Sotomayor, Lindsay Graham, and "inspiration"
How did we regress to the point in America where we think there's an equivalence of some kind between trying to "inspire" ethnic minorities and the white majority?
That seems to be the takeaway from Graham's questioning of Sotomayor for her "wise Latina" comment.
Sonya Sotamayor basically said that she was trying to inspire young Latinas to believe in themselves and believe that they have something to add to our society and can make a difference, etc.
If, however, a white judge were to go in front of a mostly white audience of young, would-be lawyers, legislators and future judges, make similar comments about being white, it just wouldn't be equivalent. It would be ugly and racist. It would look like a Klan rally.
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, there is a huge, huge difference between ethnic MINORITIES and the dominant majority of any nation. Obviously. It's one of those "duh" things. Or should be. It's soooo obvious, it seems to have been lost on much of the GOP.
It looks like Sotomayor walked her comments back, and she shouldn't have to. This nation should be beyond that. We should be mature enough to understand the profound difference between minorities and dominant majorities, the history of racism, discrimination, and just the "real politik" of unequal power distribution.
History tells us there is no danger in a democracy when it comes to inspiring virtually powerless ethnic minorities, and there can be great upside. It also tells us there is great danger in trying to whip up any dominant majority against those minorities.
In short, the powerless minority has, almost by definition, no power to hurt the dominant majority, but the reverse is not the case.
There is no equivalence in Graham's scenario.
Advertisement
I was on twitter when Lindsey Graham was grilling Sotomayor. The tweets registered on the richter scale. Here is one tweet from a columnist that I found particular interesting: "
Graham to Sotomayor: Do you have empathy
for white men accused of racism who won't be on SCOTUS?"
July 15, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahhahaha. I do not twitter. I mean I rarely go anywhere. And here I can have more than 140 'characters' to work with.
Thanks for that.
I would not be good on twitter anyway. I would just keep going:
Dear Senator Sessions: Go fuck yourself
Dear Senator Cronyn: God fuck yourself.
hahahahahaa
July 16, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's interesting that some of my Democratic lawyer friends found Graham to be the most consistent and fair of all republicans questioning her.
it's also interesting how she was practically DENYING being a liberal.
clearly, she was always going to get confirmed. but I find her explanation of "wise latina" (oooh, my bad-taste metaphor fell flat! six times! over several years!) to be ridiculous.
July 15, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That "denying being a liberal" thing is interesting. I was thinking about that this week. I heard Donna Shalala on NPR basically saying the same thing about herself.
It's a given right now that liberals and progressives feel the need to defend themselves by saying they aren't liberals and progressives. That's too strange.
I never hear conservatives do that.
The baseline for the establishment right now is conservative. And, yes, that includes the MSM. Contrary to the incessant whining of the right, the MSM is centrist at best, not liberal at all, and often outright conservative.
In public, conservatives are not expected to defend being conservative, or too conservative. Liberals and progressives are, and THEY'VE internalized right wing memes. They've internalized the critique of the right and, perhaps, unknowingly, apply it to themselves.
America lost its liberal consensus in the early 70s. Conservatism has dominated the establishment scene for nearly four decades. The right is in charge. Yet they spend, it seems, most of their anger, their energy, their time and money battling an enemy that no longer exists. At least one that no longer has any power.
Another major irony: Sotomayor's record is also centrist at best, and often downright conservative. The right should cheer on her selection. Leave it to the Dems to feel the need to appoint centrist judges when they run the show. The GOP never seems to feel the need to do that.
July 17, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I have watched or listened to these particular Congressional hearings ever since the Bork nomination. It seems to me there is a pattern on both sides of the aisle. One side tosses softballs while the opposing side pitches nasty curve balls; it depends on who is nominated and who does the nominating.
Nothing has changed with this hearing.
July 15, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pure Kabuki theater. Irrelevant. That said, I agree that Lindsey Graham has posed the most thoughtful questions... of the people who are actually asking any (i.e. - The party that didn't nominate the current confirmation candidate).
I was particularly impressed with his "absent a total meltdown, you'll be confirmed." How's that for realpolitik.
As for the OP, I think a lot of latino citizens would find it offensive that people think... No, stronger than that... Are as a matter of political correctness -expected- to think... that they require "inspiration" in a way that their white classmates do not.
Talk about paternalism.
July 15, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The need for inspiration is there because they have more obstacles to overcome.
That's the nature of any society when it comes to ethnic minorities. America is no different.
Historically, in fact, America has a pretty rotten record generally, when it comes to ethnic minorities.
America ranks near the bottom of all nations when it comes to treatment of its indigenous population. It committed genocide on most Native American tribes, lied to them about treaty after treaty, and set up a reservation system that all but guarantees them a life in poverty. America dragged on legal slavery and legalized racial discrimination longer than the vast majority of nations in the world. It was the worst in the West when it came to the above.
It's not "paternalism" to suggest that young ethnic minorities need a boost above and beyond the boost needed for the dominant majority. It's just common sense, based upon history, logic, and the real world.
July 17, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink