Racism Or Policy-ism?
Gwen Ifill talks to reason ed-in-chief Matt Welch, City Journal's John McWhorter, and a few others about Jimmy Carter's contention that animosity to Obama is largely due to his skin color:
MATT WELCH, Reason Magazine: Here's how I approach the problem. If this is true, if there's a significant percentage of people who are motivated by, let's say, racial anxiety, not outright racism, in their opposition to Obama, then what else would we see? How would we expect that to manifest itself?I would expect it to manifest itself at minimum with people expressing, whether it's in their signage or in their conversation, concerns about hot-button racial issues: affirmative action, immigration, welfare queens, and whatnot.
What I saw going out in the crowd and actually talking to people was almost none of that. We saw a lot of different signs out there, but the vast majority of people that I talked to and the displays that they were making was actually pretty coherent. They were against government overreach and spending in their lives and in the economy.
And I saw a precious little -- and I even tried to tease people out, like, "Ah, what do you think about that Obama character? Is he legitimate? Is he not?" A lot of people said, "Hey, I like the guy. I disagree with his policies."
So I have a hard time going to the next step and assuming that their motivation is something that is somehow sublimated that I can't measure.
...JOHN MCWHORTER, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute: Well, it's a difficult issue, and that's an inherent part of this, that we really can't know where to draw the line, because we don't have the psychological tools yet.
But I personally feel that, for example, Joe Wilson would not have yelled the way he did if the president in an alternate universe had become, say, John Edwards. It's just a -- but it's a gut feeling. We can't know.
And that's why I feel that, with all of this -- let's say that racism was a part of it; it's my gut feeling that it is -- we're at the point where the question is how significant it is. Whatever role racism is playing in all of these criticisms, it's not going to chase the man out of office. It's not going to make much of a difference in whether he does or doesn't get re-elected. And the racism itself is not going to derail health care or anything else.
So my question is not whether racism is involved -- I suspect that it is -- but exactly what are we talking about and why are we elevating it as if there's something alarmist about it, when maybe it's just a rather mundane fact?
I'm reminded of something from Kingsley Browne's terrific book on sexual harassment, Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality, where he talks about how men haze each other, in the workplace and out.
Hazing is about going for somebody's Achilles heel. Browne has this interesting notion that some perceived sexual harassment actually isn't unequal but equal treatment -- guys playing the nines with women the same way they do with men. They just use sexual themes to tease them with because that's a sensitive spot with women.
And maybe the same goes for race. People go for cheap shots -- not necessarily because they have some deep and abiding hatred of blacks, Jews, or whomever. (And who knows, maybe they do.) But, maybe race or religion is just the quickest, easiest way to attack.
I look at it like this. The people are bringing up valid it points. I don't care if they are racist - that is immaterial. The racism charge is simply an ad hominem.
Secondly, I have seen no evidence of racism. Bush and Clinton got similar attacks - particularly the Clintons with their health care plan.
The Former Banker at September 16, 2009 11:47 PM
I actually think they have something against someone with "big ears" as President Obama has ("big ears" was Obama's own self-deprecating quote as a presidential candidate). Hey, why not anti big ears? There is largely the same amount of evidence for racism as there is for anti big ears. That is where the issue is with me (largely no evidence at all for racism). Evidence? We don't need no stinkin evidence because we have a legislative fight to win!
If the anti Obama rhetoric is sometimes over the top, gee, that has never ever happened before to a president who is white! President Bush and President Clinton neveevvveeeerrrrr had over the top harsh rhetoric thrown at them. After all Obama is simply trying to change a tiny little thing like everyone's health care coverage, have the government mandate things on people and add 3 more zeros at the end of the deficit number (and double the debt). Now why would something so certainly innocuous cause a lot of Americans to be upset?
Please don't legitimize the race peddling going on. If there is some tangible proof of this then I am willing to listen (and it will take something more than a few whackos in a crowd). This, though, has nothing to do with proof. Again, it's an appalling means for one political view to win the day. This tactic is not only a bad thing for all of us but it is dangerous in it's goal of simply shutting down dissent. BOTH political parties need robust dissent or the results from Washington will be even more harmful than normal.
TW at September 17, 2009 12:38 AM
TW writes:
Which would explain Ross Perot's failure to catch on with the American people.
Actually, the race card is being overused by the Obama supporters, and I say, "Good," since I believe this will wear it out.
Racism has been the response used by liberals to insulate Obama from all criticism. Joe Wilson has been called a racist for saying "You lie!" I must have missed the part where he said, "You lie, you goddamned NIGGER!"
I'm pretty much fed up with being on the receiving end of double standards that tell me that I must suffer any and all criticism, even racial slurs at the hands of blacks, because I'm white, and am completely in the wrong on all race relations, and blacks are consummate innocent victims who suffered at the hands of my evil, oppressive ways. Therefore I must shut up and accept the blame.
Bill Maxwell, a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times, had this to say about race relations. I think you'll find his commentary very interesting. (I think even Mark will like this column.)
Patrick at September 17, 2009 3:27 AM
Thanks, Patrick -- great column. Of course, it was a bunch of white "progressives" who went after me for posting something along these lines:
For me, what's racist is holding black women to a lower standard.
Amy Alkon at September 17, 2009 4:05 AM
Look, it's quite simple. They're both right.
To a conservative, it's all about policy. For instance, my opposition to Obama was galvanized around one word: Chicago.
To a liberal, conservative policies are inherently racist. Therefore, any conservative resistance to policies put forth by a black liberal are also racist.
To a liberal black, all white people are racist. So any white resistance to policies put forth by a liberal black are racist.
