« Stray thought about the "indoctrination" speech .... | Elizabeth2's Blog | How come it was important enough in 2007 ..... »
The Last Word on Race (IMO)
A lot has been said - with good reason, I think - about the racial overtones or influences or biases connected to Joe Wilson's willingness to call our President a liar from the floor of the House and, in general, the attitude and decorum of some of the rest of the Republicans and, beyond that, the behavior of some citizens at public gatherings. But I think Eugene Robinson, in today's WaPo, goes right to the heart of the matter and, beyond his comments, I don't know what else can profitably said on the issue: (As you probably know, Eugene Robinson is African-American, who ...
interestingly in this conversation ... was born and raised in South Carolina.)
Robinson (discussing the behavior of Wilson and others toward President Obama and the purpose of the speech he was giving):
"You will note that I have not yet mentioned race. For the record, I suspect that Obama's race leads some of his critics to feel they have permission to deny him the legitimacy, stature and common courtesy that are any president's due. I can't prove this, however. And if I'm right, what's anybody supposed to do about it? There's no way to compel people to search their souls for traces of conscious or unconscious racial bias. We could have an interesting discussion about the historical image of the black man in American society, but that wouldn't get us any closer to universal health care."
By electing Obama, in my view, the American people -- as a whole -- have announced their verdict on race: it doesn't matter. (Or, if it does, it's way, it's way, way down on the list of important things that should to be considered when making any decision). We have decided that we are going to choose leaders (and heros and villans and friends) based on their actions and abilities, not skin color. In case there was any doubt, that's the way it is and is going to be in America.
So, now that there has been a national judgment on the issue, continuing to focus on it -- to look for or use 'racism' as an explanation or excuse for anything -- is simply pointless. In fact, it only gives power to those who are still racist, who still want it to be an open question and matter of dispute. We have chosen to leave those people in the past and in the dust. They'll catch up or drop off or self-implode in frustration. Whatever. Their choice.
If someone calls the President a n****r, then by all means racism goes right in the spotlight and we can all blast away at it (or defend it, I suppose). But if someone calls a black President a liar from the floor of the House, then we should deal with it as we would if someone called *any* President a liar in that setting. They can think whatever they want but it's their actions for which they are accountable. We have concluded, as a nation, that skin color doesn't matter, so let's don't behave - in our pollitical lives - as if it does. (There are, of course, continuing cultural, sociological, historial aspects that are of value and very much worth consideration.)
BTW, this is said not from any lack of sympathy for African-Americans (or any other minority) but rather out of respect and from a deep desire to truly have it, someday, totally behind us. We are all "hyphenated" in some respect (I guess I'm a WASP-American???), but the important thing is that we are all Americans. While we can't erase our upbringing and past and will still hear and recognize the dog-whistles ......................... we should remember that those things evenutally lose all power and relevance if the dogs stop responding.
Robinson (discussing the behavior of Wilson and others toward President Obama and the purpose of the speech he was giving):
"You will note that I have not yet mentioned race. For the record, I suspect that Obama's race leads some of his critics to feel they have permission to deny him the legitimacy, stature and common courtesy that are any president's due. I can't prove this, however. And if I'm right, what's anybody supposed to do about it? There's no way to compel people to search their souls for traces of conscious or unconscious racial bias. We could have an interesting discussion about the historical image of the black man in American society, but that wouldn't get us any closer to universal health care."
By electing Obama, in my view, the American people -- as a whole -- have announced their verdict on race: it doesn't matter. (Or, if it does, it's way, it's way, way down on the list of important things that should to be considered when making any decision). We have decided that we are going to choose leaders (and heros and villans and friends) based on their actions and abilities, not skin color. In case there was any doubt, that's the way it is and is going to be in America.
So, now that there has been a national judgment on the issue, continuing to focus on it -- to look for or use 'racism' as an explanation or excuse for anything -- is simply pointless. In fact, it only gives power to those who are still racist, who still want it to be an open question and matter of dispute. We have chosen to leave those people in the past and in the dust. They'll catch up or drop off or self-implode in frustration. Whatever. Their choice.
