granduciel the chance to witness the receptiveness to his hard work. In a way, touring has become a road to recovery for Granduciel’s initial doubts about direction. It has allowed him to take others’ reactions and reevaluate what the album has meant to not only them but himself. “I think the response to songs has been helpful,” he says. “It feels like a warm group of people coming to our shows. Seeing what the record became and how it’s resonated with people—it’s been a real blessing to have the record kind of change the way I see myself.”
That’s not to say it’s been smooth sailing. The band’s soaring live sound, after all, is what led to the infamous—albeit one-sided—feud with Mark Kozelek. The trouble started when Kozelek (of Sun Kil Moon) took exception to The War on Drugs’ sound bleeding over to Sun Kil Moon’s stage at Ottawa Folk Fest. But what started as an off-color joke (i.e., Kozelek calling their sound “beer commercial lead-guitar,” writing a song called “War on Drugs Suck My Cock,” and publicly challenging the band to let him join them onstage to play it) soon evolved into a pitiful one-sided spar where Kozelek came across as more out-of-touch and bitter than anything (having actually recorded said song and later mocking Granduciel’s comments about Kozelek’s ill-mannered antics in another trolling song titled “Adam Granofsky Blues”).
Granduciel, though, doesn’t give it much thought these days. “It’s definitely been a lot more blown out of proportion on paper than it really is in my head,” he says. “Anytime I say anything, it becomes a headline and is taken out of context. At the end of the day, I have a good sense of humor about everything; I’m not sulking in the corner. I don’t know. It is what is.”
Years from now, when the feud is forgotten, what will be left standing is a stellar album. What will be left will be the healing effects that creating the album afforded, not just the anxieties that they once personified or were teased out by a jaded, alienating songwriter. Because Lost in the Dream has an uncanny ability to transcend—be it decade, genre, audience, you name it. Its sound is enormous, all-encompassing. For all of the turmoil impinged upon Granduciel’s psyche in the year leading up to Lost in the Dream, the album sounds anything but strained. It sounds as if it were always waiting to be written—that it just took Granduciel to finally put a pen to the page, his fingers to the fretboard. The record may have been a document of crippling anxiety, but now it more so serves as the revelation, the remedy.
section_break.gif
For all the grandiosity and self-assuredness that Lost in the Dream oozes, Granduciel is anything but. On the phone in LA, he’s unassuming and humble as he tells me his band’s plans to play a show in Portland before heading to Australia in a few days. There’s no ego to stroke or sense of entitlement to placate. And while separating the music from the man may take away from Lost in the Dream’s genius, it highlights its malleability—how it lets you place your own angst and grievances within the music’s ebb and flow. People relate to it. It’s an organic, honest account of playing the cards you’re dealt and making the most of them.
It’s hard to stay grounded when talking about the album, but the significance of Lost in the Dream cannot be overstated. To make the year’s best record, Granduciel had to take a step back and reevaluate his relationship with his own craft. It forced the perfectionist in him to strive for flawlessness and then deliver upon that promise. And while the record didn’t magically heal Granduciel’s anxiety, it has helped open him up to new experiences and opportunities so that healing might be a possibility. “Making the record was not an easy thing. It was not cathartic to make it or anything. It wasn’t like when I was making it that all of these problems disappeared,” he says. “But I think looking back on it in retrospect has helped me to become a more open person.”
And that’s the true majesty of the record: from all the muck and malaise that midlife produces, something beautiful and permanent has been revealed—an enduring contribution to the canon. “I don’t mind you disappearing / Because I know you can be found”—Granduciel may as well have been singing about himself on “In Reverse”; by immersing himself in his music, he has unearthed something valuable and has emerged all the better for it. His missteps and doubts have led to something timeless, profound—suggesting Granduciel is anything but lost.
Granduciel’s own future is uncertain—he might or might not be moving out of his house in Philadelphia and heading for LA or New York, and he’s unsure if the next War on Drugs record will be more siloed or more collaborative or “maybe a mixture”—but for the moment he isn’t concerned, and that’s certainly an improvement from where he was a year ago. In fact, he speaks like someone whose best years are ahead. When asked where the band goes from here, he replies, “I really don’t know. If you look at rock history, for instance, I don’t know; I’m not comparing us to Led Zeppelin—by any means—but they made Houses of the Holy after Zeppelin IV.” He also points out that Dylan’s Blonde on Blonde came after Bringing It All Back Home, and Springsteen’s The River succeeded Darkness on the Edge of Town. Granduciel isn’t equating his work with such legendary benchmarks; he’s merely implying that the sky’s the limit—and for the first time in a long time, he’s able to admit that to himself.
“This is a once-in-a-lifetime moment,” he says. “This record has done great things for us as a band, and at the end of the year, people are still talking about. And that’s a really special thing. I just want to keep trying to deliver on that promise and keep following my instinct as a songwriter and do what feels right. And hopefully, when it’s time to mix the next record, I’ll be looking at a bunch of songs that are blowing my mind.”
To that end, Granduciel says he hasn’t “frozen up” thinking about recording the next album, and as of right now is excited to make another one. But for now, reflecting on the past year, he’s content to enjoy the moment that he’s earned. “It’s been busy and it’s been exciting and it’s been rewarding,” he says. “It’s been all the things that life should be, I think.”

