A Florida candidate for local office recently said President Obama should go “straight to the gallows”. Paul Blest on what he meant and why no one should be surprised.
—
This week, a Florida House candidate tweeted something moronic and morally reprehensible. In other news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and Michael Bay loves explosions.
Kidding aside, Florida Republican Joshua Black, an African-American preacher who’s running for Florida’s 68th House District (located, coincidentally, in the same Congressional district that is currently in the middle of an important special election), made the news by agreeing with some idiot on Twitter who said, “I’m past impeachment. It’s time to arrest and hang him high.” Black, whose website seems to be a series of stream-of-consciousness blog posts written by him, is a self-styled “pretty smart man” who seems to making his first foray into politics by jumping into the deep end. So, it’s understandable if he doesn’t quite yet grasp the concept of, “Wait, people are actually going to READ this?” when posting or cosigning something on the Internet. This doesn’t, however, make this gem from his introduction page any less ironic:
Republicans have a serious communication problem. Everything we say sounds like spears. We find ways to energize our core supporters, the people who will always only ever vote Republican, but we have a hard time explaining to anyone else why they should listen to our solutions.
Unfortunately, part of the Republicans’ communication problem, because of Black, now includes a candidate calling for the death of the sitting Democratic president. Other Florida Republicans, including Gov. Rick Scott and Chris Latvala, a candidate for another Florida House seat in the same county, denounced Black immediately, with Latvala tweeting “U R an embarrassment” at Black (woof), and Scott calling for him to drop out of the race. Black, for his part, tried to clarify his statement:
To everyone who was offended that I said that the POTUS should be hanged for treason, this is the man who droned Al-Awaki on “suspicion of terrorism”–not proof–and later killed his 15-year-old son for nothing more than being his son.
This is also the man who sought to have Bradley Manning and Eric Snowden executed for treason when they didn’t kill anyone, nor does the US government pretend to believe that they cost any spies their lives.
This would be exactly what the President has done to others, and, as Jesus said, “the measure ye mete, it shall be meted to you again.” I make no apologies for saying that the President is not above the People. If ordinary Americans should be executed for treason, so should he.
So, don’t stop at impeachment. Remove him. Try him before a jury (the very right that he arbitrarily denied to al-Awaki and his 15-year-old son), and, upon his sure convictions, execute him. Thus has he done, thus it should be done to him.
Black was visited by the Secret Service today, because they have to follow up with people who publicly say the President should die. The current trajectory is that he’ll probably drop out of the race or get crushed, at which point he’ll join the Constitution Party and run for President in 2016. So, barring Joshua Black saying more things that will get him in hot water (a very real possibility) – this story is going to meet the same political end we’ve seen so many times over the past couple of years.
I don’t want to talk about why what Black said was wrong, or reprehensible, or any of that. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you know that it’s wrong to say the President should die (please don’t make me regret that). What I do want to talk about is why what Joshua Black said is perfectly consistent with the ideology of a faction of the right wing. The Tea Party platform, for better or for worse, can be boiled down to a few simple points: the government sucks, the people we elect are incompetent, and they aren’t better or know any more than we do. What Black said was, basically, the President is not above us, and he killed other Americans, so he should get the same treatment we do when we kill other people. And to that end, Joshua Black simply articulated what’s at the root of Tea Party philosophy.
Now, hear me out. I’m not saying that the center of the Tea Party platform includes trying the President for war crimes and overseeing his execution, or that most people who consider themselves Tea Party supporters support that message in any way. There are plenty of Tea Party supporters, mostly the libertarian-leaning ones, who would want former President Bush tried for the same crimes. But a central theme of the Tea Party, and even some factions on the left, is that politicians don’t know what’s best for us, they aren’t better than us, and they aren’t any more knowledgeable than us. It’s why the Tea Party is so adamant about what they see as violations of civil liberties (read: NSA and guns) by a federal government that’s out of control (spending and otherwise). To that end, it would make perfect sense why a Florida House candidate, or a local Tea Party organization, or a civil liberties-minded socialist would put forth the idea that the President should be tried and executed for war crimes or treason – he’s not better than any of us, so why shouldn’t he get the same treatment any of us would?
♦◊♦
Philosophically, it’s a legitimate argument. In reality, it’s a naive and dangerous one.