If someone calls the President a n****r, then by all means racism goes right in the spotlight and we can all blast away at it (or defend it, I suppose). But if someone calls a black President a liar from the floor of the House, then we should deal with it as we would if someone called *any* President a liar in that setting. They can think whatever they want but it's their actions for which they are accountable. We have concluded, as a nation, that skin color doesn't matter, so let's don't behave - in our pollitical lives - as if it does. (There are, of course, continuing cultural, sociological, historial aspects that are of value and very much worth consideration.)
BTW, this is said not from any lack of sympathy for African-Americans (or any other minority) but rather out of respect and from a deep desire to truly have it, someday, totally behind us. We are all "hyphenated" in some respect (I guess I'm a WASP-American???), but the important thing is that we are all Americans. While we can't erase our upbringing and past and will still hear and recognize the dog-whistles ......................... we should remember that those things evenutally lose all power and relevance if the dogs stop responding.
Advertisement
A laurel and hardy "rec" for this post as it gets across many of the same ideas that I and others here have suggested over the past few days. It's a shame that his race has to be brought up to show the "purity" of the content... but some of us didn't bother with that detail about ourselves. ;-)
September 11, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. And it wasn't really to show "purity" as much as to let others decide what "weight" they might want to give to the comments. (I'm the lawyer, remember? ) In truth, in matters like this, even I give greater weight to the opinion of someone like Robinson, who has been directly on the receiving end of racism, than I do my own.
That may seem to go against what I just said, but when you are talking directly about race and race relations, then I think the race of the speaker(s) is relevant and should be acknowledged. When you're talking about other matters -- like behavior in a public setting -- race may be still be relevant but there's really no point in talking about it.
September 11, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That the race issue is still with us only means we never left the 60's - it was put on hold.
September 11, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, beetle, it could also mean that much of the conversation you see in the news is by older folks. A quick polling of many people less than 30 years of age will reveal that many in *that* demographic are really race-blind, especially as you consider the middle class.
September 11, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's add "ignorant" in front of old people...many of us oldsters have risen above our unbringing and truly find race irrelevant, unless it is in understanding how far we have come in race relations and how far we still have to go.
September 11, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I agree with CT (in part) here. It is true what you say that many of us middle-age or over have had to, as you put it "rise above" the notions we grew up with.
My children (3 in their 20's) have friends that they describe with one adjective after another -- funny; irritating; tall; athletic; hot; annoying; freeloading; wonderful; interesting -- the whole gamut, but when I meet them, some are latino, some are black, one is an albino -- but that was never part of how they PERCEIVED them in terms of descriptives. That is huge, in my book.
How many people my age would leave out those last descriptives when telling a narrative to a cohort? It doesn't mean we are bigots; it just mean that this upcoming generation simply sees those things as irrelevant.
This is progress, and we should rightly claim our part in it. We actually worked at losing our prejudices; our children were raised without that necessity.
I don't mean for a moment that racism is passe; it is clearly alive and well in many people, especially in the republican base. I also believe that the general level of disrespect for our President in the republican party is because of his race; they use "socialism" and "killing granny" as excuses, but they feel justified because of his race. There is just way too much evidence to ignore it, and attribute their bullshit to "honorable" disagreement.
September 11, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with you, C'ville. It IS pretty awesome, when race isn't even part of the equation! And I also agree that it is what all this nonsense lately is all about. Goes back to the slapping lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. They can cry foul all they want, I'm not buying it.I can't PROVE it in a court of law, but I believe it. And it sucks. Big time.
September 12, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone young enough at heart to continue learning will never get old, stilli.
September 11, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I know is that when recently (ie a few months ago) a cross was burned on the front lawn of an African-American family it was chalked up to some teens just pulling a "prank."
September 11, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I guess some of you don't want to have to deal with incidents like that so forget I said it. We all have just moved beyond that racism thing.
September 11, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! Very well put!