Related:
Interview: Adam Granduciel
Band of the Year: The War on Drugs
Album of the Year: Lost in the Dream
Albums of the Year (No. 2): Lost in the Dream
Concert Review: The War on Drugs in New Zealand

Today's Tune: The War on Drugs - Burning (Live)

CUBA CELEBRATES ‘NORMALIZED RELATIONS’ BY MURDERING REFUGEES

 John Hayward
http://humanevents.com/
December 22, 2014

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Say this much for the Castro regime: they’re not making even the slightest pretense that their deal with Barack Obama was anything but total and complete American capitulation.  It’s a wonder they didn’t tell Obama to attend a formal surrender ceremony.  He might have been willing to do it.  He did apologize to the Castro killers for how long it took America to knuckle under, then sat obediently while Raul Castro prattled at him for half an hour.
To drive home the point about how they’ll never change, and are giving Obama exactly squat in exchange for his lavish concessions, the Castro regime proceeded to run down a boat full of refugees, many of them children, and drag the survivors back to Obama’s favorite island gulag.  The Miami Herald brings us this heartwarming scene of how Obama’s plan to “open” Cuba and transform it with American values is coming along:
Masiel González Castellano told reporters in a telephone conversation from Matanzas, Cuba, that her husband, Leosbel Díaz Beoto, is missing after falling from the boat that was repeatedly charged and hit by a boat manned by the Cuban Coast Guard.
“We were screaming and crying for help as the boat was sinking. But they ignored us. Instead, they continued charging against our boat. Some people dove in the water and others stayed aboard as the boat sank,” said González, who was contacted during a press conference hosted in Miami by the Democracy Movement. “They knew there were children aboard, but continued to charge against us. They didn’t care.”
The boat, said González, was carrying 32 people, including seven women and two children. One of the two children was her 8-year-old son. She added that the boat pilot “was from Miami.”
The group, González said, boarded the boat at around 4 a.m. Monday. After being hit on Tuesday morning, the Cuban Coast Guard rescued most of the survivors, who were then locked up by the State Security in Versailles, Matanzas.
González said she was released on Thursday night with the rest of the women and children. The men remain under custody, she added.
According to Ramón Saúl Sánchez, president of Democracy Movement, the people on the boat said the incident occurred in international waters at about 22 miles from Cuban territory. “This is not the way to deal with people who are just trying to flee a brutal tyranny,” he said.
Actually, Mr. Sanchez, I think this is exactly how tyrants normally deal with people who flee from them.  Every form of collectivism, including American socialism, has to deal with the problem of disenchanted subjects seeking to escape from punitive regimes.  We have Democrats fidgeting about capital flight through corporate inversions; Cuba mows down women and children attempting to float to freedom on improvised rafts.  In every left-wing regime, there must be walls, moats, and consequences for those who try to cross them in the wrong direction.  I can remember a time when the United States sank pirates who attacked unarmed vessels in international waters, but I guess those days are long behind us.
Some Republicans have been urging Obama to get something from the Castro regime in exchange for the billions of American dollars he’s planning to pour into their coffers.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, for example, nudged his 2016 presidential steed a bit closer to the starting gate by telling Obama to demand the return of fugitive cop killer Joanne Chesimard, a Black Liberation Army “activist” who murdered a New Jersey state trooper, ended up on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, and found asylum in the welcoming arms of Obama’s new Partners in Peace.  This would be an excellent time for President Obama to take a strong stand against cop killers, wouldn’t it?  Nevertheless, I doubt Christie’s going to have much luck getting Obama to play along – as the Governor noted, it’s significant that Obama didn’t make this demand on his own initiative, and he probably won’t risk humiliation at the hands of the Castros by making it now.
This whole idea of exposure to American capitalism and democracy inspiring Cuba to embrace freedom is ridiculously naive.  I strongly doubt Barack Obama himself thinks such a transformation is in the cards – he’s looking for a way to inspire his base with a salute to the academic Left’s legendary hero Fidel, and score a quick foreign-policy “win” his media lapdogs can bark about.  For one thing, Cuba has already been exposed to plenty of capitalism and democracy from the many countries that didn’t maintain an embargo against it, such as Canada.  The spectacle of American liberals pretending Canada is an inferior standard-bearer of freedom is momentarily amusing, but seriously, there’s ample evidence that Cuba’s interaction with less hideous cultures has not broken the Castros’ iron grip on their private dungeon state.  American money isn’t going to have much of a transformative effect when the regime is grabbing 92 cents out of every dollar.
What Obama has done, when you get right down to it, is endorse slavery.  The Cuban people are slaves to the Castro regime, which provides accommodations staffed by indentured labor to well-heeled foreign visitors.  I don’t think any American liberal would have trouble understanding the situation if we were talking about some evil capitalist overlord running a posh resort attended by captive workers who get run down by men with guns when they try to escape, and are allowed to keep 8 cents of every dollar they earn to cover whatever necessities of life the Master chose not to provide.  But if you write such an atrocity large enough, and give the Master a generation or two of academic cheerleaders who gobble up his left-wing rhetoric… well, compulsory servitude suddenly becomes quite palatable to people who still think America should be punished for the slavery it fought a bloody war to end 150 years ago.

