The United States, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, is at a major political crossroads. The polarization within our ideological landscape has reached a nearly unsustainable level, and communication between Left and Right has all but ceased to exist. Whether it be the soft socialism of Bernie Sanders or right wing populism, political possibilities once thought unpalatable in the United States now present themselves as forces sufficient to motivate large portions of the electorate. Although destabilizing, political turmoil such as the one we find ourselves in now distances us from the status quo and allows us to more objectively examine the political world in which we live. It can push us to question our beliefs and values more deeply and accelerate social change like nothing else. One of the key questions that have been explored is the place Confederate monuments in public life. An honest examination of this issue leaves one inescapable conclusion; that they must be removed from public places of celebration and reverence.
Key to one’s take on the issue is one’s interpretation of the events of the Civil War. Apologists frequently claim that slavery was a minor issue, tangential to the conflict between the Union and Confederacy. The Sons of the Confederacy, an organization of men descended from Confederate veterans, claims that “The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South’s decision to fight the Second American Revolution.” Before any productive conversation on the issue can take place, this grave misconception and historical inaccuracy must be succinctly and thoroughly dispelled. The Confederate States rebelled against the Federal government to preserve their ability to maintain slavery. As Ty Seidule, a professor of history at West Point points out, “slavery was, by a large margin, the single most important cause of the Civil War”, adding that “the secession documents of every Southern state made clear, crystal clear that they were leaving the Union in order to protect their ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery.” Even a casual survey of first hand documents of the time reveals a patent and unobscured motivation on the part of Southern states to fight for the preservation of slavery.
To display Confederates monuments in prominent, public positions of honor is thus at odds with our values as both patriots and people of good conscience. In honoring the Confederate military, we honor an institution that sought to tear apart the political order of our country and caused a staggering loss of human life, all in the service of a deeply unethical practice. In memorializing “the Cause”, a term used by the Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization that played the largest role in the establishment of such monuments, we pay honor to a depraved and horrendous worldview; one based in the inhumane subjugation of our fellow Americans. This is not merely a theoretical critique of Confederate memorials, or an assignment of intentionality, motive, or symbolic significance without evidence. An examination of the history of such memorials reveals a clear pattern to their construction. A modern study of the establishment of such monuments by the Southern Poverty Law Center reveals “huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s, and then again in the 1950s and 60s.” The study also notes that these trends came as a reaction to attempts at establishing robust civil rights for black Americans. Jane Dailey, a professor of history at the University of Chicago concludes that “the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past”, but in fact were established with an eye toward “a white supremacist future.” It is thus clear that monuments to the Confederacy were not erected as a simply acknowledgement of history; they were built to perpetuate the legacy of one of the darkest moments in our country’s history and in furtherance of a twisted ideology. This trend indeed continues to this very day, as evidenced by the white nationalist protesters who gathered in Charlottesville in defense of
one such memorial.
Many claim that the removal of Confederate monuments constitutes an “erasing of history.” The memorials to the Confederacy that sit in the parks and public squares of our nation are not archaeological objects, placed long ago in abandoned cities by long dead cultures and people. They do not need to be preserved as though they were windows to a lost world, because they are very much living objects that speak for our own living world. Lt. Stephen Dill Lee, in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, claimed that his organization was charged with the “guardianship of history.” The notion that history needs to be guarded is a valuable one; we must learn from our history and shape our worldview from accurate historical accounts. In allowing Confederate memorials to remain in places of honor, we allow our history to fall into the hands of treacherous guardians; of those who wish to distort it and expunge from it the lessons that we all must heed.
Deliberative Abrogation of Congressional Authority
With President Trump’s recent decision to delay rescinding the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, there has been an outpouring of emotional support for those affected by the announcement. Through emotional appeals, the opponents of President Trump’s decision have criticized him for adopting an uncaring and inhumane policy that punishes children for the sins of their parents. Frequent invocations of children and toddlers being sent back to nations foreign to them have demonized advocates of Constitutional order and legal immigration. Additionally, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been quick to condemn the decision, which is an unlikely occurrence in today’s era of hyperpartisanship. Despite all the outcries, President Trump was right to end the illegal program known as DACA.
