Hate Speech as to Obama and Clinton
Here's the thing about hate speech: you can't do it or usefully repeat it while attributing it to others. In both forms -- expression and comment about such expression -- racial and gender-based hate speech is becoming increasingly common in this election. All candidates, campaign staff, commentators, opinion writers, reporters, and media managers of all kinds should agree publicly and clearly to eschewing both hate speech and also speculations about the hatred that others will surely feel.
When one utters hate speech, as in "I hate so-and-so", you do wrong. You spark hatred in others and add to the misery of life.
But it is also true that when one repeats extensively the hate speech of others, as various writers have been doing just recently, one also does harm.
Hating and explaining in the major media that others are filled with hatred are both wrong, and both contribute to the misery of humanity.
It is, in any case, not news that some people hate. Nor is it analysis. Instead, talking about such hatred is meant, almost with exception, to attract attention and gather an audience. Those in that audience then feel that hatred is an unavoidable part of human nature simply because it has attracted an audience.
Moreover, look for a condemnation of hate by those in the media who describe such hating and you will rarely find it. Listen to a campaign aide who describes how racism or sexism are problems for a rival campaign and you will rarely hear that aide say that his or her candidate won't accept the votes of such racists or haters.
What can be done? John McCain should take the lead right now in shutting down on his side of the political spectrum the myriad racist and sexist expressions, comments, ruminations, and incipient funding efforts directed at promoting racist and sexist slurs. He has the moral stature to do it. He knows it is the right thing. Now is the time.
Nor should Democrats wax on about racial or gender-based hostility. The aides and surrogates of the campaigns should turn to other topics, exclusively.
And writers, reporters, commentators of all kinds should eschew racial and gender-based commentary. There are plenty of useful distinctions among the candidates: these distinctions are without meaning and should not be made.
This is not that hard a line to follow. In the workplace or classroom or televised sports chat show, racial and gender-based comments are avoided. Similarly, they are inappropriate in campaign conclaves or political speeches or op-ed pages or news stories or TV talk shows.
I hate the Bush/Cheney gang so much I had to hire 4 illegals to hate them while I slept.
February 26, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
February 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find my hate of the Bush/Cheney gang to be cathartic.
February 26, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, You have gotten me to actually make the effort to respond to a post! Of course I'll forget where I put it and not be able to come back to see if you posted anything brilliantly pithy in reply, but I just had to say -- your rejoinder was GREAT!
Don't you just HATE it that you can't find your own comments any more?
February 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be a blessing in disguise to some :-)
(not you)
February 26, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate it when people think they have the right to tell me what language I can and can't use when discussing politics and ideas.
February 26, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
February 26, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC Troll?
Prove it. When, where did Obama do this? Links please? Documentation?
Show me the beef.
February 26, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean only direct attacks from Obama himself.
I'm also talking about hate towards HRC by the tpm blogging community.
February 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it’s fair to say that there are those out there who are sexist and have treated Clinton to a heapin' helpin' of misogyny, to link Obama directly to the actions of ordinary bloggers, or even the MSM (e.g., MSN) is a cheap shot. Nor is it accurate to imply that she's losing her campaign solely because of the misogynistic headwind she sometimes faces.
One can also just as easily make the case that Obama has been the target of unfair attacks and comments based on his own unique and personal background and ethnicity. The most recent example was the traditional Somali garb trash. Why hasn't this worked similar “miracles” for HRC?
I'm not sure where you get by claiming the "Democratic progressive movement has made a hate against a strong woman mainstream". Again prove it. I'll cite some evidence for the opposite. Being from San Francisco - one of the most progressive/liberal cities in the country, and a stronghold of Democratic power, just look who we have as our Speaker of the House. California has two Democratic female senators, one of which was the mayor of S.F. before she was Senator. Are you just generalizing again, based on a few comments you read here?
