About protests. About the uncivil tone being struck by people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and Jim Greer and the masses waving pictures of Barack Obama all suited up like Adolf Hitler or The Joker.
Thinking, writing, just generally being disappointed in humanity. Wishing things were otherwise.
Over the past few weeks, it's struck me that the reaction to Obama and his health care reform efforts has been just a little more... a little more something than you might normally expect.
It's been a little angrier, but "angrier" isn't exactly the right word. With people toting guns to Tea Parties and to presidential events, you could say it's been a little more ominous, but as well as that word fits, it doesn't capture all of it. It has been ominous, but other things too.
Thinking about all of this over the weekend, venting to family and to friends when they would listen, it came to me. Obvious, really, but the kind of obvious that you don't want to see, and that you feel sort of bad for even having to acknowledge, and that lots of people are likely to resent you for mentioning.
And I guess it occured to Maureen Dowd, too.
Maureen Dowd, not exactly the objective observer, not above a little partisan rhetoric from time to time, had an excellent piece in the papers today.
An excellent, disappointing, "I wish this wasn't where things are at" piece.
In it, she said stuff like this:
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys... Joe Wilson yelled "You lie!" at a president who didn't.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
And this:
The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.
And this:
For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both.
The state that fired the first shot of the Civil War has now given us this: Senator Jim DeMint exhorted conservatives to “break” the president by upending his health care plan. Rusty DePass, a G.O.P. activist, said that a gorilla that escaped from a zoo was “just one of Michelle’s ancestors.” Lovelorn Mark Sanford tried to refuse the president’s stimulus money. And now Joe Wilson.
And so on. Other stuff. Good stuff.
And I have to say, Maureen Dowd is right.
That thing I've been sensing, that ominous something, that anger. It's right there. It's obvious.
To say that the opposition to Obama and his proposals is due to his race would be unfair and untrue.
There are many, many reasons one might oppose Obama, oppose his ideas. I would probably not agree with most of those reasons. But there are those whose opposition is sincere, decent, and legitimate. And there are those whose opposition is stupid and mean, but not racist, who would scream "liberal!" and "socialist!" and refuse to engage in constructive dialogue with any Democrat elected to office.
But just because race isn't the motive, or the only motive, for everyone does not mean that it is not a factor.
It's a factor.
And I don't think that it's only a marginal factor, only a factor for the wingnuts and extremists.
I think it's a big factor. How big, I don't know. But big enough to be significant, big enough to be meaningful.
There are certainly people who will disagree, who will insist that any who suggest this are playing some sort of "race card," that this is an attempt to stifle debate.
It's not. It's an attempt to encourage debate, and to stifle the hate mongering rhetoric that brings debate to a halt.
Race is a factor. Race plays a part in what we're seeing right now.
Race accounts for the tangible condescension, the "who are you to be talking to me"ness that drips off the tongues of the pundits and politicians who tear into the president the most viciously.
It accounts for the birthers and their insistence that Obama's presidency is illegitimate, that he is foreign, he doesn't belong here.
Race accounts for the ominous creepiness of angry conservatives bringing their guns to Obama speaking engagements, standing on the fringes, making their presence very clear without technically violating any law. It reminds me, just a little bit, of those slow drives, with the lights off, in the middle of the night, past the house of that uppity black preacher who just doesn't know his place. It sends a message. An unsavory sort of message.
Race accounts for Jim Greer, the head of the Florida GOP, insisting that he wouldn't send his kids to school on the day of President Obama's address to school children, accounts for all the terrified and frantic and angry parents keeping their children home lest they be exposed to the pep talk of... well, of a black man. An uppity one. I mean, we've seen parents pull their kids from school before, haven't we? We've seen parents panic and refuse to allow their kids to walk into the classroom when a certain sort of element was going to be there. This isn't new stuff. This stuff is old. Jim Greer looks, from my perspective, just a little bit like George Wallace. And remember, when George Wallace stood in that school house door and tried to refuse entry to two black students, when he tried to stop integration of the races with his very body, it wasn't about racism. Heavens no. His speech was about the Constitution, and an intruding central government, and freedom, and other good and noble things. Like Jim Greer, he couldn't possibly have been a racist.
Seeing the motivation here as at least partly race helps to explain some things that just make less sense otherwise.