And finally, to liberals of all races, a conservative black isn't really black any more. Which would explain why resistance to Clarence Thomas wasn't racist.
brian at September 17, 2009 5:14 AM
There seems to be an ongoing blizzard of racism charges from somewhat authoritative sources. See Newsweek re: "Is Your Baby a Racist?", The President re: "My grandmother was a racist." and Congressman Maxine Waters re: The media should investigate opponents of Obamacare for racist thoughts, etc.
I fear that the blizzard will have a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" effect, the ease with which these charges are used ending up as a rationalization for all sorts of ugly behavior toward people with whom one disagrees, on the principle that it's ok because they're racists.
Robin at September 17, 2009 5:18 AM
Drat. Forgot to include ex-President Jimmy Carter's 'opponents to Obamacare are "overwhelmingly" racist' in my turbulent priest calculation.
Robin at September 17, 2009 5:24 AM
>>For me, what's racist is holding black women to a lower standard.
Amy,
I've never thought you were remotely racist & I agree you took a ton of nasty and stupid pot shots for that post.
I just felt it was nuts holding up the corpse of a single mom who was killed in a bungled police raid as evidence of HER poor choices.
Jody Tresidder at September 17, 2009 6:38 AM
Brian, in your post above, you paint with such a spectacularly broad brush that it's hard to know where to begin approaching it.
But anyway, here's a black liberal who doesn't think that all white people are racist or that all opposition to Obama's policies are racist.
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/
Your reductionism is counterproductive here.
Whatever at September 17, 2009 7:13 AM
Names like racist have lost their sting, Robin. They have been overused and have lost their mojo.
It's now the 21st century equivalent of "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Today that would elicit a laugh. Joe Wilson has to be a racist because he belonged to Daughters of the Confederacy or whatever, but Robert Byrd isn't a racist anymore yet he belonged to the KKK. I can't reconcile that, sorry. Racist is now an insult meaning you're on the other team.
My family is a mixed bunch. I think Wilson was a boor, but not a racist. Does that makes me an inauthentic member of my own family? Do I loathe myself for marrying the best girl in the entire world? Am I a racist when I disagree with my wife? Do I hate my kids? Niece? Brother-in-law? Aliens? My cousin's kids? My gay cousin? Pickled beets? (Those I really do hate, sorry mom. Some dislikes can't be overcome.)
There are real racists out there, and they are generally shunned by society. We need a new word for them, since the old one has been co-opted by the likes of Jimmy Carter.
Ugly actions, however, are going to be met with ugly reactions. I don't care what others say or think about me, but that's where my tolerance ends.
MarkD at September 17, 2009 7:20 AM
Sorry I missed the fusillade of cheap shots coming your way, but I sympathize. I was buried under a mountain of accusations of racism on an AOL message board. I said that Barack Obama is a racist (which he is), and that there is no way in hell a white candidate attending the services of a white supremacist for 20 years could run for dog-catcher, let alone President.
Then there was the Peggy Joseph video, the woman who seems to think Obama is going to put gas in her car and pay her mortgage.
"Oh, no! She doesn't think she's going to get all that stuff for free! She simply knows that economy is going to get so much better under Obama that she'll easily be able pay her mortgage and put gas in her car. You're just a racist!"
Yeah, right. She "never thought this day would ever happen" that the economy would be good enough for her to be able to pay her bills. Nope. She's anticipating something else entirely.
Patrick at September 17, 2009 7:20 AM
I'm sure there are some people out there who hate Obama because they are racist, and for no other reason.
However, they are a small, small, small, small minority of the people unhappy with Obama.
On the right they feel he is too socialist, but the left also dislikes him because he is giving money to the banks, voted for FISA last year, is expanding the wars, etc.
His policies are making no one happy. With the possible exception of bankers.
NicoleK at September 17, 2009 7:31 AM
But Whatever, Brian has a good point: the racist charge has been so vastly over-used by the Left that the new definition of the word is:
racist (n): anything the Left doesn't like. Syn: sexist, homophobe.
And: I just checked Coates' column. He just quoted Andrew Sullivan thus:
These people are going off the deep end entirely: open panic at a black president is morphing into the conscious fanning of racial polarization, via Gates or ACORN or Van Jones or a schoolbus in Saint Louis. What we're seeing is the Jeremiah Wright moment repeated and repeated. The far right is seizing any racial story to fan white fears of black power in order to destroy Obama. And the far right now controls the entire right.
And then he doubled it down with his own words:
I got a note from a good friend yesterday expressing shock, and anger, about Drudge and Malkin's usage of that alleged racial beat-down on a school-bus. On some level, I wonder if something's wrong with me. I'm neither shocked, nor angry. This is exactly how I expected these fools to respond to a black president.
If anything, I'm a little giddy. For black people, the clear benefit of Obama is that he is quietly exposing an ancient hatred that has simmered in this country for decades.
Your description of Coates is pretty difficult to reconcile with these words.
Cousin Dave at September 17, 2009 7:31 AM
What's racist is making an accusation of racism based on the race of one of the participants.
I agree that conservatives in general are post-racial, paying more attention to the content of one's character than the color of one's skin. That's why accusations of racism are effective: being not racist, they are surprised by the accusation and respond less effectively.
Identity politics are the Democrats' tool. They're the ones who make a big deal about race.
Pseudonym at September 17, 2009 7:43 AM
"big ears" is an unacceptable term, as it's far too close-sounding to the nuclear weapon of race-baiting terms. and anyone who uses it OBVIOUSLY wants to use the other, and is just using it as a code word, like "urban youths" and "disruptive elements in the community"
See how easy this is?
By continually using the accusation of racism, it requires people to bisect their resources, half to make ther (possibly valid) points, and half to assure people that they aren't racist. As a result they make neither argument well enough to convince anyone. The attacker can fall back on the line that's been used since McCarthyism and parodied in The Crucible, "You see how he denies it?"