The Big Lie of the Anti-Cop Left Turns Lethal


The real story behind the murder of two NYPD officers

By Heather MacDonald
22 December 2014


PHOTO BY ADA HUTCHINGS

Since last summer, a lie has overtaken significant parts of the country, resulting in growing mass hysteria. That lie holds that the police pose a mortal threat to black Americans—indeed that the police are the greatest threat facing black Americans today. Several subsidiary untruths buttress that central myth: that the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks; that the black underclass doesn’t exist; and that crime rates are comparable between blacks and whites—leaving disproportionate police action in minority neighborhoods unexplained without reference to racism. The poisonous effect of those lies has now manifested itself in the cold-blooded assassination of two NYPD officers.

The highest reaches of American society promulgated these untruths and participated in the mass hysteria. Following a grand jury’s decision not to indict a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer for fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown in August (Brown had attacked the officer and tried to grab his gun), President Barack Obama announced that blacks were right to believe that the criminal-justice system was often stacked against them. Obama has travelled around the country since then buttressing that message. Eric Holder escalated a long running theme of his tenure as U.S. Attorney General—that the police routinely engaged in racial profiling and needed federal intervention to police properly.

University presidents rushed to show their fealty to the lie. Harvard’s Drew Gilpin Faust announced that “injustice [toward black lives] still thrives so many years after we hoped we could at last overcome the troubled legacy of race in America. . . . Harvard and . . . the nation have embraced [an] imperative to refuse silence, to reject injustice.” Smith College’s presidentabjectly flagellated herself for saying that “all lives matter,” instead of the current mantra, “black lives matter.” Her ignorant mistake, she confessed, draws attention away from “institutional violence against Black people.”

The New York Times ratcheted up its already stratospheric level of anti-cop polemics. In an editorial justifying the Ferguson riots, the Timesclaimed that “the killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African-American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast.” Some facts: Police killings of blacks are an extremely rare feature of black life and are a minute fraction of black homicide deaths. The police could end all killings of civilians tomorrow and it would have no effect on the black homicide risk, which comes overwhelmingly from other blacks. In 2013, there were 6,261 black homicide victims in the U.S.—almost all killed by black civilians—resulting in a death risk in inner cities that is ten times higher for blacks than for whites. None of those killings triggered mass protests; they are deemed normal and beneath notice. The police, by contrast, according to published reports, kill roughly 200 blacks a year, most of them armed and dangerous, out of about 40 million police-civilian contacts a year. Blacks are in fact killed by police at a lower rate than their threat to officers would predict. In 2013, blacks made up 42 percent of all cop killers whose race was known, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the nation’s population. The percentage of black suspects killed by the police nationally is 29 percent lower than the percentage of blacks mortally threatening them.

There is huge unacknowledged support for the police in the inner city: “They’re due respect because they put their lives every day on the line to protect and serve. I hope they don’t back off from policing,” a woman told me on Thursday night, two nights before the assassination, on the street in Staten Island where Eric Garner was killed.

But among all the posturers, none was so preening as New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio. In advance of a trip to Washington for a White House summit on policing, he told the press that a “scourge” of killings by police is “based not just on decades, but centuries of racism.” De Blasio embroidered on that theme several days later, after a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict an officer for homicide in Garner’s death. (The 350-pound asthmatic Garner had resisted arrest for the crime of selling loose cigarettes; officers brought him to the ground, provoking a fatal heart attack.) “People are saying: ‘Black lives matter,’” de Blasio announced after the grand jury concluded. “It should be self-evident, but our history requires us to say ‘black lives matter.’ It was not years of racism that brought us to this day, or decades of racism, but centuries of racism.” De Blasio added that he worries “every night” about the “dangers [his biracial son Dante] may face” from “officers who are paid to protect him.”

The mayor’s irresponsible rhetoric was a violation of his role as the city’s leader and as its main exponent of the law. If he really believes that his son faces a significant risk from the police, he is ignorant of the realities of crime and policing in the city he was elected to lead. 
There is no New York City institution more dedicated to the proposition that “black lives matter” than the New York Police Department; thousands of black men are alive today who would have been killed years ago had data-driven policing not brought down the homicide levels of the early 1990s. The Garner death was a tragic aberration in a record of unparalleled restraint. The NYPD fatally shot eight individuals last year, six of them black, all posing a risk to the police, compared with scores of blacks killed by black civilians. But facts do not matter when crusading to bring justice to a city beset by “centuries of racism.”

New York police officers were rightly outraged at de Blasio’s calumny. The head of the officers union, Patrick Lynch, circulated a form allowing officers to request that the mayor not attend their funeral if they were killed in the line of duty—an understandable reaction to de Blasio’s insult. De Blasio responded primly on The View: “It’s divisive. It’s inappropriate,” he said. The city’s elites, from Cardinal Timothy Dolan on down, reprimanded the union. The New York Police Commissioner called the union letter “a step too far.”

Meanwhile, protests and riots against the police were gathering force across the country, all of them steeped in anti-cop vitriol and the ubiquitous lie that “black lives” don’t “matter.” “What do we want? Dead cops,” chanted participants in a New York anti-cop protest. Two public defenders from the Bronx participated in a rap video extolling cop killings. Few people in positions of authority objected to this dangerous hatred. The desire to show allegiance with allegedly oppressed blacks was too great. The thrill of righteousness was palpable among the media as it lovingly chronicled every protest and on the part of politicians and thought leaders who expressed solidarity with the cause. At another march across New York’s Brooklyn Bridge, a group of people tried to throw trash cans onto the heads of officers on the level below them; police attempts to arrest the assailants were fought off by other marchers.

The elite’s desperation to participate in what they hopefully viewed as their own modern-day civil rights crusade was patent in the sanctification of Michael Brown, the would-be cop killer. He was turned into a civil rights martyr. His violence toward Wilson, and the convenience store owner he had strong-armed, was wiped from the record. Protesters across the country chanted “hands up, don’t shoot” at anti-cop rallies, allegedly Brown’s final words before Wilson shot him. Never mind that the source of that alleged final utterance, Brown’s companion Dorian Johnson, was a proven liar. There is no reason to believe his claim regarding Brown’s final words.

Protesters’ willingness to overlook anti-cop homicidal intent surfaced again in St. Louis in November. A teen criminal who had shot at the policewas killed by an officer in self-defense; he, too, joined the roster of heroic black victims of police racism. This sanctification of would-be black cop-killers would prove prophetic. The elites were playing with fire. It’s profoundly irresponsible to stoke hatred of the police, especially when the fuel used for doing so is a set of lies. Hatred of the police among blacks stems in part from police brutality during this country’s shameful era of Jim Crow-laws and widespread discrimination. But it is naïve not to recognize that criminal members of the black underclass despise the police because law enforcement interferes with their way of life. The elites are oblivious both to the extent of lawlessness in the black inner city and to its effect on attitudes toward the cops. Any expression of contempt for the police, in their view, must be a sincere expression of a wrong.