It also explains the things that would make absolutely no sense otherwise.
It's hard, for instance, to interpret the comments of GOP activist Rusty DePass any other way. He tried, after his apology (there's always an apology, isn't there? and it's always followed by a "but here's why I wasn't wrong..."), to explain why referring to an escaped gorilla as one of Michelle Obama's "ancestors" wasn't racist at all, was just a "jest." It would take a heroic suspension of disbelief that I simply can't muster to buy that one.
And then, well, it's really, really hard to understand this picture, showing up at rallies and in email forwards, as anything other than maybe just a little bit racist:
Or this one:
I mean, there could be some subtle metaphors at play here that I don't get and that just so happen to purely by complete coincidence have some negative racial connotations that the people making these signs never, ever even thought of. But, you know, that's a stretch.
The increasingly obvious reality is that however much we might like to think that Obama's overwhelming electoral victory meant that we had someone moved beyond race in this country, as much as the Becks and the Limbaughs and the Savages of this country would like us to think that racism is a thing that can only ever happen to oppressed white people, racism-- the old-fashioned kind, the real, true, ugly kind-- is here, is real, and is behind at least some of the ugliness that's out there right now.
Dowd nailed it in her piece.
Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.
That sounds about right. And it's too bad for us. I'd hoped we were better than that. Not quite believed, but hoped.
*************
I was about to hit "Publish Post," but decided to fool around online for just a couple of minutes more, stumbled onto this site.
It's a slide show, called "Social Networks Help Republican Racism Go Viral."
Please check it out, really. Watch the 15 slides and read the little summaries to the right.
Heartbreaking, a little. Infuriating. But mostly it leaves me feeling... tired.
Posts
12 comments:
There are certainly people who will disagree, who will insist that any who suggest this are playing some sort of "race card," that this is an attempt to stifle debate.
It's not. It's an attempt to encourage debate, and to stifle the hate mongering rhetoric that brings debate to a halt.
I don't think that it encourages debate at all. What it does try to do is shut up people who have honest disagreements with Obama's agenda.
There is a racist tinge in some of Obama's critics, but as far as I can tell, this is a small minority and not at all representative of the norm. It is, on the contrary, the appending of an imaginary "boy!" to every objection that impairs civil debate.
Jim - I think this is a great post - and looking through that collage of images about all the 'jokes' about Obama was really stunning. I heard most of them as they came out, and the 'apologies' - but it is hard, putting them all together, to not take very seriously issues of race and racism. Most of these were statements made by elected officials! And it is just appalling.
(Did you see Carter's comments about race yesterday, and the immediate, "You are playing the race card" accusation?)
John,
And it wasn't "race" when Wallace stood in the door of the school house. It was "state rights." Because no one is ever the racist. No one is ever the "bad" guy. Everyone always has some more noble cause when they do and say the things that just happen to appear racist to others.
A racist "tinge?" Really? Obama with a bone through his nose is a racist "tinge?" "Willis" signs are a "tinge?" Baskin Robbins "Baracky Road" (half vanilla, half chocolate" is a "tinge?" Is that where you want your position to be? That this is a racist "tinge?" Come on, a little more honesty than that is in order.
As to the "some" factor, as opposed to the "majority," okay. I'm with you there. I assume that this is not the majority. But it's an element, and not an easily, neatly dismissable element. This isn't the fringe. Or, well, maybe it is the fringe. But somehow the fringe has gotten into the mainstream of it. This stuff is coloring the whole process. I think denying that is, well, it's just kind of dishonest. Or naive.
Yeah, I want there to be debate. I want there to be reform, and so, sure, I want "my" side to win that debate. But debate is a good thing. Debate is a very good thing. Screaming and hysteria and wild lies and character assassination isn't debate. We've got enough of that. Calling that stuff for what it is isn't trying to "shut people up who have honest disagreements."
Don't take my comment as discouragement. By all means, Obama's supporters should directly or implicitly call half of America racist. That will play out marvelously in 2010 and 2012.
Hmmmm. Selective reading?
Go to the bit you quoted, then scroll up. That's where you'll see me saying this:
"To say that the opposition to Obama and his proposals is due to his race would be unfair and untrue.