For one thing, the constitutionality of his actions is hardly in question; prominent figures on the left and the right, along with the federal courts, oppose the legal foundations of President Obama’s DACA policy. Without Congress’s legislative
authority, President Obama created the policy which provided a semi-legal status to those who illegally immigrated with their parents as children. While DACA recipients are mostly well-educated, employed, and provided substantial tax revenue to the government, the actions that President Obama took in 2012 clearly circumvented the Constitution. By unilaterally initiating a temporary immigration policy, President Obama bypassed Congress’s inherent duty to legislate controversial policies into law and took it upon himself to change the immigration laws. In response to President Trump’s actions, California’s senior senator and current ranking Democratic member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, noted in an interview on MSNBC that DACA was on shaky legal ground and that further legislative action was needed. In addition to Senator Feinstein, prominent Never-Trump conservatives like Andrew McCarthy and Yuval Levin have addressed the unconstitutional nature of DACA and have supported the administration’s actions. Since McCarthy and Levin were some of the President’s strongest and most vocal conservative critics, their support of the DACA decision demonstrates the illegal steps the Obama administration undertook to unilaterally create immigration policy. Furthermore, the policy of providing illegal immigrants with a semi-legal status through executive orders was blocked by the courts when several states challenged the legality of DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.
In addition to the questionable legality of DACA, the end of the executive action is not the end of immigration reform. President Trump’s decision to delay rescinding DACA for six months provides Congress with an opportunity to achieve long-lasting immigration policy. Within hours of the administration announcement that it was rescinding DACA, prominent Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan and 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio have spoken out in favor of maintaining a similar policy for DACA recipients. Concerning potential legislative solutions to the rescinding of DACA, the number of Republicans criticizing the administration’s action combined with both democratic caucuses should indicate that a solution is more than likely. Simultaneously, the ten Democratic senators up for reelection in a year in states that President Trump won in 2016 could side with the administration if their state constituencies compel them and adopt a conservative solution. If both Congress and President Trump can compromise, a long-lasting solution to
illegal immigration could potentially be secured before the president’s imposed six month deadline.
Currently two Congressional Bills propose reforms to the broken American immigration system. The Curbelo-Tillis Bill proposes granting legal status to the DREAMers who have been in the country long-term. Meanwhile, the RAISE Act is a proposal by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) which aims to curb the chain migration and incentive immigration based on specialized skills. In response to the administration stance on DACA, Senator Cotton noted that he would be willing to provide legal status to the almost million DACA recipients already in the nation.
Understandably, most reactions to President Trump’s policies, including the DACA decision, have been met with feelings for those affected by them. While this display of compassion is commendable, the blatant disregard for the rule of law and the institutions that have guided the American republic since the founding is not. Additionally, the empathy expressed by the media, colleges, and major cities ignores the people who experience the fallout from the loose immigration policies and voted for the candidate to fix them. If this ignorance and overt indifference for the rule of law and this constituency continues, Donald Trump will be reelected president on November 3, 2020.
A Reflection on Historical Discrimination and Modern Victim Mentality in the United States
Despite the significant dissimilarities between societal marginalization in the United States now and in previous centuries, the dominant ethos across many sectors of our country would suggest that America in 2017 is a toxic, rancorous nation that judges and discriminates against individuals on the basis of their demographic or ‘identity’ group. Mindsets like this have paved the way to insistence upon the existence of systemic, universal discrimination based on these ultimately irrelevant factors, which has led to a subculture in which identity-based victimhood is celebrated while merit-based success is discouraged and virtually meaningless. A culture in which victimhood is embraced ironically encompasses the very mindset that makes success impossible. Although some cases of identity-based marginalization certainly do exist, defaulting to accusations of discrimination in inequitable situations usually demonstrates flawed perception, not systemic inequality. Ultimately, society at large - drawing influences from the media, political rhetoric, higher education, and even one’s own family - must be doing something wrong if it is responsible for exposing and practically feeding this sort of mentality to America’s youth.