I’m not saying the President is “better” than anyone – he’s smarter, has more charisma, and has a better jumper than I do, but that’s besides the point – but he does know more about his job than any of us do. None of us are sitting in meetings, getting daily briefings on terror plots. None of us are responsible for anyone except ourselves and our families – he’s responsible for maintaining the security of an entire nation of 300 million people, and if he should falter, that blame would rightfully come down on him – hard. None of us control the world’s largest military and have to live with the knowledge that every decision we make could result in the deaths of another human being. Can you make a case that putting that much power in one person’s hands is wrong? Or that murdering another person is immoral regardless of who you are or what country they’re from? Absolutely. It’s why Dr. Cornell West has repeatedly called Obama and previous presidents “war criminals”; he’s recognized that his central dispute isn’t with Obama, it’s with the system. It’s with the American empire. And that’s something that the Tea Party is growing closer to realizing every day.
The Tea Party will eventually come to the conclusion that their real reason for existing is a fundamental problem with American politicians and the way they govern. What they’re advocating for is mostly anarchistic in nature, and I only say ‘mostly’ because the religious right is still trying to legislate morality. They’re anti-state, anti-elitist, and pro-market freedom. They hate the government and most forms of taxation. It’s a populist movement. And for all of the rhetoric from the Tea Party that we need to get back to the “way things used to be”, the base refuses to acknowledge that all American presidents have made decisions that violate the Constitution in some way, all American presidents have lied to the American people – even the ones we like, like Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan – and most importantly, that the real “problem” is not Obama, Democrats or “RINOs” – it’s just with politicians. Right now, their anger and mistrust of politicians, even the ones who identify with them, is at an unsustainable level; can you think of any other example in history, on either side, where a popular politician (Marco Rubio) was spurned so abruptly by their base for trying to get a compromise bill passed on an issue both parties agree is important?
When it comes the case of Anwar al-Alwaki, Joshua Brown and civil liberties advocates on both sides (myself included) have to understand that the current wave of anger against the NSA, the Patriot Act, etc. is due in large part to the fact that there has not been a large scale terror event in the United States since September 11th, 2011. There was a point in time not too long ago when you had your patriotism called into question if you spoke out against the Patriot Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the prevailing “wisdom” of decision-makers in the national security apparatus. If history is any indication, it won’t be the last. What really matters, what really shows your true ideas about the subject, is what happens when the theoretical perspective is dropped and we’re faced with a crisis.
What Joshua Black said was, of course, incredibly irresponsible and stupid. But his comments, and his later justifications for what he said, communicated a part of the Tea Party that, if that movement finds away to stay together, I expect we’re going to see more of in the coming years.
Like The Good Men Project on Facebook!
Credit—Photo/Derek Key
I don’t get it. If you’ve already decided someone’s guilty and deserves hanging, then what’s the point of calling for a jury?
Amazing. An African American from the South calling for vigilante justice by hanging. Wow. So, not a student of African American history, then.
That would be like Jewish Americans calling for someone to be sent by train to a concentration camp.
Or Native Americans saying he should be given blankets infected with smallpox.
Mr. Black and the Tea Party need to consult the Constitution of which they are so fond. The Constitution quite clearly and explicitly defines both the charge of treason and the impeachment process. If a sitting president were put to trial by jury, then that would actually violate the Constitution. (An impeached president is put on trial by the Senate, based on charges drawn up by the House.) He also seems to be mixing up “impeachment” and “punishment.” Being impeached just means you’re put on trial, which may or may not lead to punishment. Presidents being tried by a jury… Read more »
P.S. One reason that the Constitution has a specific definition of treason is exactly this reason. The framers knew that people like to throw around the word “traitor” for all sorts of reasons. The authors realized two things:
1. Unscrupulous people in power can commit treason.
2. Unscrupulous people can cause damage by accusing people of treason.
Points well taken: Well said.
Every president who has allowed the UN to exist on American soil has comitted treason. Every
President who has alowed the IRS, DEA, BATF and similar agencies to exist has violated the
Bill Of Rights. Read the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution if you don’t belive me.
Are you using the definition of treason from the Constitution (Article III), or are you using a more general definition of it?
I’m also curious where Congress fits into this. If these are violations, then Congress, the Supreme Court, state governors, city mayors, city councils, school boards, police departments, and the Pentagon are also guilty of treason. Actually, if that’s treason, everyone who pays any taxes at all is aiding and abetting treason.