There are many, many reasons one might oppose Obama, oppose his ideas. I would probably not agree with most of those reasons. But there are those whose opposition is sincere, decent, and legitimate. And there are those whose opposition is stupid and mean, but not racist, who would scream "liberal!" and "socialist!" and refuse to engage in constructive dialogue with any Democrat elected to office.
But just because race isn't the motive, or the only motive, for everyone does not mean that it is not a factor.
It's a factor."
I guess when I said that calling half the country racist would be "unfair and untrue," I was being confusing. When I said that there are "those whose opposition is sincere, decent and legitimate," you apparently saw through me and realized that my REAL, TRUE intention was to say that no one's opposition is sincere, decent, or legitimate, but that every Republican in this country, down to a person, is a rabid, sheet wearing racist.
Or, I meant that wild generalizations are unfair and untrue because some people are sincere, decent, and legitimate in their views.
I don't know. Tough call. Takes some critical reading.
John, I don't know how you can in good conscience call pictures of the White House with watermelons decorating the lawn a "tinge" racist. I don't know how you can call pictures of the first black president with a bone through his nose a "tinge" racist. If that stuff is a "tinge" racist, what does full on racism look like to you? If the signs said "nigger go home," would that be a "smidgeon" racist? Or still just a "tinge?"
I find this especially frustrating coming from you given many of your more vehement posts in the past. You've found sinister connections in many anti-war and anti-Bush protests in the pasts, connections that were hard for many readers to follow. You've suggested that the people attending protests were giving "moral cover" to very bad people because one group or another that was involved in the organizing of the protest had connections to a guy who had connections to a guy who wrote an article defending this or that Palestinian militant. Those connections were, for you, enough to make the whole demonstration ugly... and yet, in spite of blatantly racist signs at anti-Obama rallies, you can't bring yourself to say that there's more than a "tinge" of racism, or that the racist element that exists is problematic?
You've raved in the past on the need for non-violent Muslims to speak out more vehemently against the violence committed by others of their faith, have implied that even the non-violent were morally culpable if they did not denounce it strongly and loudly enough. But no cry for the right to strongly repudiate some of the garbage that's involved here?
Come on, John. A little consistency? A little honesty?
And you're right. It probably won't play well in 2010 or 2012. I don't see that that makes it any less true. It's just a reminder that people don't always like hearing truths that make them feel bad.
The images are racist. Not just tinged, but racist. But the Tea Party movement is not racist. Racism is not, by any means, "a big factor" is the movement. It's a small fringe. Sort of like how the union thugs who beat up a black man and and called him 'n---er' at a recent town hall don't mean that people who support Obamacare are racist. Or that a pro-Obamacare protestor who carries a gun to a protest means that supports of Obamacare are violent sociopaths. These people represent extremist, fringe elements.
Now if you'd like to compare the Tea Party movement with the anti-war movement, let's go there. Where are the Republicans calling for the assassination of Obama? Where are the Republican Senators comparing Bush to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot from the floor of the Senate? Why is Joe Wilson trouble, but Democrats who booed Bush at the 2005 State of the Union not?
But back to race: the rhetoric of people like Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd should be encouraged. Make slanderous, false accusations of racism. This is a winning strategy. Because here's how it works:
Accuse person of planning to pull the plug on grandma without any grounds: bad.
Accuse person of racism without any grounds: good.
Since you're interested in consistency, and you deplore Sarah Palin's blatantly false and slanderous accusations against Obama, could you be troubled to similarly condemn those of Dowd and Carter?
I would like to say there is no racism in the U.S. but I can't. I can say that that the number of people that approve of images like you linked to continues to dwindle. The problem with equating racism as a contributing factor in the health care debate is it tends to shut up those who don't wish to be tarred with that brush. The health care proposals that the house and senate are working on have enough problems without having to bring race into it.
I believe any who really believes that racism is driving the opposition must have a very low opinion of those who find these proposals unpalatable. Or too high opinion of Obama and the Democrats.
Using racism is dismissive in nature saying there cannot be reasonable objection to the proposals so it must be racism.
Bob,
I think that there can be reasonable objection, and I don't want to be dismissive of that. The problem I am having here-- and have been having for a while, noted in other posts-- is that much of the objection is not "reasonable." It is something else altogether.
You acknowledge, of course, that racism exists. What, then, is the proper response to it when it rears its head? Do we ignore it so that we don't offend people who don't want to be "tarred with that brush?"