While he's never used it himself, I would love to see Obama basically tell his followers to lay off with the play. If he were to stand up and tell them that these arguments must be met with facts and not a hand wave and dismissal, it might put things on a very different ground.
If indeed there's racism behind anyone's arguments, I promise you this - push them hard enough, and it will bubble out. And THEN you can set them on fire for all I care. Until then, if it's a valid point, it deserves addressing.
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 17, 2009 7:56 AM
Note the admission in caps:
"But I personally feel that, for example, Joe Wilson would not have yelled the way he did if the president in an alternate universe had become, say, John Edwards.* It's just a -- but IT'S A GUT FEELING. We can't know."
Those who agree with this guy, listen up; I am talking directly to you.
If it is a "gut feeling," you are making it up, people. Making. It. Up. No evidence? Keep your mouth shut, m'kay? Hunches. Feelings. Divine guidance. Deep suspicions. These are not evidence--they are feelings. Feelings are not proof of anything except that you have feelings.
But if you insist that your gut feelings are sufficient cause to level serious accusations, then you have to accept that people can call you a child-lusting pervert ready to rape toddlers, based on their "gut feeling" about that topic. Not really acceptable, is it? Not even reasonable, is it?
Simple rule, folks: don't call people racists or would-be child rapists without good evidence of such.
Accusations without proof is the shit witch trials are made of.
Spartee at September 17, 2009 7:57 AM
So we have one Afro-American and one caucasian. One is at a podium making a speech and the other interrupts, which, of course, makes him a racist.
I disagree. I just think Kanye is ignorant.
Steamer at September 17, 2009 8:01 AM
It's awfully convenient that Carter's statement, which now dominates the news, was issued to coincide with Obama's abandonment of Poland and the Czech republic to the Russians. This on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion.
Now it's possible to argue that there's some strategic calculus that justifies this change in missile defense policy, but anyone with an IQ over 12 should recognize that its imprudent to announce this on the anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the Soviets.
This is an obvious capitulation to the Russians. It's evident that they can coerce the president of the United States to issue their propaganda on the exact day of their choosing.
Peter at September 17, 2009 8:14 AM
Steamer writes:
I disagree. Kanye West has made his business to claim racism, whether tacitly or directly, such as his comments about Bush in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Personally, I think Bush's response to Katrina was more due to incompetence than racism. As Kanye West himself points out, blacks were not the only victims of Katrina.) This, by the way, is a remark he does not regret, although I do agree that Bush doesn't care about anyone but his own base, the "haves" and the "have mores." And he stole Taylor Swift's moment at the VMA awards to suggest that Beyonce was overlooked. Wonder what motivation he would have assigned to that, if asked...as long as he was asked before Beyonce won "Video of the Year," which would have somewhat discredited any accusation of racism.
Patrick at September 17, 2009 8:31 AM
Excellent selective quotations, Cousin Dave. You missed the bits about him writing about being tired of people thinking Sharpton speaks for all blacks, criticizing the criminality and stupidity of ACORN, describing the condemnation of Wilson as a waste and distraction, or that he saw no facts to support the allegation that Wilson was motivated by racism.
Noting that racism motivates some of the far right is just stating a fact.
Whatever at September 17, 2009 8:43 AM
@Whatever -
You're really gonna have to get over this knee-jerk attacking of me. You're gonna put your teeth out. I object to being called a racist just because I'm a white person who won't shut up and get to the back of the bus.
Coates is a doctrinaire liberal. He is convinced that all opposition to Obama is due to latent racism.
Read this line again:
There's only one way to interpret that: all opposition to Obama is due to his blackness and not his liberal-ness.
And that, my friend, is bullshit on stilts.
I don't object to a black man as president. I object to this black man as president. The same exact thing I said of Hillary, but exchange "woman" for "black man".
I object to anyone who feels that the Soviets just didn't have enough time or money to get it right. I object to anyone who thinks that Cuba's basically OK except for the US not accepting them. I object to anyone who shakes Hugo Chavez' hand without first spitting in their own.
Obama was, is, and shall ever be a Marxist.
brian at September 17, 2009 8:50 AM
open panic at a black president
Brian:
1)He's quoting Andrew Sullivan there
2) This quote is referring to a particular part of the right - the Michelle Malkin/Glen Beck/Birther crazies - not those who oppose Obama generally.
Whatever at September 17, 2009 8:59 AM
That's as may be, but they are such a small minority as to be irrelevant.
That doesn't stop the media and the leftists (but I repeat myself) from tarring every group or movement against Obama's policies as driven by racism.
The bulk of the people who voted for Obama get all their news from the major outlets, and they had no idea what they were voting for. They thought they were voting for a moderate/centrist Democrat.
Those of us who get our news from alternative sources knew what we were getting with Obama. We knew that he was a radical. We knew he was a corrupt Chicago machine politician. We knew he was a racist, or at least willing to excuse racism in his closest confidantes.
And that is why we opposed him. Now, not even the legacy media can hide the truth about Obama from the people. And the people are realizing they bought a goat with a fake horn glued on, and not the unicorn they were sold.
The public now knows there will be no skittles. They want a refund.
brian at September 17, 2009 8:59 AM
I object to being called a racist just because I'm a white person who won't shut up and get to the back of the bus.
I don't recall calling you a racist. You just seem generally misanthropic; it's not constrained to the brown peoples of the world.
Whatever at September 17, 2009 9:01 AM
I see what you did there. I want you to prove that either Beck or Malkin is related in ANY WAY AT ALL to the crazed "birther" movement.
If you did even 10 minutes of research, you'd see that the entire "birther" craze was started by a lawyer who was a big Hillary supporter during the primaries. True statement. Philip (sp?) Berg is the one that filed the bulk of the lawsuits trying to get Obama's birth certificate. Started before the primaries. Oh, and Berg's also a "truther", another bastion of far-left thought that passes for mainstream among Democratic supporters.
