|
|
|
Reflections
of Ken Towery
The
Diamond Ring, or Perception, in politics, is the name of the
game.
A short essay of thoughts about
politics and human nature.
By Ken
Towery
The Floyd County Hesperian-Beacon
She was a pretty girl.
Indeed, an exceedingly attractive girl. Young, in her
twenties. Long, black hair . A figure that would have made
Dolly Parton proud.
But that wasn't the reason I stopped by her desk that day in
the late 1950's. Her boss was a Texas Legislator named James
Cotten. If memory, serves, he represented Weatherford and
environs, and was then Chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee, having voted for the winner in a recent House
Speaker's race between Wade Spillman and James
Turman.
Their race had been very close, and it was assumed Cotten, a
self professed conservative, would vote for Spillman, the
more conservative of the two Speaker candidates. He didn't.
He cast what may have been the deciding vote for
Turman, and claimed his prize--Chairmanship of the
House Appropriations Committee.
I was then a Capitol Bureau reporter for a chain of daily
newspapers that included the Austin American-Statesman, the
Waco Tribune, and others. An appropriations matter had
come up in which we had an interest, and I sought comment
from Cotten concerning what might happen. (In those days
reporters were free to roam the House floor and visit with
lawmakers. In those days, too, legislators had only their
own desk on the House floor to serve as their "office." A
secretarial pool down in the basement served as workplace
for the Secretaries, except when they were called to the
member's desk for dictation, or conversation, or just plain
ogling.)
At any rate, I stopped by Cotten's desk. He wasn't there,
but his secretary was. She said her boss was in the back,
talking to a constituent, which, given the times, was
entirely normal. She said he would be back shortly,
and asked me to wait, which I did.
As we sat and talked, she kept admiring a large diamond ring
on her finger. It was as if she was calling it to my
attention, and I could well understand that she might, for
it was a ring that not many women were able to wear, and
most men couldn't afford.
So I did comment, telling her it was a beautiful ring. Thus
encouraged, if she needed any encouragement, she told me
more than I really wanted to know about herself, her
husband, her family, their predicament. The ring was a
recent gift from her parents, she said. While not being an
expert on diamond rings, I would have placed the value in
the thousands of dollars.
She said she and her husband were in a predicament, and the
predicament was serious. It went like this: Her husband was
graduating from the University of Texas School of Law. As a
reward for his having completing his studies, his parents
desired to give him an automobile of his choice. But what to
choose? An expensive, luxurious automobile, which he really
wanted, or a smaller, more fuel efficient model some of his
friends were advising?
And another dilemma. There was the matter of which career
path to choose, now that he had completed his law studies.
Should he go into corporate law, or should he go into
government service?
They had about decided on government service, she said,
since, corporate law was apt to present too many
obstacles.
"We are Jewish, you know. And we are discriminated against
so terribly much," she told me, while still admiring her
diamond ring. "And corporate law is so biased against
Jews."
Well no, I didn't know she, or they, were Jewish, but
I didn't say so. How could I have known, unless she told me.
And why did she so inform me? Why did she feel that way? It
made no difference to me. I had just come by to talk to her
boss. Why did she go out of her way to tell me about of her
religious bearings, and how she and her husband, as Jews,
were so discriminated against?
At that point, I was silent, but I remember thinking I'd
like to experience a little of that discrimination. They
were worried, as youngsters just getting started, whether to
choose, as a gift from her parents, a luxurious new car, or
a more efficient new model of their choosing. I drove an old
Studebaker to and from work. It was hot in summer and
cold in winter. It barely made it up hills on the way to and
from work, but on a salary of $125 per week it was the best
I could afford.
In this manner I was introduced to a mind-set I would
encounter time and time again during subsequent years in
both politics and the media. In short, it is the mindset of
"victimization." So ingrained has it become in American
culture and politics that one could be forgiven for thinking
our Republic would founder and fail without it. Certainly,
America's mass media, its "corporate media", would
have no anchor without it. Professional racists would
be lost without it. The Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, plus
a host of black politicians, would be speechless and
powerless without it.
By no means have all Jews shared the thoughts expressed by
the young lady mentioned above. Many go through life without
relying, or dwelling, on the religious factor, just as many
Catholics, Baptists, or Episcopalians do, without
complaining about their own "victimization" in the world
around them. But many do, and the question is why? Why do so
many people glory in an assumed role of victim?
Why has the idea of "victimization" become so popular in
American democracy? Why has so much influence over American
policy, both domestic and foreign, gravitated into the hands
of people who have nothing to offer in the way of leadership
other than as "spokesman" for various groups who have become
convinced of their "victimization." And how did those groups
become convinced they are indeed victims of some wrongs
perpetrated by American democracy.
In my own case, the answer is simple. I do not know. I can
only guess. My guess would be that the idea of victimization
is central to another idea relating to power, or political
influence. Inherent in onesí desire for influence is
hope of power. Power, in politics, is generated by numbers,
of votes. Politicians must have votes, usually in abundance,
in order to become office holders, a position they must hold
in order to become truly influential. The more votes they
are able to garner, the more influential they become among
their peers. The more influential they become, the more
their voice is listened to. The more their voice is listened
to, the more votes are generated "back home" among those
individuals who hope their own voice is magnified in
whatever forums are afforded in a Democracy.