Allowing a foreign governing body to exist on American soil, especially one not bound by our
laws to me is treason. Letting that same body drag this country into undeclared “police actions”
like Korea or Somalia and using American troops as cops or social workers is another example.
Wes,
If allowing the IRS to exist means treason, that means every president for the last 100 years (at least) has been guilty of treason, and every U.S. Congress right along with them. Presumably when you say IRS you’re talking about income tax?
If you write on your tax form, “Paid under protest” or “Down with the IRS”, you can be fined, which is a violation of the First Amendment.
“Every president who has allowed the UN to exist on American soil has comitted treason. Every President who has alowed the IRS, DEA, BATF and similar agencies to exist has violated the Bill Of Rights. Read the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution if you don’t belive me.” How about just amending the Constitution there to allow for all of that retroactively? Problem solved. Unlike the bible, the Constitution can (and probably should) evolve – and, if so, it should probably do it proactively as well; not just reactively. The Constitution is a tool and servant to us as a citizenry- not… Read more »
I certainly can say it, I am a product of the 50’s and my older brothers a product of the 40’s … But I wasn’t around so I can say. Were there men who acted that way? I’m sure there were but from my life’s experience, I never saw it. I should add that my father had several siblings whom I never saw such behaviors. If you want to consider the stay at home mom who cooked and cleaned and took care of the house and the kids while dad was working 50/60 hour weeks, as being subservient, then I… Read more »
I’m glad that the trend was bucked in the case of your father and brothers, but a quick Google search brought these two up. The first is a group of overtly sexist advertisements from the 50s. The second is video made by McGraw-Hill (yes, that McGraw-Hill, the ones that make your daughters’ and sons’ gradeschool textbooks) about the problems with having women in a “men’s” workplace. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/sexist-vintage-ads_n_1798977.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n42sqzffRkE Subsurvience isn’t about someone who chooses to be a stay at home mom, or dad – it’s about being forced to be that. It’s about being eliminated from something or paid less… Read more »
Say what you will on the other fronts, but I don’t think an era (any era) should be judged simply by the merits or liabilities of its advertising – zeal & exaggeration is ever-present in advertising, and it is not the most accurate barometer of the zeitgeist. It’s too easy & dismissive to say ‘that decade was so much less enlightened, compared to our standards of liberalism & propriety today’ – it may or may not be wrong; but it’s always a relative question, not an objective or absolute one. Counter-factual history is an impossibility, so we can’t compare the 50s… Read more »
Evan M, it really gets tiring to hear some people make the “fringe” the “norm.” It’s not at all different to how people took the extreme stereotypes of men (oppressive wife beaters, making women subservient to men) back in the 50’s and 60’s and made them out to be the “norm.”
Tom, you can’t honestly believe that men who wanted women to be subservient to them wasn’t the “norm” in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Evan, I appreciate the comment. I think you’re being a bit disingenuous by saying it’s just a fundamental distrust of federal government – look at the rhetoric that’s been thrown by Tea Partiers against state politicians who took the Medicare expansion or pushed gun control. In fact, I think it’s the “fringe” that’s making the libertarian argument (see: yourself and Rand Paul). These same people who claim to be for limited government were singing a much different… Read more »
I am not being disingenuous. I did say, “With the federal government consuming fewer resources, it opens up more resources for the states to spend on whatever approach to governance they like.” Of course there will be political fights at the state level. That’s where I want most of the action to happen. That way, blue states can have their leftist utopias and red states can have their conservative utopias. As for distrust, we always have a natural distrust of government that is in tension with our belief in the need for it. However, I personally trust my state government… Read more »
“With the federal government consuming fewer resources, it opens up more resources for the states to spend on whatever approach to governance they like. Of course there will be political fights at the state level. That’s where I want most of the action to happen. That way, blue states can have their leftist utopias and red states can have their conservative utopias. As for distrust, we always have a natural distrust of government that is in tension with our belief in the need for it. However, I personally trust my state government a lot more than the federal government. If… Read more »
“The Tea Party will eventually come to the conclusion that their real reason for existing is a fundamental problem with American politicians and the way they govern. What they’re advocating for is mostly anarchistic in nature, and I only say ‘mostly’ because the religious right is still trying to legislate morality. They’re anti-state, anti-elitist, and pro-market freedom. They hate the government and most forms of taxation. It’s a populist movement.” If that describes anyone in the Tea Party movement, it’s a small fringe. I’m a Tea Partier and what I want is for the federal government to have less power… Read more »