I'd also like you to prove that Beck or Malkin is a racist. And when you can't, I expect a public recantation and apology.
brian at September 17, 2009 9:03 AM
But don't address the substance at all. At least I address the substance of someone's argument before I start calling them names.
It's usually after they've either declined to address a point or responded to me by flinging poo that I call them a mendoucheous cockholster.
brian at September 17, 2009 9:05 AM
Jesus tap-dancing Christ, how much of a weenie must Obama be if he has to trot out the wimpiest President in history as his attack dog?
Two years ago: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!
Today: Dissent is the lowest form of racism.
I think it's a shame that the first black President wasn't a Republican. That way, we would all be listening to endless chants of "Uncle Tom!" directed at him, rather than endless accusations of racism directed at anyone & everyone who dares to question his agenda.
Martin (Ontario) at September 17, 2009 9:25 AM
Yeah, and we could throw Oreo cookies at him too! Imagine how much fun that would be for the people at Acorn! They could hand out free cookies at every speech and everything!
brian at September 17, 2009 9:31 AM
Why has no one publicly accused Kanye West of racism? Or sexism?
West, a black man, jumps up on stage, interrupting and grabbing the microphone out of the hands of Taylor Swift, a white woman, to make a self-serving rant and some people are upset because someone prominent called him a jackass.
No racism or sexism charges are leveled against him. Only his behavior is questioned, not his motivation. But Wilson's (and other Obama critics')motivation is automatically assumed to be racist.
====================
If a large man (black or white) had won instead of the elfin Swift, would we even be having this conversation...or sending flowers and best wishes for a speedy recovery to West's hospital room?
West stole Swift's night. And he can never give it back. And afterward, he's the one who got to go on the talk shows.
Conan the Grammarian at September 17, 2009 9:32 AM
That's because Taylor Swift is a lady, and Kanye West is a thug.
brian at September 17, 2009 9:38 AM
I think it's a shame that he wasn't a competent chief executive.
Conan the Grammarian at September 17, 2009 9:57 AM
Brian, much as I'd like to hang out on this blog and do tit for tat with you today, I got money to make. So I'll be brief. I haven't called you a racist - perhaps you can point to something, but I can't find it. I haven't called all opposition to Obama racist, though some of it certainly is.
I can't be sure Beck or Malkin are racists. Beck sure pushes the line at times ("Obama hates white people and white culture"), and his mentor, the guy whose book he's been pushing was a Bircher and a nutjob tied up with some of the wackier elements of Mormonism (which does view non-whites as lesser people). Malkin sure seems to hate brown people. Regardless of who started the birther movement, it's now pretty much confined to the crazier elements of the right wing. I will guarantee you that there is a high degree of overlap between the birthers, Beck's and Malkin's audiences, the teabaggers, and all of the other elements of the frothy right, many of whom are racists.
West stole Swift's night. And he can never give it back.
But god forbid Obama call the guy a jackass!
Whatever at September 17, 2009 9:59 AM
Whatever, I've defended (in another post) Obama's right to call West a jackass along with his right to watch the VMAs.
And if he wants to weigh in with an opinion on whether Beyonce's video was the "best video of all time," he has a right to do that, too.
He is sometimes careless with his asides and comments and he needs to watch that. But a presidential opinion on the incivility of West's behavior is not going to be mistaken by anyone as a pronouncement on policy.
Conan the Grammarian at September 17, 2009 10:07 AM
right. Let's just use Janeane Garofalo's homophobic terminology to demean anyone who stands against government waste and taxation.
And I never said you were accusing ME PERSONALLY of being a racist. If you knew how to read and comprehend, you'd know I was saying that the left in general has cast all persons who stand against Obama's agenda as driven by race, and therefore racist.
They, as you, have completely ignored the substance of the argument and reached for something worse than ad hominem. I don't know what the term is, but casting your opponent as something they are not in order to discredit their argument is certainly worse than anything I can think of.
Do you have no irony detector at all? Obama sat in a racist motherfucking church for twenty years and was married by a racist preacher that he said he could not disavow. And we're not supposed to notice and say that Obama's a racist by association?
I really wish you lefties would pick one set of rules and stick with it. This whole double standard bullshit is getting tiresome.
brian at September 17, 2009 10:11 AM
What Welch and McWhorter are lacking is direct, in the street experience. Welch, at least, could go to one of these teabag parties, or town hall meetings. Talk to these people when there are no cameras. Talk to them when they think you're one of them. Start counting the number of times they say "nigger." It's not even a debatable issue, and in places where this stuff is overt, they're not debating it. Only on the Coasts, where we're all too too, is this even a question. Get down in the streets, come face to face with the people, then stop talking about this like it's ethereal political theory.
Harry Hicks at September 17, 2009 10:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/17/racism_or_polic.html#comment-1668148">comment from Harry HicksUm, Harry, that's exactly the kind of thing Matt does -- and did do. He was there on the Mall this weekend.
Amy Alkon at September 17, 2009 10:35 AM
AS a reporter.
No one's going to talk to a reporter honestly.
Harry Hicks at September 17, 2009 10:45 AM
Harry:
Reporting from "the streets", "face to face" with the people in Tennessee, I've been to a townhall meeting, discussed healthcare and deficits extensively with my friends and acquaintances, and read a fair number of postings and comments on what I'm sure you would consider rightwing, racist, teabagging sites, and, except for the occasional slang by young black men, your comment is the first place I've heard or read that word in at least the past 10 years.
But you just keep informing us of what is and isn't a "debatable issue".
Robin at September 17, 2009 10:53 AM
Harry: Start counting the number of times they say "nigger." It's not even a debatable issue, and in places where this stuff is overt, they're not debating it.
Robin: except for the occasional slang by young black men, your comment is the first place I've heard or read that word in at least the past 10 years.