Why McCain should not use hate against Michelle or Barack? There are plenty of reasons. But, I agree, he probably will sling mud - probably via surrogates. But that is different than whether or not he should. Certainly, if you're so offended by this kind of behavior, you don't really think he SHOULD use hate as a tool, do you? The consequences of this kind of campaigning only bear bitter fruit... and if that's something you take pleasure in, as you suggest, then I pity you.
February 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure where you get by claiming the "Democratic progressive movement has made a hate against a strong woman mainstream".
Maybe because his experience has been the same as mine? You know, posting exchanges with Obama supporters on various boards and hearing self-proclaimed 'democratic progressives' spew bogus wingnut lies from the 90's as to why they hate/can't stand/will never vote for Clinton. I often felt I was talking with republicans.
Just a guess.
February 26, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you were talking to a Republican. You can't always tell a troll from a legit supporter.
In any case, I'll grant that there's a few bad eggs in any group. And the Republican anti-Clinon smear campaign of the past 15+ years has been effective; many folks have bought the narrative including some who we'd hope would know better. To implicate Obama and his campaign, or denounce a whole "movement" for the deeds of others out of their control is just plain silly.
February 26, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indiex,
Grow up, So call progressives have no have no legimited claim to moral superiority over Republicans. There are some issues where Republicans are right, there are some issues where Republicans are right, so you have to choose what’re issues important for you, but don’t vote for Democrats because they are open minded or tolerant.
February 26, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hating and explaining in the major media that others are filled with hatred are both wrong, and both contribute to the misery of humanity.
This is overdrawn. Yes, it can be irresponsible to speculate idly about the hatreds others do feel or will feel, in the absence of firm empirical evidence. But surely if there really are certain kinds of intense hatred out there in the world, it is the media's responsibility to investigate it, to discover its extent and quantify it it to the extent possible, and to report back on it to the rest of us.
February 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coming off a ranting attack against Ralph Nader, Reed Hundt preaches about hate speech. I hate hypocrisy.
February 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems a bit weird frankly, to say that commentators should avoid gender and race based commentary when those two identity markers have driven the entire election up to now, particularly in the media.
I agree that racism and sexism should be roundly condemned, etc... but it makes me want to laugh that anyone would propose that the GOP agree in advance not to use their beloved and most often used tools (racism, sexism and hate in general) in the upcoming election. They've been winning elections with racism and hate especially for the past 40 years and now they are supposed to forswear their use? Get real.
Instead of such high-minded, but utterly unrealistic stuff, the Obamaites need to be preparing for the worst, but especially for the more subtle, insidious racist garbage. That's what Republicans are best at. The very idea they would even consider going into battle without their most trusted, effective weapons is not worth wasting time on because even if they say they won't do it, you know darn well that they will.
February 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also always find this kind of talk creepy coming from Reed Hundt. As a former FCC commissioner, Hundt was in a position to basically regulate speech. Now he's saying what's appropriate for op-ed and news pages? I hope Reed is never in a regulatory position ever again.
February 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute: I neither said a government agency should regulate speech, nor that Nader ought to be hated or stereotyped on racial, ethnic, religious, or gender-based grounds.
February 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In the workplace or classroom or televised sports chat show, racial and gender-based comments are avoided. Similarly, they are inappropriate in campaign conclaves or political speeches or op-ed pages or news stories or TV talk shows."
Who are you to tell other people what is or isn't appropriate expression?
February 26, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate two things: those who lack basic intolerance for others, and the Dutch.
Negative and even vitriolic negative attacks have been a part of our history since before the founding, and ever thus will it be so.
Despite all the negatives against him, I cannot imagine McCain condoning "hate" speech or coded language that highlight's Obama's race or ethnicity. Maybe I am naive.
But I do see 527s forming to do this, or whispering campaigns doing this. It will be a test of McCain's character to see how he responds.
Also, F the FCC. Just sayin'.
February 26, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the Dutch, Lars. In fact, the only thing I hate more than the Dutch are the people who hate them. Including myself.
I'm despicable.