September 12, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I greatly respect Mr Robinson, however I disagree on the issue of discussion of race/racism. During the Democratic Primary, the WaPo did an article about Hillary Clinton's dress and her cleavage. I thought the article was just stupid. Female acquaintances pointed out that the article was also sexist. I think learning about the feelings of that subgroup of women was important. I got to know how other Americans felt. Now when I read the WaPo's article about whether it is appropriate for Michelle Obama to wear shorts, I read the article with a slightly different perspective. Male politicians can be topless. The first lady's shorts are to be questioned. Interesting.
Mr Robinson sits at the WaPo where he is an editor and thus in the middle of DC goings on. Other African-Americans come home after work and watch prime time or cable news networks with no African-American anchors who are there on a regular basis. Many of the African-American guests on prime time cable news shows are reporters who are trained to provide "balance". Harold Ford Jr, the former Congressman from Tenn. appears on "Morning Joe", but again he often does not take a strong position on an issue. So viewers rarely get to hear a true representation of how Blacks feel on a given issue.
When issues such as Jena 6 arise, whites are left wondering, "Why are Blacks supporting a group of thugs", rather than hearing what the triggering events were causing the response.
Following Mr Robinson's advice means even less attention to how a segment of the United States population feels. Rachel Maddow gives me a refection of how gays and lesbians feel about issues such as marriage. I find her POV enlightening.
How is it more informative to take an issue of the table? South Africans addressed apartheid by directly confronting the issue. Did that empower those who supported apartheid or weaken them?
September 11, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think maybe the point is that it's time for both the left and right to grow up and start thinking about what really defines our views: our economic status.
There is still plenty of gray on the boundaries of that breakdown, but at some point if we are to really make racial progress in the country, we will cease to assume that (a) minorities vote as a "block" and (b) most minorities can be lumped together as a "superblock".
I still maintain that the Democrats didn't win over many of these minority groups as the GOP lost them. The Dems seem to be the party of accident as opposed to the party of planning. This is why that, despite the overwhelming majorities they form in government currently, they have done so little.
September 11, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, if the GOP is viewed as being racially biased, ethnic groups WILL vote as a block. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The GOP is ham-handed on issues of race. By not addressing the issue, they remain tainted.
How the Democrats got the bulk of the African-American vote becomes mute when the GOP steadfastly refuses to try to change their image. They come across as dismissive and arrogant.
Let's take a recent example, GW Bush got 20% of the African-American vote in Ohio by pitting Blacks against gay marriage. Churches were targeted by the GOP. 80% of African-Americans rejected the message, but the GOP got the 20%. After getting the 20% vote, the GOP dropped initiatives to appeal to African-American voters like a hot potato. African-American preachers and congregation members felt abandoned and were angered by the manipulation. Republican votes plummeted.
The Ohio vote manipulation of African-Americans is no different than the Southern Strategy manipulation of Whites. However, the impact on the African-American community is negative in both cases. In the case of Ohio, the voters were used as fools. In the Southern Strategy, Black voters were used as the enemy.
Obama won Latinos nationwide by a 2-1 margin. Obama got 95%-96% of the African-American voters. I doubt that the "wise Latina" Sotomayor attack gained the GOP more Latino votes, even in Florida.
Obama won the Latino vote in Florida. The Republicans may have given Obama more Latino votes after the Sotomayor hearings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/politics/07latino.html
To paraphrase Sen Tom Coburn M.D., the GOP got some "s'plainin" to do do ethnic communities. If the GOP doesn't talk about race, the party can forget blocks of ethnic voters.
September 11, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tone of your entire comment tends to confirm my point: Dems haven't attracted these votes as much as the GOP has lost them.
I say, once again:
The Dems seem to be the party of accident as opposed to the party of planning.
A politically savvy party would recognize that now is the time to actively lock in these groups while the GOP is lost in the wilderness.
September 11, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe the Dems are the party of Pelosi and Bayh. And so there will be no lockstepping. Especially when one of the underlying principles of party is embrace diversity. As opposed to the opposition party.
September 11, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Written before any of the last interchanges re: GOP and Dems.)
I appreciate - and actually agree with - your comments, rmrd0000. I really did toss an awful lot of life into this one throw-away statement: "(There are, of course, continuing cultural, sociological, historial aspects that are of value and very much worth consideration.)"
