Editor’s note: This commentary is by Tim Kane, a musician from Richmond.
Post-election VTDigger commentaries have addressed our national divide and the fragile condition of our democracy, offering various opinions and lofty calls for unity and change. But one cannot begin to bridge our divide without first questioning one’s own tribal loyalties. Criticizing only those institutions whose views seem anathema to our own gets us nowhere. To effect meaningful change, we must first scrutinize our dearest institutions, those most closely aligned with our world view.
Many higher education institutions in the Northeast have acknowledged they were built, maintained or financed by slave labor. Personally, it’s hard for me to truly “own” my alma mater’s shame without reverting to defensiveness and rationalization. That’s my point – this isn’t easy stuff. Vermonters should be proud that the University of Vermont was founded by Ira Allen, who helped draft the nation’s first constitution to outlaw slavery. That’s easy. But we must also acknowledge Vermont in the 20th century was a welcoming home to the eugenics movement, led by UVM professor Henry Perkins. That’s hard.
Through the collaborative efforts of UVM, hospitals and the Legislature, hundreds deemed “defective” were forcibly sterilized in Vermont from the early 1930s until the last recorded sterilization in 1957. Most victims were of French-Canadian and Abenaki descent. Vermont law still allows “involuntary sterilizations of adults with an intellectual disability under circumstances that will ensure that the best interests and rights of such persons are fully protected.”
I doubt any Vermonter today would feel comfortable disclosing any affiliation with the eugenics movement. I once felt comfortable disclosing my Democratic Party affiliation, yet I feel less comfortable today because, in a devolving, decades-long process, both major political parties have been commandeered by single-issue advocacy groups. Political discourse is now dominated by a false dichotomy peddled by organizations like Planned Parenthood and the NRA. Though they occupy opposite ends of a political spectrum, their tactics are indistinguishable:
— Take an absolutist position on a single wedge issue and wed it to a constitutional right, no matter how forced the marriage;
— Defend that right to the exclusion of any related rights or concerns;
— Remain undeterred that your position is rejected by a substantial majority of both the electorate and your targeted lawmakers’ constituents;
— Build a fundraising juggernaut by cultivating a perpetual sense of dread that the enemy is at the gates and only major donations will stave them off;
— Demand total loyalty from members of your targeted political party and threaten to “primary” any party members who break rank;
— Follow through by funding attack ads against rank-breakers;
— Ensure your wedge issue dominates political discourse, drowning out critical conversations about racism, the environment, economic policy, education …
By rolling over for their Planned Parenthood and NRA handlers, both parties have ensured, wittingly or unwittingly, our nation’s most dire problems remain shamefully unaddressed. My party affiliation therefore renders me complicit in the worsening of our nation’s condition. Frankly, I am reluctant to “own” this failure — it would be so much easier to deflect and assign blame to the GOP but again, that’s my point. This isn’t easy stuff.
Consider the problem of systemic racism. Those who contend Planned Parenthood or the NRA bear no responsibility for exacerbating the problem are defending the indefensible. Is it difficult to discern why NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre adorns his remarks with terms like “thugs” and “inner-city violence?” Or what he meant in 2015 when he said, “Eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough!”? And consider this excerpt from the 1922 article “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda” by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger: “First: we are convinced that racial regeneration like individual regeneration, must come ‘from within.’ … In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes.”
Can the most strident supporters of Planned Parenthood and the NRA find the courage to objectively scrutinize their own tribes? Planned Parenthood this year began to fully acknowledge its eugenicist legacy, without the customary deflection or rationalization. But while the sudden application of extreme Black Lives Matters pressure elicits a conciliatory response from Planned Parenthood, the NRA is happy to double-down on its divisive, dog-whistle tropes. Demonizing the NRA is the knee-jerk, easy-out for my tribe. But are we willing to contemplate which group’s response to BLM might be the more genuine?
We should dare to imagine a political reality where party leaders are not utterly beholden to their wedge issue bosses. Unless we summon the collective will to transcend blind party loyalty and absolutist myopia, problems like systemic racism will persist. Until we scrutinize our dearest institutions, we’re all just whistling Dixie.