February 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see McCain's reaction to the woman who asked him, "How do we beat the bitch?"
He laughed, said it was a good question, and then went on to say how he respected Hillary clinton. What a weasel he is.
February 26, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sentence needs to be fixed in order for joke to work: should be "those who lack basic tolerance for others," not "intolerance."
February 26, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lars,
Why do you hate the Dutch?
February 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since your piece on Nader, I've decided to hate you Mr. Hundt. So far it's working out pretty well. But if you're feeling miserable, I'll stop if you ask nicely. You tool.
February 26, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey dhorton79~ I know the suggestion that you advance to maybe dhorton80, or dhorton81 leaves you seething with anger and rolling around on the floor stomping and flailing ..... but, as I have learned myself by teaching my dogs over the years not to shit on my floor, if I keep repeating my discipline and expectation of better behavior eventually the dog and I move to a higher place.
February 26, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hollywood, you're right. You really are. Thanks, man. Everything is clearer now. I've considered my last post carefully and I've decided to evolve, to push for some personal development as it were. Hopefully to the benefit of the whole world.
Rather than shower hate upon Mr. Hundt, I'll follow his lead. Bear witness:
Mr. Hundt, the things you're writing are making people hate you. Clearly, given that hate breeds hate, you have an ethical imperative to stop writing or communicating your thoughts in any fashion.
I beleive you have the moral stature to do this. You know it is the right thing. Now is the time.
February 26, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
BAD DOG! BAD DOG!
February 26, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha. That was pretty funny Hollywood. Credit where credit is due.
All sarcasm aside, Reed's columns stike me as being too silly to be worth a damn. Certainly they don't come close to anything resembling actual political discourse.
Out of the domain of all the possible things to write, Reed goes with "play nice for the good of humanity". Really? I mean, come on! It isn't hyperbole to say that the Republicans, McCain included, are one of the strongest forces for evil in the world right now. This shit would make even Ghandi cringe.
February 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed you are being downright naive. We are in the middle of a campaign where Hillary has been the subject of nasty sexist attacks (primarily from the right) and Obama's race and heritage is under attack and you think we should stop talking about the subject and pretend it is not happening. If we do not say anything it will all go away. Get real.
February 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nor should Democrats wax on about racial or gender-based hostility. The aides and surrogates of the campaigns should turn to other topics, exclusively."
This is true, but there are also other reasons why. First, if you base your campaign on what the other side is saying, you let them determine the strategy. You're always playing defense. This is almost always a very poor idea. You need to play your OWN game, not your opponent's.
And second, the constant repetition of slurs - even to DENY them - increases the likelihood that they'll be accepted as truth. That's been discovered in psychological research. You're really damned if you do and damned if you don't, since you can't let them go completely unquestioned, either.
The solution? I'd say that Barack Obama has it exactly right. Deny the claims, briefly, and then MOVE ON. Get back to your own campaign strategy. Don't give your opponent's claims even more credibility by constantly bringing the matter to our attention. And play your own game, not your opponent's.
Denials don't work. But if people like you, they'll dismiss these claims (look at Ronald Reagan for a perfect example). At any rate, it won't help for voters to hear them over and over again from BOTH sides.
February 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed,
Yeah, I'm sure that McCain will follow your advice and shut down effectively an pre-emptively any possibility that some right wing group out there might attack Obama on what amounts to racial grounds.
Because good people won't stand for it, even though they would never have their fingerprints on it, and it might help them tremendously in winning elections.
How old are you, again?
February 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What will Mark Halperin say?
http://thepage.time.com/halperin%E2%80%99s-take-ways-mccain-can-beat-obama-that-clinton-cannot/
"6. Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama."
February 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on Halperin's piece about how Obama should use racism to beat Obama. Here's the link again. Here's another highlight:
11. Emphasize Barack Hussein Obama’s unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism.
February 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed, since it appears you're reading comments, in the vein of this post of yours, are you going to ask your former boss' wife to disavow the "Obama in native dress" photo? It's clear the photo is pandering to religious and possibly other stereotypes.