Cop-killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who assassinated NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos on Saturday, exemplified everything the elites have refused to recognize: he was a gun-toting criminal who was an eager consumer of the current frenzy of cop hatred. (Not that he paid close enough attention to the actual details of alleged cop malfeasance to spell Eric Garner’s name correctly.) His homicidal postings on Instagram—“I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today. They Take 1 of Ours . . . . .Let’s Take 2 of Theirs”—were indistinguishable from the hatred bouncing around the Internet and the protests and that few bothered to condemn. That vitriol continues after the assassination. Social media is filled with gloating at the officers’ deaths and praise for Brinsley: “That nigga that shot the cops is a legend,” reads a typical message. A student leader and a representative of the African and Afro-American studies department at Brandeis Universitytweeted that she has “no sympathy for the NYPD officers who were murdered today.”

The only good that can come out of this wrenching attack on civilization would be the delegitimation of the lie-based protest movement. Whether that will happen is uncertain. The New York Times has denounced as “inflammatory” the statement from the head of the officer’s union that there is “blood on the hands that starts on the steps of City Hall”—this from a paper that promotes the idea that police officers routinely kill blacks. The elites’ investment in black victimology is probably too great to hope for an injection of truth into the dangerously counterfactual discourse about race, crime, and policing.

The Race Card’s Steep Cost


As the NYPD deaths show, demagogues’ constantly taking cheap shots at the police can end in tragedy. 

Al Sharpton played three racist voicemails from a cellphone at a press conference on Sunday. Photo: Reuters

The cold-blooded murder of two New York City policemen as they sat in their car is not only an outrage but also a wake-up call. It shows, in the most painful way, the high cost of having demagogues, politicians, mobs, and the media constantly taking cheap shots at the police.

Those cheap shots are in fact very expensive shots, not only to the police themselves but to the whole society. Someone once said that civilization is a thin crust over a volcano. The police are part of that thin crust. We have seen before our own eyes, first in Ferguson, Missouri and then in other communities, what happens when there is just a small crack in that crust, and barbarism and arson burst out.

That can happen anywhere. So can what happened in New York. “Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”

It is a painful irony that, on the eve of the murders of these two police officers in New York, some of the city’s police were already saying that, in the event of their deaths, they did not want Mayor Bill de Blasio to attend their funerals.

We can only hope that Mayor de Blasio has some residual decency, so that he will not defile these two officers’ memorial services with his presence. No politician in the country has done more to play the race card against the police and spread the notion that cops are the big problem in minority communities.

It so happens that the police officers killed were both members of minority groups — Officer Rafael Ramos, Hispanic, and Officer Wenjian Liu, Asian. It so happens that a substantial part of the New York City police force are members of minority groups.

But you might never know that from the story told by demagogues who depict the black community as a “colonial” society being “occupied” by white policemen who target young blacks. Mayor de Blasio joined the chorus of those saying that they have to warn their black sons how to cope with this situation.

“What can we say to our sons?” some demagogues ask. They can say, “Don’t go around punching strangers, because it is only a matter of time before you punch the wrong stranger.”

Mayor de Blasio has made anti-police comments with Al Sharpton seated at his side. This is the same Al Sharpton with a trail of slime going back more than a quarter of a century, during which he has whipped up mobs and fomented race hatred from the days of the Tawana Brawley “rape” hoax of 1987 to the Duke University “rape” hoax of 2006 and the Ferguson riots of 2014.

Make no mistake about it. There is political mileage to be made siding with demagogues like Al Sharpton who, as demagogue-in-chief, has been invited to the White House dozens of times by its commander-in-chief.

Many in the media and among the intelligentsia cherish the romantic tale of an “us” against “them” struggle of beleaguered ghetto blacks defending themselves against the aggression of white policemen. The gullible include both whites who don’t know what they are talking about and blacks who don’t know what they are talking about either, because they never grew up in a ghetto. Among the latter are the President of the United States and his attorney general.

Such people readily buy the story that ghetto social problems today — from children being raised without a father to runaway rates of murder — are “a legacy of slavery,” even though such social problems were nowhere near as severe in the first half of the 20th century as they became in the second half.

You would be hard pressed to name just five examples from the first half of the 20th century of the kinds of ghetto riots that have raged in more than a hundred cities during the second half. Such riots are a legacy of the social degeneracy of our times.

Calling this social degeneracy “a legacy of slavery” is not just an excuse for those who engage in it, it is an excuse for the ideology of the intelligentsia behind the social policies that promoted this degeneracy.

Let those who have laid a guilt trip on people in our times, for evils done by other people in past centuries, at least face their own responsibility for the evil consequences of their own notions and policies. If they won’t do it, then the rest of us need to stop listening gullibly to what they are saying.

The race card is nothing to play with. It can ruin us all.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is www.tsowell.com. © 2014 Creators Syndicate Inc.