I have a longer response, but will need to put up another post, as there just isn't room in a comment box. These are busy days, and so I might not get it up there tonight. But soon.
You see that's where we really disagree for very little of the bill is not objectionable.
The most common sense proposals were stated by the congressman from Louisiana. This was the Republican response to President Obama's health reform speech.
1. Tort reform
2. Opening up the borders between states so that more insurance companies can compete in each state.
3. Reducing government mandates of what each insurer must cover.
I might be forgetting some of the Rep proposals. The reason I like these proposals is that they will help drive down costs while costing the government nothing.
While the economy is in the tank there can be no rational argument for new programs.
Bob, I disagree with some of those points... but they are certainly reasonable. Those are debates that should be had. Those are complaints.
My problem is that the tone and rhetoric-- not just of a few, but of many-- has gotten way beyond that.
Claiming that there should be tort reform (something I could probably actually agree with, if it's packaged the right way) is a different thing than saying "Obama wants to kill old people."
Saying that there should be interstate competition is a different thing than carrying a sign with Obama pictured as an African witch doctor.
I'm not objecting to reasonable debate. I'm objecting to all the unreasonable nonsense that's out there, and wondering how much of the anger and the screaming that isn't overtly racist might be fueled by a similar racism.
I have my own preconceptions and biases and whatnot, and I am not certainly not always objective, but I feel comfortable saying I have never opposed reasoned debate.
Fair enough, I think the sign carriers feel attacked by proposals that are farther to the left than they expected.
The media probably forments this kind of behavior by refusing to cover the president honestly. It leaves people feeling they have no voice and that the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Helplessness leads people to lash out in ways they would probably never consider.
When I talk of media I am not refering to Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest, I mean ABC,CBS, NBC, and the cable equivalents. If they had covered this even handedly instead trying to effect outcome Clinton or McCain would probably be handling these problems.
Like I said before, I want to write another post on this, but I haven't yet had the time. But I will make another comment here for now.
After 9/11, I saw an explosion of anti-Arab sentiment that I think fits the description of "racism." Some of that was from people who were pretty clearly racists prior to 9/11. These were the people that were using terms like "towel head" and "sand nigger" and the like in everyday conversation before that day. After 9/11, these people got much, much worse, because the events of 9/11 sort of gave them some sort of free pass, a justification of sorts, made their very base racism somehow noble or patriotic in their own eyes.
And then there were people who were not overtly racist prior to 9/11, but who were-- understandably, justifiably-- very, very angry over what had happened. In some of those people, I think that that anger, that need to lash out, churned up some ugly stuff that would have otherwise stayed buried. I heard decent people saying viciously racist things that I would not have expected from them prior to those attacks. People in my hometown were boycotting Arab-owned stores (and surrounding at least one of those stores with banners and posters with hate speech), civil conversation was difficult. Prejudices that had previously been controlled and made harmless, that were perhaps entirely unconscious, came to the surface in ugly ways. The fact that there was a very legitimate reason to be angry did not make that sort of racism any less ugly.
I think that there is similar stuff going on now. The catalyst this time is Obama. A very liberal president, coming to office in some very troubling times (a couple of wars, polarized populace, major economic problems), is suggesting some big changes that some people are afraid of, some are angry with. That president is black. So... legitimate frustrations provide fuel for uglier stuff. Again, you have the out and out racists going apeshit, emboldened by this. And you have people who would never have considered themselves racists suddenly very angry (for understandable reasons) with this guy, and maybe tapping into something a little less savory. The anger leads to lashing out in ways that are not cool... leads to people who should know better saying some pretty ugly things, playing on some ugly stereotypes.
I think it's okay to call this out. I think it's all of us to some degree (I don't believe any of us are truly 100% post-racial, liberated individuals), and it's some of us to an unacceptable degree. When we see it, we should call it for what it is without being accused of playing a "race card." When you see more and more people carrying bigoted posters or forwarding ugly emails or whatever, we should be able to call that to task. Hell, it should be the GOP doing this. It should be the Becks and Limbaughs and GOP senators chastising (loudly) the people doing this, saying "this is not who we are, cut it out right now." They're not doing a good job of that. Instead, when a liberal points to the problem, they pounce and play the victim.
But, like I said, I'll have more on this later, which will hopefully be more coherent.
Post a Comment