The sensitization that you mention is vitally important to our really understanding one another - ever. More, and more comfortable, discussion of race or other minority status is very important and very good - for us individually and for our country. Hey, that's how we got where we did in black/white relations. (Trust me, in the segregated south, average people rarely if ever *talked* about race in any meaningful way, you simply *lived* racial separation.) With guidance from Douglass, DuBois, NAACP, Eleanor Roosevelt, Baldwin, MLK and many, many others, we learned how to talk about it, to recognize our differences in perception and history and our even greater similarities as people. That, ultimately, is what made the change possible.
So I really wasn't meaning to suggest that we don't talk about race, or that we don't look at and freely discuss the continuing impact of past patterns and incidents of racism. What has become irrelevant are the racists.
Unlike people who are homophobic, there are no longer any laws that recognize racists' point of view or give them any deference, and with the last election the majority of the American people have said that there isn't even cultural, social support for their views. Their day is over. The things about racism that continue to be important in a political sense are the scars/heritage it has left us.
That's probably very unclear. In fact, I know it is, but I've been wrestling and erasing and re-writing and have to get back to work. I can't find the words now, but there IS a difference between talking *about* race, which is - I agree - very valuable and good - and deciding whether racism provides any sort of explanation or excuse or reason for specific behavior today. Morally, psychologically, sociologically, that latter inquiry may be a fascinating and important question, but as a matter of practical politics, it just doesn't matter any more. It's been stamped "unacceptable" in all respects in the law and in politics. Thank goodness.
(As to the Dem/GOP issue, as we leave racism behind, there will be fewer and fewer "ethnic voting blocks" -- There are racists in both parties and non-racists in both parties, and the relative proportion in the two parties has actually changed over time. It's going to become less and less important and I think that, as CT said, economic status and I would add education status the relevant dividing line. At least there's more logical reason for them to be.)
September 11, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is understood hat the country as a whole has made great leaps in race relations. I think that the difference may be that in the Black community, the idea that the racists are no longer important may meet some opposition.
September 11, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
RMRD, I think this is a great comment but it misses the point of what Robinson meant.
I understood him as follows: in the absence of proof, it's a waste of time to read the motives into the actions of Obama's opponents, especially when passing the health care reform is a priority.
September 11, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But in actuality, people are reading motives into comments. Ask Biden, the Clintons, or Obama.
I think I am just noting what actually happens in private communications between Black people. Dialog about how different groups of people see an event advances the discussion. Truth be told, the internet will be where a more truthful discussion will occur. Because of the makeup of news anchors and producers, there will be only rare glimpses of how ethnic groups other than Whites feel about certain topics or comments.
African-Americans might say "Since we don't get to be the news anchor or choose the news story, at least hear us out when we feel a comment has crossed the line."
High risk loans were being sold to minorities who qualified for regular loans, this should have been common knowledge in the discussion on housing foreclosures for everybody. Letting a group of people in the population know that they are targeted as prey by lenders is important information. Additionally letting other groups know how lenders took advantage of minorities is important knowledge for everyone. The current sense is that minorities didn't study up enough when buying a house, rather than the lender approached a minority buyer with a different plan than other groups.
Since these stories, which impact lives more significantly than Joe Wilson's comment are not being told, the respond to following Mr Robinson's advice will be even further indication to the Black community that the "news" does not care about "us".
September 11, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, but, again, I think Robinson talks about speculating and/or assigning racist motives to Wilson's heckl.
I should have been more clear in my comment to say "Wilson" as opposed "Obama's opponents".
September 11, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended.
September 11, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some other vaired viewponts to consider:
http://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/
September 11, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the links, wendy. I think whites who have progressed beyond racism cannot understand why comments like the ones from Joe Wilson set off triggers.
Interestingly enough, even on the internet, there is a tendency towards segregation. The bulk of comments on a site made up mostly of whites may find discussion of Wilson's racist intent unimportant.
On a site trafficked mostly by African-Americans, the posts may wonder why Wilson has not been censured.
We all go where we need to go to get our psychological reinforcement I guess.
September 11, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is the most racist comment coming from you. Unless someone long ago has self-identified as "white" or "black", we really don't know the racial make up of the poster. Your assumption is too broad brushed -- and discounts some of us who have "white" opinions... merely because *you* they don't agree with *you.* Because I can't see how you can claim knowledge of someone's race here.
The very nature of a mix of opinions in a single racial group shows significant racial progress -- because it means the issues aren't merely based on skin color.
Without pictures and other clues, would you identify Condeleeze Rice as black for example? Clarence Thomas? Would you identify Ted Kennedy as "white"? Please don't presume racial profiling on the basis of opinion. Because I can state with certainty I know your batting average in that regard isn't 1.000.
That's why all this Internet forum expression is such an interesting experiment. ;-)
September 11, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll hone in then. Elizabeth2 said she was a WASP. She quoted from Eugene Robinson, who is African-American. I said that I disagreed with Mr Robinson. Thus clearly there are Blacks and Whites who feel that trying to ferret out a motive in a comment is of no value.
I do think that websites that are mainly composed of Whites may wind up with different points of view than websites mainly composed of African-Americans.
From Elizabeth2's comment, I took the liberty of thinking that she was of "pure" thought and had evolved to a level of racial equality.
I do believe that many blacks might want a pound of flesh from Rep Joe Wilson. I believe given the racial makeup of TPM, it is likely that other Whites are at a similar level. I stand by the statement.
Maybe this tidbit will help, when the LA Times recently reported that the support for Obama had dropped 10 points among White voters. I said, Hmmm. I didn't read the article. I waited a day and went to Nate Silver's site. Silver pointed out that Obama's support had dropped 10% among various groups including Latinos. Thus the LA Times article was misleading by singling out Whites as an anomaly. Obama lost only 3% in support among African-Americans, a finding that was not surprising to me.
By not trusting the LA Times headline on face value and waiting for an analysis from Nate Silver, I was able to maintain my blood pressure at 116/75, by avoiding the societal stress that could have occurred if I had read the LAT article first.
I also maintain my blood pressure and heart rate by blogging. Periodically, I venture over to Hip-Hop Republican, which has been silent on the Joe Wilson comment. I disagree with most of the posts, but it does give me exposure to a different group of African-Americans. The site also does a good job of exploring certain African-American historical facts.
In closing, I had the WASP-American comment by Elizabeth2 in mind when I posted.
September 11, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Pew has noted that Obama's slide tends to come from those whites with less salary and less education. But they only break down black/white. Your posting gives me pause -- good thinking!
September 11, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And:
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/
Lots of great blogs on the Right column)
September 11, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Varied, sorry...senior dyslexia, oh my dog.
September 11, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the links -- I always like Ta-Nehisi Coates and don't know why I didn't think to see what he had to say about this. Interestingly, despite the generational differences, he seems to come to roughly the same place that Robinson (definitely older than Coates) and I (sigh - definitely older than Robinson!!) do:
"I think a lot of us see a racial angle in a white South Carolina congressman yelling at the President and interrupting his speech to the nation. I'm not prepared to go there. Knowing this country, it's history, and some of South Carolina's particular history, I have my suspicions. But I hate these arguments in which we try to go back and forth over a contention, that's basically unprovable.
* * *
But the fact is that we aren't mind-readers. Let's stick with what we know, and say the dude did something incredibly stupid. His motivations are between him and his God. He has to sleep with himself at night--not us. He must pay his own debts."
That's a big contrast to his quite thorough discussion of the issue
http://www.slate.com/id/2186553/
when reacting to the *directly* race-related statements of Bill O'Reilly, Don Imus and Geraldine Ferraro. (Boy! When asked to think of three famous people you'd like to have join you in a dinner conversation, I bet very few would come up with THAT combination!)
Maybe it's just that simple: race is certainly important - it definitely should be something we learn to comfortably discuss whenever relevant or simply interesting - racist attitudes and actions definitely should be called out when they are exhibited -- but race doesn't have to be grabbed and inserted into every dispute where it might have played a role. Somehow - and I can't quite explain it - that seems to cheapen or demean the fight against real, proveable racist behavior and, even more difficult to explain, to drive a wedge between blacks and whites.
There is plenty that is clearly, indisputably objectionable about what Wilson did, and what he did was offensive to all of us Americans (at least all who respect the President or even just the Presidency). There's no need to speculate on his deep inner motivations may have been. Possibly racism, possibly dilike of people from Illinois, short man syndrome, trouble with authority figures, anything. Who cares? As Coates said, that's between him and his God (or, I would add, psychiatrist).
September 11, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the comments on the Jack & Jill site. It is a glimpse of vices not heard in MSM. Some commentary may be rough, but it's what's being said in the barbershops.
September 11, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html
30 death threats a day - up 400% from Bush's average. As much as I like what you've written, Elizabeth2, I really do fear the "last word" on race. As long as that figure pertains - 30 threats per day - we need to keep the race discourse open. I love Eugene Robinson too, but dang, the CONTEXT of Wilson's quip is 30 death threats a day.
September 11, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not know this Neo. Thank you for this. I hate just pulling some guess out of my....
Well, again, thank you.
September 11, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. Sad.
September 11, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. Puts in context perfectly. It is like the Southern Poverty spokeperson who said that they saw a rise in militia with Bill Clinton but nothing like what is happening now. It is a matter of the intensity being at a 9 rather than a 5.
September 11, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What else really needs to be said to prove the obvious.
The very idea that the nation has somehow decided race doesn't matter is, well, unbelievable given what is going on all around us. A majority of voters chose Obama and it was not an overwhelming majority. A huge fraction of those voting against Obama are white racists and were extremely virulent during the election as you may recall. If you don't, then you weren't paying attention. They did not hide their racism in many cases and those that did, did so only minimally. It is obvious that race is motivating all the outrageous and hysterical agitation. It could not be clearer that racism animates the Republican Party right now and if it weren't for racism the Republican Party would be moribund.
Our side won the election, we have by no means won the war for America that the other side is fighting while our side continues dithering whilst trying to determine whether or not to ignore the legions of racists organizing all across the country and arming themselves to the teeth.
Wake up folks! It is going to get much worse before it gets better and our side better start fighting back from Obama on down or we're going to see nastiness like has not been seen in over a century in our country.
September 12, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just have one question.
Regardless of the color of the man's skin: Is he not our elected President of the United States?
And should he not, therefore, earn the respect due him?
Sure, I hated Bush after a while, but I sure still gave him the respect due him while he sat in office.....for the most part.
September 11, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And why now after all the presidents and all the partisanship bickering in modern times did a congressman feel safe enough to utter such disrespect. Mere coincidence?
September 11, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Parents pull their children out of school so the children will not have to listen to Obama. Govs Perry and Pawlenty talking secession. Eric Cantor attending a Glenn Beck 912 rally. The death threat level. A Southern Rep yelling out liar. How much more evidence do people need?
Are the Republicans actively trying to get Obama killed?
September 12, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not question their motives, just what they say. They will do whatever they can to tear him down. They want him to fail. That is all we can know and all we can deal with at this point, although Beck has called Obama a racist.
September 12, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It really isn't all we know...my uncle, who I have blogged about before is one of the gun toting lunatics that openly hate Obama because he is black. Everytime I hear of an "incident" I am afraid I am going to look up at the t.v. and find that it is him.
Don't for a minute think this is a coincidence...it is deeply rooted in racism. I can't prove it...he uses all the "secret words" but I know him, and I know what he means. And he isn't alone.
September 12, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying close our eyes and let down our guards. Be hyper-vigilant! I am not opposed to that. But I advocate no arrests until crimes are committed, crimes that we feel we can prove. I'm more then happy to lock up the racists bastards, preferably in a prison where there is no aryan brotherhood. I'm not naive, Stilli, but deliberate. I choose the battles I can win.