Robin,
I absolutely believe your experience. However, I heard it used in (to me) particularly shocking circumstances recently. A dinner party. East coast. (Go on, mock:)). Guy who appeared charming beyond belief. Then he got drunk. And he used the n-word about 20 times in an anecdote about his car being vandalized.
He was hustled out of the room by his mortified wife because he was also suddenly acting obviously drunk - while blabbing on and on. And WHAT he had been saying was lost in the embarrassed confusion of the moment - so there was no discussion of the word by the rest of the also all-white guests.
My true anecdote cancels out your true anecdote. That is my only point.
Jody Tresidder at September 17, 2009 11:15 AM
Harry, I'm sorry, but I require proof before I accept your assertions.
MarkD at September 17, 2009 11:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/17/racism_or_polic.html#comment-1668159">comment from Harry HicksAS a reporter. No one's going to talk to a reporter honestly.
Matt went as a human being and observed people. Look at his picture. He looks like a science nerd, a regular guy.
Oh, and when he lived in L.A., he and Emmanuelle, his wife, lived in pretty bad neighborhood, mostly Latino, and a bit gang'y, on the east side, not the Hollywood side (West Los Angeles).
Amy Alkon at September 17, 2009 11:22 AM
The use of the word "nigger" is not evidence of racism. Racists do not have a monopoly on the use of the word, regardless of their own race.
brian at September 17, 2009 11:26 AM
I'm aware that anecdotal evidence is not close to definitive. My point is that it's better than some guy on some coast asserting that there is no debate about what goes on in my (red)neck of the woods when no one is watching.
I'm not sure your anecdote cancels out mine, though, as mine includes lots of contact with supposed racist teabagger types. As does Welch's. Maybe gives it less weight.
How's Harry supposed to prove whether what occurs in his fevered imagination is true or not?
Robin at September 17, 2009 11:28 AM
>>I'm not sure your anecdote cancels out mine, though, as mine includes lots of contact with supposed racist teabagger types. As does Welch's. Maybe gives it less weight.
Fair enough, Robin!
(And thanks for being courteous.)
Jody Tresidder at September 17, 2009 11:38 AM
You're most welcome.
Robin at September 17, 2009 11:40 AM
Favorite passage from Welch —
> keep an open mind of actually
> listening to what people say
> they're interested in.
All I hear from (for example) Maureen Dowd types is talk about race, and these other very personal things. That's what she's "interested in". Actually debating the merits of Obama's horrifying policies is not of "interest" to her.
Yes there's work to do and all that, but I don't remember the last time I heard an interesting, enlightening comment about race. Most people who want to talk about race really just want you to sit through their incredibly mundane narratives.
Life is short... If you must talk about race, then promise, promise that you'll be interesting. Because you won't be forgiven if you're not.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 17, 2009 11:47 AM
Crid,
Excellent points (though I personally don't share the "Obama's horrifying policies" bit).
The excellent opening par of Amy's post shows where the trouble lies:
"Gwen Ifill talks to reason ed-in-chief Matt Welch, City Journal's John McWhorter, and a few others about Jimmy Carter's contention that animosity to Obama is largely due to his skin color..."
When you add blog comments - you've got people chiming in about A talking to B & C about D's opinion of what X,Y and Z really think about O!
Which is why some of us stoop to offering our mundane narratives - just to get it back to some direct experience!
Jody Tresidder at September 17, 2009 12:17 PM
When a guy says "That fuckin' nigger ain't my president," I think it's a safe bet that that guy is a racist. However, there are people whose agenda will never let them admit that, so yeah, let's leave it at "I need proof," but please understand that those of us who see the world clearly already got it.
Harry Hicks at September 17, 2009 12:18 PM
Well, Harry, you're the first person I've encountered in either cyberspace or meatspace that's actually uttered that phrase.
So either you're hanging with racists (which doesn't say much about you), or you're making it up.
Which is it?
brian at September 17, 2009 12:59 PM
> though I personally don't share the
> "Obama's horrifying policies" bit).
Horrifying! Monstrous! Arrghh! Arrghh! Arrghh! I'm ashamed to have voted for him (once).
> the first person I've encountered
> in either cyberspace or meatspace
> that's actually uttered that phrase.
Yes, or even the sentiment. It's the second time in as many days that commenters on Amy's moderately-traffic'd blog (nuthin' personal, Red) have brought that word to us, as if from the lips of another. It's interesting that it's people who'd claim to be Obama supporters who have it at the tip of their tongues. Like I was saying about Dowd, it's all they got.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 17, 2009 1:24 PM
I have to say, I dated a guy from Georgia who lived in Lafayette, Louisiana and I was *shocked* at how often I heard the n word - and associated with the n person being lazy. (This was in GA and LA). Not only that, I often I heard this in front of little children, including his grandchild. I asked him how he could let his grandchild hear hear that a whole race of people was lazy. After all, this is how we teach hate and bias. He looked shocked - apparently this had not occurred to him. But then, I'm just a damn yankee.
So yes, the N word is still being used and yes, apparently they're lazy too.
antoniaB at September 17, 2009 1:55 PM
Well, I have to admit that I said before the inauguration that the left would go from calling him "our savior" to "that stupid nigger" in six months.
That prediction was wrong, but they're starting to turn on him so it might just be a matter of time. Watch that Kos guy, he's pretty incendiary.
Oh, and antonia, hate is in our nature. It's what defines the human experience. You can't simply breed it out or wish it away. It takes significant effort on a daily basis to overcome. And most people, as you noted, are lazy.
brian at September 17, 2009 2:23 PM
I think that hate is not so much in are nature as is the need to find scapegoats. We don't like to blame ourselves, it has to be someone else's fault - that really is human nature. To me, this is what breeds the hate. Demagogues use that need to find someone to blame to help the hate along.
antoniaB at September 17, 2009 2:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/17/racism_or_polic.html#comment-1668202">comment from antoniaBThat's what I was getting at at the end of the post, antoniaB.
