Getting real about states’ rights
Conspiracy theories. Lies. Misinformation. Disinformation. Doubt. Distrust. Demonization. Am I missing anything when it comes to describing politics in the 21st century?
Oh yeah, gloom and doom. The world’s going to heck in a bucket and the end is nigh. It’s not hard to believe that politics has lost its sense of humor, but here’s something that should make you laugh.
According to the flat Earth society for tinfoil hats, the NFL fixed the Kansas City Chiefs’ road to the Super Bowl so Taylor Swift, who dates Chiefs’ tight end Travis Kelce, will be able to endorse Joe Biden during this Sunday’s halftime. Yes, that’s the ridiculously asinine conspiracy theory of the day.
Why is this absurd?
Well, for one, it’s a foregone conclusion that Swift, as in 2020, will endorse the president. There’s little doubt about this. So when she does, it won’t exactly be a man-bites-dog moment no matter where it happens. It’s not a matter of if, but when.
Further, have any of these conspiracists considered how much it would cost to keep a couple of hundred players and coaches who are already millionaires quiet, not to mention referees, ballboys and linesmen? Then again, why would anyone want to question a fairy tale retrieved straight from the abyss of fantasy when, for some at least, it’s so easy to just swallow it hook, line and sinker?
And why would the NFL risk what little reputation it has to provide a platform to do what she could probably do as effectively with a simple post on social media to her reported 270 million followers?
And finally, how would the NFL do better under a Biden presidency vs. a Trump presidency, and vice versa?
If the over/under on presidential endorsements at halftime of the Super Bowl is one, I’ll take the under. It’s utter nonsense.
The unfortunate reality of this whole Swiftieon-the-50 ado is that it’s pushed a more important topic to the back burner that really speaks to who we are as a nation now.
It’s the claim by some that the Civil War was about states’ rights and that slavery was just part of an overarching catch-all. Setting aside that this is about as believable as the guy who claims he buys Playboy for the in-depth articles, it’s offensive and insulting at the same time.
Even “moderate” Nikki Haley was asked in a town hall meeting what she thought the Civil War had been fought over and she couldn’t muster the strength to push the “S” word across her lips. It’s not in dispute. Anyone with access to YouTube can verify this on their own.
Even though the incident was put on the back burner behind Swiftgate, Haley felt compelled to go on “Saturday Night Live” last weekend to correct herself.
To be clear, this narrative is not exactly new. If memory serves, my first conversation about it was around a decade ago, and technically, it’s probably correct. The War was fought about states’ rights—states’ rights about slavery.
Call me crazy, but if putting other human beings in chains, forcing them to provide labor without pay, and in some cases, forcing them to have sex with their “owners” is not an abuse of human rights, I don’t know what is.
It’s true that slavery wasn’t invented in America. It precedes biblical times and has occurred across the globe in every era of world history. And, in the case of American slavery, yes, long-dead African chieftains sold slaves, just as slave-traders bought them.
But to double down, as Ron DeSantis did last fall (when he contended that slaves learned valuable trades that helped them once freed), slaves probably did learn some things in slavery that enhanced their job skills. But make no mistake, the “skill providers” had no intention of ever seeing a Black man, woman or child walk free in America. The argument flunks the laugh-out-loud test on first hearing.
Colonel Stonehill in “True Grit” said, “I do not entertain hypotheticals. The world is vexing enough as it is.” I agree, but here’s one anyway.
Let’s say some state, maybe New Mexico, decided it was within its rights and had a keen financial interest in establishing itself as a safe haven for human sex trafficking. Would we all just look the other way and say it’s the state’s right? Would we say those being trafficked are learning valuable skills for a career in prostitution?
I hope not.
States’ rights in that hypothetical would not be a consideration. It would be about human trafficking, something that the United States of America doesn’t condone here or abroad. This country has a few shared values, but they do not include the idea that institutionalized abuse of human rights is less important than state’s rights.