February 26, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear the photo is pandering to religious and possibly other stereotypes.
Huh? Then why did Obama put on the native garb and allow his picture to be taken? He did it because it's common to do so when visiting other countries. To me, it demonstrates that he 'gets it' in what is required/expected in many situations. That's a good thing.
Supporters seem to be ashamed of it. I can't undertand why.
Another thing I don't understand is why Obama supporters expect Clinton to repudiate the use of a public domain picture of Obama behaving appropriately on a visit to an African nation that was put up on a republican noise machine website? Did that picture affect you negatively?
February 26, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a pony.
No, he doesn't.
No he doesn't.
I think you have McCain confused with someone else. Maybe Barney.
February 26, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
Also, given many politicians have succeeded using race/religious/gender/etc. politics, this will not go away anytime soon. Nothing will curb the temptation to use divisive techniques like losing while using them. Obama has been pretty good in this regard, despite the trolls' claims. Should he win, it might signal to other politicians that they need not go ugly to win. Yet, to really demonstrate to campaign managers that identity politics is on the wane - if it is - then many more politicians need to win while taking the high road. We'll see.
February 26, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was supposed to be a reply to WCG.
February 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reply? What's a reply? Please hold your applause until the end.
February 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah Reed?
Well you know what else is wrong...?
DEMOCRATS EAT THEIR YOUNG....
After the years of service Hillary has given to working for the democratic cause, a new younger guy comes along, and they abandon her.
It is her time but there is no loyalty in the democratic party.
At least the republicans do not treat each other this way..
Just one more reason that If Obama is nominee, I will vote McCain.
February 26, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ destor23: "I hate it when people think they have the right to tell me what language I can and can't use when discussing politics and ideas."
So, you're saying that racial and ethnic slurs are a valid part of social and/or political dialog? I am with Mr. Hundt on this one, sorry. I find it creepy when people defend bigotry as "free speech." The concept of free speech is only implicated when a government forces a regulated party not to say something. By contrast, when one speaker condemns speech made by another speaker or speakers, that is not an imposition on free speech. Rather, it is a conversation. In the free exchange of ideas, some ideas are better than others. In fact, some ideas - racist and sexist ideas - are so inferior that they are worthy of condemnation. One thing I hate (cough) is when people defend the expression of an idea merely because it is an idea and it is being expressed, as though no one is in a position to pass judgment on someone for saying or thinking something. That's not free speech. That's moral relativism. Mr. Hundt is right, and you are wrong.
February 26, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
RaeK, by your argument, it would seem that Democrats eat their old.
No one deserves a nomination simply because they've "put the time in." It's not a question of loyalty, but of qualification. By the "service to the cause" argument, Biden or Dodd would have had the nomination signed, sealed, and delivered.
Given the candidates we have left, we're offered a choice between two very different styles of politics. We can embrace more of the same old tactics of division, fear- and hate-mongering, "us against them" politics. Or we can try a new strategy, and hope that we can finally move our country in a different direction. Yes, a leap of faith is required (in the Kierkegaardian sense - no particular "F"aith required). But we've seen what happens to Democrats who try to play the Republican divideNconqer game. We lose.
Given the choice between desperation and inspiration, I feel it is both smarter and more realistic to vote for inspiration.
February 26, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Are you just generalizing again, based on a few comments you read here?"
Please, "a few" ? How about "almost all"?
Let's agree that Obama deserves the same treatment, Clinton got in tpmcafe blogging community.
February 26, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, "a few" ? How about "almost all"?
My Obama fanboy experience has been much the same as yours I think. I'm retired and interested in politics so I have plenty of time to read and post across various forums. Coming into the primaries, I supported Clinton but, should she not win, I was ready to happily support Obama or Edwards. Meeting "the fan base" has been eye-opening.
February 26, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink