Page Two
Perry rumors fly and the police controversy rages
By Louis Black, Fri., Feb. 27, 2004
Suggestions that there were problems in the Perry marriage began circulating several weeks ago. At first, it seemed they might have some validity. There have long been rumors about Perry – as, it should be noted, there are and have been about much of the state's elected leadership, both currently and as far back as I can remember. The stories alleged (I hate to repeat them) Anita Perry was going to divorce the governor because of his infidelity. The alleged partner was identified differently in many of the e-mails: sometimes specifically, sometimes not; sometimes as a woman, other times as a man.
As editor, I regard personal behavior as off-limits unless it affects public policy. Coupled with that, we never report on private issues in connection with a public personality with whom we disagree if we would not do the same in relation to one we liked. But this was supposedly headed to court.
On the one hand, watching an overly militant, pro-family politician take a moral dive brings a certain pleasure. Promoting an unrealistic lifestyle agenda is usually inherently punitive, as well as more pandering than principled. But watching any marriage fail is painful, especially when there are children.
This column has never been shy in its criticism of Perry's performance as governor, but, aside from a cheap shot at his hair, the attacks have been about policy. In a democratic society, the politics of the-ends-justify-the-means are an often-fatal cancer. Still reeling from the out-of-control anti-Clinton ferocity, we rebut such attacks regardless of target (the charge that unprecedented personal hatred drives Bush's critics is simply fiction).
First the e-mails and blogs spread across Texas, then the nation. The rumors evolved, the discussion intensified, the stories spread with ever more speed. E-mails flew. Daily I'd receive a half-dozen tips through the Chronicle Web site, all hinting that something was going to break in the next couple of days. The hearsay evidence multiplied: "a friend knows a maid who ..."; "someone heard from a secretary ..."; "a janitor told someone ...". At dinner parties, the Perry situation became the sole topic; ringing cell phones trumped social grace. Overheard bits of conversation made instant sense, and the Texas greeting in many circles evolved from "hello" to "have you heard?"
The lack of media confirmation was confirmation. Reports varied: The story was about to break, the media were kowtowing cowards. No, they were just ignorant or waiting for it to be legitimated. That an army of reporters was on the phone chasing leads or out searching for sources without finding any substantiation was not entertained.
The mood changed, e-mails turned ugly, rumors became more vicious. Personal vendettas rather than any real connection seemed the motivation behind some attacks. The media was now dismissed as placating and complicit.
Those who were willing to use unsubstantiated rumors as political weapons fanned the flames. In a way, gay and gay-friendly activists engaged in gay bashing, noting the alleged infidelity while insinuating that the homosexual circumstances made it so many times more outrageous. Obviously, hypocrisy was the target, but the very construct of many of the allegations accepted rather than disputed the compounding immorality of homosexual love. Given the current widespread hysteria over gay marriage, some may have even hoped that highlighting these rumors would at least give some cause for more reasoned reflection. The far-right religious community, however, is usually quick to condemn any transgressor, even their own, disowning the sinner with as much passion as they bring to hating the sin.
Where did this all start? When the smoke clears, that will be the question. Is there a legitimate basis, despite the fact that not one bit of real proof has been offered? Did the Democrats kick it off?
More and more insiders believe, as do some in the Perry camp, that this onslaught was instigated by Republicans. Having done the party's dirty work in redistricting and with the budget, he's now expendable. This insidious smear attack is a cannon shot across his bow.
This notion slowed the very verbal anti-Perry lynch mob not an iota. It didn't even help to point out that many Republicans, not liking Perry, wouldn't mind seeing him gone. Especially as he is seen as a vulnerable candidate, while governor heir apparent Kay Bailey Hutchison promises dynasty.
The "gotcha" crowd, dizzyingly crazed by the smell of the governor's blood, refused to be dissuaded. Gleeful, they so wanted it to be true that they believed every shift, savored each new detail, spread any allegation. Screw decency; hypocrites deserve whatever they get. Screw proof; the very rabbitlike compounding was proof. Screw lack of verification; that was verification.
In the midst of the rumor blizzard, Rick and Anita Perry, far-right activists including James Leininger and Grover Norquist, and some of Perry's largest contributors jetted off to a retreat in the Bahamas to discuss "public school financing." Few people noticed; they were all too busy with rumors.
I stopped caring about these rumors some time ago, and stopped believing them before that. The tragedy here is not just that so many behaved so badly. Nor that it was appalling to find so many anxious to believe with essentially no evidence the basically banal accusations. But that unjustified bloodlust so easily distracted us from the real problems facing the state.
We let ourselves down, corrupting our own morality. We let the future down, as well; by hideously misplacing our focus, we failed Texas.
In the midst of the above hysteria, we continued to be damned by our readers over our dispute with the Statesman's police brutality statistics. They question our motives as, admittedly, we questioned the Statesman's. The main accusation is: "What the Statesman said about police is 'true.' To even challenge their numbers is racist."
One wrote, "I know your heart is in the right place, but this issue is far too serious to be reduced to a childish, playground skirmish between two newspapers. Historically, I have always accepted the Chronicle's version over anything printed in the Statesman, but I'm beginning to wonder what precisely is your point here."
In all fairness, the above was among the more reasoned letters we received. This was not a pissing match; we were not out to get the daily. We questioned their numbers and their tabloid-exploitative conclusions. The numbers struck us as wrong. The more we looked, the more they disturbed us. Having read and listened, I now feel that to claim any firm conclusions from the statistics offered is to insist that there is firm footing in the midst of quicksand.
More importantly, we thought their conclusion misdirected the community's attention. The police are symptomatic of our society's current failure to address issues of racial divide and tensions; to remain committed to a racially, economically, and socially equitable society; and to maintain the social safety net for the betterment of all citizens. When the police become one of the main instruments for dealing with social and economic problems, the government, the voters, and the society are failing. There are tensions between minorities and the police, but they evidence much deeper problems. Blaming the police, as the daily did, ignores the complex web of real causes, exacerbates tensions, provides no basis for solutions, and, worst of all, relieves all of us from our complicit responsibility.
Another writer, who asked not to have their letter printed, offered: "I have worked with quite a number of policemen, in several cities, over the last several decades. Many have admitted that they behave more violently toward minorities. Not because they are prejudiced so much as because their main job with respect to people of color is not to police crime but to facilitate their oppression. Oppressed people are much harder to manage than criminals. Organized-crime organization aids police in controlling criminal behavior. Oppressed people tend to be out of control. They have right and morality on their side. They possess courage and resolve. To control them, police consciously use tactics of terror – everywhere. It's what is expected of them."
What's the quote? Something along the lines of "the oppressed are not morally superior or more noble, they are just oppressed." Assuming nobility as a consequence of oppression is one of the left's greatest failings. Now, we would have loved to have overheard the conversations where cops acknowledged "their main job with respect to people of color is not to police crime but to facilitate their oppression."
Finally, during an e-mail exchange with community leader and journalist Akwasi Evans, he asked why I did not respond to his thoughtful and mature assertion that the Chronicle is "as Anti-African American as it is Anti-Statesman." I had passed the quote along to my in-house barrister, the exquisitely polemical Eli Black, a master legal architect skilled at creating precedent-shattering legal arguments backed by a staccato offering of precedents. Aided by his co-counsel, the ironically both more focused and metaphorically poetic Aaron Forbath, he offered that they'll finish drafting their response as soon as they graduate from the eighth grade. They feel they need the credential. 