Amy Alkon at September 17, 2009 3:02 PM
Bullies are assholes. (so are people that drop the "n" word for shock value).
Feebie at September 17, 2009 3:11 PM
Of course, exactly the opposite is at work here. Demagogues have used our social aversion to hate to create scapegoats to distract attention from the complete and utter failure to govern by the ruling party.
In other words, rather than have a substantive discussion of the failures of the present administration, they prefer to blame all bad news on "racists" who are "attempting to undermine this president".
In psychological circles, this is called "projection", because it's pretty much exactly what the leftists did for the last eight years.
Just because someone calls it hate does not make it so.
brian at September 17, 2009 3:22 PM
Right Amy - what you said. It's easy and cheap ... it also feeds a deep need within us.
There are often substantive debates going on, but so often we actually *hear* emotionally.
antoniaB at September 17, 2009 3:56 PM
"we really can't know where to draw the line, because we don't have the psychological tools yet ... let's say that racism was a part of it; it's my gut feeling that it is"
Sure sure, and let me guess, you can test who is a racist because they float.
Lobster at September 17, 2009 3:59 PM
"Talk to them when they think you're one of them. Start counting the number of times they say 'nigger.'"
Even in cases where this might be true, it doesn't mean their criticisms of Obama's policies are necessarily invalid. The claim is that opposition to his policies is based on his race --- but whether or not you are a racist has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you are correct when you think, say, socialist healthcare is a bad idea.
This is a plain-old manipulative attempt to stifle valid debate and criticism of a politician's policies by stigmatizing any and all such criticism with a label nobody wants, i.e. 'racist'. This is 'Public Manipulation 101' dude. Forge an invalid mental association between behavior X and negative label Y, and behavior X decreases, *yawn*. Marketers do it for years with products.
Lobster at September 17, 2009 4:09 PM
Yes. And of course, McWhorter implies that racism is a 'psychological' condition.
(This is ALMOST interesting....)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 17, 2009 4:28 PM
Lobster's comment of 3:50pm and mine of 4:28pm have essentially the same meaning. I apologize for this redundancy.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 17, 2009 4:30 PM
"So if she weighs the same as a duck..."
brian at September 17, 2009 4:54 PM
If the reason that they hate socialist health care is because a lot of poor people are black, and if they wouldn't hate the socialist health care if it were poor white people, then I guess you could say they were racist...
Not sure how many people that describes, though.
Although, to be fair, people often raise the spector of inner city welfare moms and the like, but I've never heard them say scornfully, "And some of this will go to help poor white trash in Appalachia! Your hard-earned money is going to be redistributed to HILLBILLIES and CRACKERS!!!".
I do tend to hear about wealth being given to poor black or hispanic people rather than poor white people when people are arguing against health care.
But I'm guessing most people who are against socialism don't want their money redistributed to white people either.
Though perhaps that's why socialism works better (or at least is more accepted) in more homogeonous societies... people have an innate tribalism and are less likely to mind helping out members of "their" tribe.
NicoleK at September 17, 2009 5:09 PM
Nicole -
The allegation is not that the people opposing the policy are racist because they object to black people being the beneficiaries of the largesse.
The allegation is that the only reason people object to the policies of this administration is that they have been offered by a black man.
This falls on its face because there was similar resistance to a similar attempt to take over the entire health care industry by government by a white man in 1992.
The hustlers are hoping you have a short enough memory that you won't keep that fact in mind.
brian at September 17, 2009 5:21 PM
Without delving into the matter too much, I submit this anectode:
During last year's Christmas season, my sons (then 19 and 20) and I got to talking about about the 2008 election. I asked them how they voted in their household (they live with their mother and stepfather.) I was told their mother and stepdad (who usually vote Democratic) voted for McCain. My younger son also did, but I think because he's clearly Republican leaning. My older son voted for Obama, but then he'd told me about a year before that he was an Obama supporter, at that time vis-a-vis H. Clinton. I said I'd voted for Obama.
In a nutshell, I think there are some whites who would never support Obama no matter what, but a larger group that don't harbor racist animosity but are unconsciously antsy about having a black man as President, and unwilling to give Obama the benefit of the doubt (despite the very questionable choice of Palin for V.P.)
Iconoclast at September 17, 2009 6:29 PM
OBJECTION! Assumes facts not in evidence.
For starters, this statement implies that conservatives (the group that voted against Obama en masse) are inherently racist. If that's the case, please explain J.C. Watts.
Let's look at the breakdown of votes for Obama. Republicans voted against him almost monolithically. Why? He's a DEMOCRAT.
If there's any racialism going on here, it's from the black community who supported Obama almost without exception. This includes erstwhile Republican Colin Powell. I'd even argue that the people who voted for him exclusively because he's black number less than 5% of all votes cast, and probably less than 1%. He won primarily on the weakness of John McCain and the fact that conservatives and libertarians stayed home in droves.
There is no "unconsciously antsy" about having a black man as president.
You know what makes people antsy, and consciously so? Having someone whose policy positions so closely resemble one James Earl Carter, 39th president of the United States of America.
Again, for the neutronium-skulled crowd: THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE! You WANT it to be about race, because you cannot bear the thought that the man you anointed as your saviour has feet of clay.
brian at September 17, 2009 7:24 PM
>>However, there are people whose agenda will never let them admit that, so yeah, let's leave it at "I need proof," but please understand that those of us who see the world clearly already got it.
LOL, "those of us who see the world clearly"? Wow, how pompous.......