Historically, minority groups in the United States unquestionably faced discrimination in most facets of life. The unique struggles immigrants encountered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were real, significant barriers. Immigrants had to vehemently fight for their position in society, and ultimately, they experienced the fruits of their labor not by demanding recognition and challenging pre-existing American societal norms, but by earning societal respect through contribution of labor and acceptance of the established American cultural fabric.
My grandfather, after whom I am named, immigrated to the United States from Ireland
in 1947, and after many unsuccessful attempts at finding work, he changed his name from Seamus to Jim to avoid the unfortunate stigma of being an Irish immigrant. Of course he would have preferred to keep his name – a meaningful indicator of personal and cultural identity – but he felt that he needed to do so in order to take advantage of all that America had to offer as well as to more easily assimilate into American culture. Meanwhile, he managed to find several jobs working in lumberyards and as a carpenter, until he saved enough money to create his own business in 1951 building homes in suburban Chicago. His business continued to grow and prosper, and in the coming years he would get married and raise a family of five.
My grandfather’s story is a prototypical example of the American Dream, and surely there are countless other success stories similar in nature. Ultimately, my grandfather realized that he needed to make the change to adapt to his new country, not the other way around. The American Melting Pot did not come into being through demands of multicultural awareness and lack of pride in the United States. Rather, immigrants toiled for their success – and a great deal of them reached it – through accepting the capitalistic nature of the American workforce and working hard while still upholding an appreciation for the country and culture they left behind. My grandfather’s Irish heritage did not die when he chose to go by a different name, nor did his personal identity or sense of self-perception. Cultural pride and making necessary changes to ensure opportunity are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement each other quite well. Culture is not a definitive asset to one’s life. While culture ought to be recognized and celebrated for its frequent influences on one’s perspective and broader life outlook, life is not meant to be lived within tight, subjective cultural boundaries. Often, it seems, clinging onto cultural significance is responsible for creating this self-perceived victimization, as people have difficulty drawing the line as to how much influence culture should have on one’s life, decisions, and identity. Moderate cultural appreciation and the embracement of American opportunity truly make the best of both worlds. As my grandfather used to say, “Opportunity is not given; it’s earned.” To him, working hard and overcoming obstacles was a vital part of his path to realizing the unique freedoms and opportunities that only America could provide.
Of course, instances of inequality and discrimination still exist in 2017 America, although they are much less prevalent than in the post-war 1940s. Given the significant disparity between these instances of discrimination in modern America and the extreme marginalization faced by many in previous centuries, one must ask: why do so many perceive themselves to be victims in the freest, most opportune, most tolerant and nondiscriminatory nation in the history of the world? Does the very existence of this freedom, opportunity, tolerance, and nondiscrimination in the United States create illusions for certain people, leading to self-perceived needs for entitlements and a more socialistic government? The competitive nature of the American economy may be intimidating or
misleading to certain individuals, but this dilemma is, once again, an issue of distorted perception rather than an unjust society.
At Marquette University in February 2017, political commentator and novelist Ben Shapiro justifiably claimed, “On campus, because there is such focus on victimhood, a certain ‘victim privilege’ has been established. Not ‘white privilege,’ ‘victim privilege.’ If you’re a member of a victim group, you now have a privilege. And that privilege amounts to, you get to tell other people to shut up and you also get to hurt people.” The recently promulgated view that American society is ‘out to get’ certain individuals and groups of people based on their race, gender, or class is in fact what discourages these people from pursuing their dreams and seeking out any meaningful level of success. As was true for my grandfather, the opportunity is there, and if it has not yet presented itself to you, ask yourself: is it truly American society holding you back, or are you holding you back?
Ultimately, having the expectation that others must change to meet your subjective needs is unhealthy and unproductive, and a much better alternative would be to start focusing on what can be created for oneself. More often than not, this change in mentality can amount to life changing proportions.