From being exposed to the thought so many times in so many
places, the question recurs, why do so many Jews in
America claim (and champion) the status of "victim.",
despite the fact that they, as a group and as individuals,
have risen to heights unparalleled in a non-Jewish state?
So influential have they become in America that the foreign
policy of the United States is predicated on the perceived
welfare of Israel, a Jewish state, no matter its long term
effect upon this country. The Jewish influence on American
life, whether in finance, politics or the arts, is
tremendous. In the Israeli press, where one is apt to get a
truer picture of things Jewish, that obvious fact is
recognized and applauded. In calling for the presidential
election of former Vice President Al Gore, writers in the
Israeli press made note of Jewish influence in America under
former President Clinton, and worried that a Bush election
might reduce that influence. (It has become obvious, since
the Bush election, that Israeli fears in this regard were
unfounded. There has been no diminution of American support
for Israel since the Bush election). Unlike many of their
compatriots in America who found other ostensible reasons to
champion Mr. Gore, the Israeli press was at least honest and
straight forward. To them it was simply a matter of
influence, and who might have that influence upon American
policy, especially when the financial and military security
of Israel was involved.
It is easy enough to see why a Waxman, or a Shumer, or a
Nadler, or a Boxer, or a Frost, or a Lantos, might look
first to the welfare of Israel as a guiding light in their
political rhetoric, or their political bearing. They are,
after all, Jews. It is even easy to understand the
conversion of a Republican Jesse Helms into a champion of
Israel. (Helms, a powerful member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, once had a very narrow political
victory in which he was strongly opposed in the General
Election by Israel's friends in the Democratic party. When
that election was finished, Helms, being an astute
politician, hied himself off to Israel where he had
pictures made at various Jewish shrines, pictures which were
widely published, and pictures which stood him in good stead
during his next election in North Carolina, which he won
handily. He has since been a staunch supporter of
Israel).
But what of others in the Israeli camp? It is
tempting to say it is all merely a matter of money. After
all, politics and money are closely related, and campaign
records indicate Jewish contributors are exceedingly active,
and generous, in this regard. The vast amounts of money
poured into campaign coffers by Hollywood, the equally
vast amounts given by Jewish media barons in the form of
"free" public attention, are indications of this. The
mammoth contributions of fugitive Marc Rich may be an
aberration, but to many people it only proves their
suspicion that money paves the way in politics. It (money)
may even be the touchstone for political forgiveness of
criminal acts. There are not many people who believe that
Marc Rich would have gotten his Presidential pardon
had it not been for his wife's political contributions to
Bill Clinton's vanity and emotional security, or Rich's own
contributions to Israeli politicians and Jewish causes,
contributions which caused Israeli leaders to petition the
President of the United States for Rich's pardon.
The thought has often been expressed among American
political observers that "the name of the game" is money,
that money is "the maresí milk" of American politics.
In some respects, that may be so. But as one who was for
many years involved in elective politics, that seems to me
an over simplification. The bottom line in elective politics
is perception. Money is useful only insofar as it can
influence perception, for it is perception that attracts
votes. I know of no politician who would trade votes for
money, but many who would trade money for votes, if they
have, or can get, the money. Few politicians, very
few, would devote the time and effort needed for money
raising if that money was not seen as a vehicle to influence
perception, and therefore attract voters and votes.
It is at this point, it seems to me, that the element of
"victimization" enters the equation. I have long held that
the motivating force in politics is very much like the
motivating force in religion: fear and hope. Whether one is
rich or poor, that motivating force is alive and well. The
rich man hopes he can maintain his wealth and fears he
cannot. The poor man hopes he can do better, and fears he
cannot. A political leader's ability to be perceived as
sympathetic to those fears and hopes will determine, to a
large extent, his own success. From that point on the door
is opened for people like Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, or
Ariel Sharon, to gather followers by appealing to instincts
that deal directly with those hopes and fears. The instinct
of race, and religion, are easy avenues made easier by
perceived "victimization" in the realm of money or social
acceptance.
If, for instance, a Jesse Jackson can convince people they
are poor by virtue of their race, or are socially
unacceptable by virtue of their race or religion, he can,
perforce, weld them into a cohesive racial unit that
translates into many more votes than would be the case
otherwise. Those votes can then be bartered, bringing
political power and acceptably to people who would otherwise
perceive themselves powerless.
It can be argued, of course, that the use of race and
religion as political tools in America is fundamentally
dangerous to the welfare of the Republic. Nevertheless, that
danger erects no impediment to its use by political
demagogues, people who would trade their souls for political
power, knowing, or believing, that with political power
comes the perception of public acceptance. And the more
those elements are used, that is, the elements of race and
religion, the more they are accepted as normal or
"mainstream" political issues.
We turn again to the girl with the diamond ring. She had
been taught that because of her Jewishness, obstacles would
be placed in her life. Never mind that she, and her
family, were obviously well off. She had been conditioned to
believe that no matter what happened, she and her husband
would be punished simply because of her religion. From there
it is a small step to follow any individual who will
reinforce that belief, for he, or she, is merely telling her
what she already believed. By joining forces with others who
feel likewise, her own sense of self worth is enhanced and
her own sense of power relative to all others is
achieved.
But what does it do to the viability of the Republic?
That, we suppose, is another matter of
opinion.
© copyright, 2002 The Floyd County Hesperian-Beacon
|
|