If you can pause your more elevated view of the world then let me suggest that within the millions of people who are opposed to the obama health care and financial policy, you will find some examples of people who don't like Obama cause he is black (just as you will find those who like him cause he is black). But I know someone who has such an amazing real world view as you would not stereotype a whole group because of a few examples of bad behavior/bad thinking. I know, as a real world thinker, you find it appalling when people paint one group as all the same when only a few act badly, right?
TW at September 17, 2009 7:37 PM
"So yes, the N word is still being used and yes, apparently they're lazy too"
Funny, I've lived in the south all my life, and the only time I have EVER heard that word uttered was by blacks. But yeah, we spout it all the time hare in hickville, don't you know?!
momof4 at September 17, 2009 7:41 PM
My white liberal uncle, former journalist and congressional aid, now living in AL, descibed the subtle racism to me in an e-mail this way:
"I've got an Obama bumper sticker on my truck tailgate, and, several times since the election, gassing up at a country crossroads, another (caucasian) customer has mentioned it to me across the pumps. Curious thing -- they always start by saying they didn't vote for him -- They prayed over it, and after praying, they felt sort of free not to vote for him, but then, invariably, add they wish him success.
I was in a surgeon's office a few weeks ago getting a splinter out of my thumb, and patients started talking about Obama. Seriously negative. I proclaimed his virtues. Said I talked to God the night before election and I voted the way God wanted me to. Silence reigned.
As I try to glean a Democratic party vote here and there in still a little rural Alabama county, I see clear evidence that, in their heads, a lot of voters feel that voting Democratic, voting for Obama, is in their own best interest, when it comes to education, jobs, the proverbial little man issues. But just as Daddy and Paw Paw trudged into the voting booth and voted for Wallace to show them, they vote Republican, just to show them."
lovelysoul at September 17, 2009 7:45 PM
>>In a nutshell, I think there are some whites who would never support Obama no matter what, but a larger group that don't harbor racist animosity but are unconsciously antsy about having a black man as President, and unwilling to give Obama the benefit of the doubt (despite the very questionable choice of Palin for V.P.)
@brian .... OBJECTION! Assumes facts not in evidence.
Brian, the whole thing is essentially an assumption. That's what makes it hard to argue. How do you argue a point with someone who says, "I just know it is" or "we all know the world". The only effective counter argument with the race peddlers is to over and over and over say something succinct like, "I disagree with the policy and will continue to say so no matter the color of the policy maker" over and over.
As a whole I think what is going on can ultimately be a good thing. Those saying *I just know it must be is racism* or *I just think it is likely he/she won't vote for him cause he is black* or *most are uncomfortable with him as president cause he is black* are making a flimsy argument. And there have been a very encouraging amount of articles and speakers calling BS on it. IF they will keep up the articles calling BS, the race peddlers will be discredited (at least some). That is a good thing for every American.
TW at September 17, 2009 7:51 PM
Oh, I got that Brian, and of course it is very silly to say that they are against single payer health care because they are against Obama being black.
My point was just that perhaps racism was a factor for some of the people... racism against possible beneficiaries of the plan rather than the President.
I think most of the people would still be against it if we had a blond President and blond beneficiaries, but that's just conjecture.
NicoleK at September 18, 2009 6:57 AM
LS: "As I try to glean a Democratic party vote here and there in still a little rural Alabama county, I see clear evidence that, in their heads, a lot of voters feel that voting Democratic, voting for Obama, is in their own best interest, when it comes to education, jobs, the proverbial little man issues. But just as Daddy and Paw Paw trudged into the voting booth and voted for Wallace to show them, they vote Republican, just to show them."
LS, the main problem with this is that your uncle evidently doesn't know much Alabama political history. Daddy and Paw Paw voted a straight Democratic ticket, always. They voted for Stevenson. They voted for JFK. They voted for LBJ. Why? Because those guys were Democrats, and back then, voting Republic was simply Not. Done. You didn't discuss Republicans in polite society. George Wallace went to his grave as a Democrat. The Republican Party in Alabama was so small and unimportant that it didn't bother fielding candidates for most races. The Democratic primary was, in effect, the election.
The main thing that swung Alabama was not really a matter of national politics. It was a result of state Democrats using the state Supreme Court in an attempt to, effectively, hand-pick the governor in 1986.
Whatever: I read your response to me, and I went back and re-read what Coates wrote. I'll admit it: You could be right. I have to admit I find the way it is written to be a bit confusing. Is Coates refuting Sullivan's statement that "the far right controls the entire right"? It looks to me like the "yes, yes, and yes" below the quote means he's supporting Sullivan's statement. What is Coates referring to when he mentions the "ancient hatred"? I assumed it meant white racism, because I couldn't imagine what else it would refer to. Is he actually referring to Sharpton and Jackson there? If so, it may be a hatred, but not one that you could describe as "ancient", unless he's just exaggerating for effect. If he is, I wish he'd let the rest of us in on the joke. I can well imagine that blacks get tired of everyone assuming that Sharpton and Jackson speak for all of them (Coates touches on that in the last paragraph), but there seems to be some inside humor or irony or sarcasm that went over my head.
Cousin Dave at September 18, 2009 8:46 AM
Cousin Dave, I don't think my uncle meant that they voted Republican back then, just now. But for the same reasons they voted for Wallace. My uncle was a journalist for the Birmingham paper as well as Miami Herald, before working for years in Washington, so he's pretty politically savvy.
His point is that racism has become a lot more subtle in the south. It isn't as socially tolerated in most circles anymore, but still there. I love the whole, "we prayed over it, but didn't vote for him"...like God grants them forgiveness for being racist.
lovelysoul at September 18, 2009 9:52 AM
It's kind of like how in the south when they want to say something negative about someone, they'll preface it with, "Bless his/her heart..."
So, my take is that it's still ok to be racist as long as you pray over it first.
lovelysoul at September 18, 2009 9:58 AM
OK, we know the President is, or at least appears to be, black.
Do you know anything about his policies? His intelligence? His upbringing? His character?
Those are hard things to examine.
But the solution to policy questions, such as one man's observing that the health-care plan will FINE HIM for not participating is NOT to call that observation "racist". In fact, it's loathsomely dishonest.
I don't want you to do that. You should, instead address the observation.
Radwaste at September 18, 2009 2:21 PM
I was raised in a very racist, ignorant family in the north. In 1957, I read the book BLACK LIKE ME, which esssentially changed my view.
To the horror of my family, my first wife was Cuban, and my current wife of 34 years is Mexican. I am in Mexico, and except for an a'hole who visited last weekend, I haven't seen a white in nearly 4 months, and this one was more than I want to see again. I am the only white in 750 square miles. So, I suppose if I don't believe what the DEms think I should, I am racist?
I tell you what all this bogus nasty political claims of racism among those who do not want a Communist government here, did for me.
I am now convinced we cannot have a minority president, because there is an attempt to violate our right to freedom of speech and open debate. This is not a trivial thing. It strikes right at the heart of all that is American, even though there isn't much left any more.
Let me say it in a different way. If having a minority president means our freedom of speech is gone even worse than it has been, then we should not have one, period.
Probably ditto for female president if we are going to be called sexist for criticizing a female president.
And, of course, any other category which attempts to squelch our freedom of speech.
On the other hand, though, someone suggested that the misuse of the word racist will wear itself out, so maybe it is self correcting. IF that is the case then I am just being impatient.
irlandes at September 18, 2009 5:50 PM
LovelySoul writes "His point is that racism has become a lot more subtle in the south. It isn't as socially tolerated in most circles anymore, but still there. I love the whole, "we prayed over it, but didn't vote for him"...like God grants them forgiveness for being racist."
You're wrong Lovelysoul and it is the reason why I am very turned off by liberals and that wing of the democratic party. Let me correct you and say racism actually is tolerated in some social circles. It is semi infrequent but it is there. I speak with abundant first hand experience as I live in a community, and a generally wide spread area, that has huge minority populations. Also, my very large in law family is minority and I have very good interaction with many many of their friends/cowrokers/etc at 'get togethers'. Racism is in fact tolerated when the target is white (to a certain degree). And in my opinion it is liberals, in all the corners of society they possess like the MSM, who are responsible for this. Liberals define racism as someone white doing something wrong to someone not white. They have made it so whites should tolerate racism because it isn't racism when against whites (and maybe a sprinkle or two of whites deserve it from the most ardent of liberals). A black man is POTUS and was elected because basically half of all white voters voted for him. In the larger context, good for Obama and good for the USA! As I have said before, this says something very good about the USA. However, how sad that racism still is defined by liberals as anything negative a white says against a black. How sad that sooooo many millions of whites voted for Obama and the conversation is still 'he didn't vote for Obama because of racism'.
Lastly, I wonder how many liberals about 2+ years ago would answer the following question as "absolutely not and it is because of racism". That question would be, "could a black man be elected POTUS in just a few years"? Isn't it reasonably certain they would be quite sure of their answer? Yet this time the liberals absolutely know that racism is at work without any direct evidence. Again, a black man was elected POTUS by a huge amount of white people voting for him. Maybe it would be good for everyone if you could deprogram yourselves of always assuming racism is at play.
TW at September 19, 2009 3:10 AM
TW, I didn't see the interchange with Obama, so I don't know whether it seemed racially-motivated or not. Although it was disrespectful, I wouldn't immediately presume racism. Yet, if Hillary was our Pres and a guy screamed at her in the middle of an official speech to the nation like that, where it is never done, I'm sure that would've been called sexist.
Sure, blacks are racist against whites too. I think what Kanye did was somewhat racist. He is always defending other blacks and was basically saying this little white girl wasn't as good. Why? Because she's white or because he doesn't like her music? We can't really know.
But there is still, in the south, a deep and fierce hatred of blacks. It is kept underground, but when people sense they are in the right company, they don't say "we prayed over it" anymore. They speak the full-on language of racism.
A few years ago, my ex and I were invited to a golf tournament in Hilton Head, SC. These were all white men, with big jawls and southern drawls, who held powerful positions throughout the south. Movers and shakers, if you will.
My ex, a northerner, was soaking it up, enjoying their company, impressed by them, but my instinct triggered some long-forgotten recognition from my southern past, and while we were at the dinner table, amid a few racially tinged jokes (example - "Tiger Woods is Tycoon...part Tai, part coon"...get it?) I realized these were all klansmen! A fact later confirmed to me by one of the women there. She said, "Almost everyone in this room is Klan. Aren't you?"
What was striking is how normal they looked, how nice they were, but mostly, how powerful and successful. That is the real issue with any racism. If one group hates you and they hold much greater power. You can't get jobs or advance beyond a certain status, and you may never even know why.
lovelysoul at September 19, 2009 6:31 AM
No, it's because he's a douchebag. I'm pretty sure of that.
The same can be said of the Kennedy family, and political groups in general. Try being a conservative professor on a college campus. You'll never get tenure, and it's because you hold the wrong beliefs, but they'll never tell you.
People need to get over the idea that racism is some special stain on humanity that only Americans have, and is only held by whites against blacks. Racism is merely another form of tribalism. All tribalism is inherently anathema to a free society. We ought to concentrate on that, rather than getting bogged down in the details of which tribe is the most aggrieved and which the most privileged.
brian at September 19, 2009 9:45 AM
But I personally feel that, for example, John McWhorter would not make an accusation of racism if the president in an alternate universe had become, say, John Edwards and a black congressman had yelled that at him. It's just a -- but it's a gut feeling. We can't know.
Jim Treacher at September 20, 2009 4:57 PM
Leave a comment