September 13, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote the following:
"If someone calls the President a n****r, then by all means racism goes right in the spotlight and we can all blast away at it (or defend it, I suppose). But if someone calls a black President a liar from the floor of the House, then we should deal with it as we would if someone called *any* President a liar in that setting"
But no other President has ever been heckled by a member of the House or Senate during a joint session of Congress until this past Wednesday. This is the only time in the history of the republic that this has occured. The only time. The heckling was absolutely unprecedented. Gee, wonder why that is? It's pretty easy to determine that Congressman Cracker from the home of secession: South Carolina, was seething with race hatred and felt no obligation to show the current President of the United States the courtesy all other Presidents have always been shown. You could see it on his face as it is so easily seen on the faces of the tea baggers, etc... If Obama was white, Wilson would still be an obscure racist southern Congressman.
September 12, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your partisanship contradicts itself, oleeb. "Only time it has occurred?" People used to bring knives into the legislative chambers -- fist fights broke out. Only time is modern times? Perhaps. Does it matter?
Of course, you can claim decorum and then spit on it at the same time. "Congressman Cracker"? Is that respect for a US Elected Rep? You can't have it both ways -- you are stuck respecting the office... so you can call Joe Wilson a name, but not Congressman Joe Wilson.
And the coupe de grace: malign South Carolina. Condemn an entire state for the actions of one representative? And moreover, condemn the entire state for something that happened 160 years ago?
Get real.
I'm tired of the namby-pamby Democrats on this one. Ever play Monopoly with someone constantly bringing out the rule book? It becomes annoying Poindexter-like behavior.
I'm all for a smack down. You know how the Dems should deal with the outburst?
Forget your whining.
Forget your crying.
Forget calls of "decorum".
Forget calls of "respect of office".
Forget censure.
Forget a PR campaign.
Forget it all.
If you really want to smackdown the GOP outburst - you take your damned majority and cram this bill down the GOP throats and tell them that they will swallow it all the way and not puke it up.
The rest is effete schoolboy posturing. And people who do that, don't deserve to get bills passed.
September 12, 2009 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do not know what you're talking about.
There has never once in our nation's entire history been an instance of the President of the United States been heckled during a joint session of Congress. Never. Bringing up instances of incivility of members of Congress for each other is not analagous or equivalent in any way, shape or form.
September 12, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never before this past Wednesday that is.
September 12, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"you take your damned majority and cram this bill down the GOP throats and tell them that they will swallow it all the way and not puke it up"
Politically, economically, and morally, I agree. Get it done and allow history to do the validation.
But, I do think it is appropriate and to speculate on motives behind GOPers' behaviors. Liberal thought (perhaps to its detriment politically) seeks understanding. And, I for one cannot understand the behavior of many Republicans in recent times.
Repub's positions on Healthcare reform are incoherent at best. Is it not completely astonishing that one could simultaneously praise and vow to defend Medicare and then not even be open to discussing a similar program that helps another demographic in need? Especially, given that we essentially already cover medical bills of that demographic albeit, inefficiently. The argument for a government solution to healthcare reform are clearly supported by logic, economics, and experience.
The Repubs have virtually no legs to stand on. And we liberal (not necessarily politically liberal) thinkers are perplexed to say the least. I for one am interested in understanding why. And I believe that there are practical and important reasons to do so.
There are millions of people who at least appear viscerally opposed to "healthcare reform". And yet, given the body of objective evidence it simply makes no sense. So what the fuck are the people thinking (not necessarily the GOP politicians) - but the people. What drives masses to react so irrationally? I am very concerned about what people who think this way are capable of.
So yeah, the face of the healthcare debate should not include speculation on Wilson's motives as it detracts significantly from the importance of passing the reform. I wish Pelosi would drop it. There are plenty of other high roads to take from a practical standpoint. Because, even suggesting that racial bigotry might be contibuting factor is bound to move the debate where it should not be with respect to healthcare. However, it remains a valid and important topic on understanding what is making the birthers, deathers, and secessionitsts tick. And someone probably will eventually cross an even bigger line than the on Wilson did.
I suspect that racism plays a bigger role than what we want to believe. Imagine if some pollster has the courage to pose pointed questions to republican southerners such as "Would you favor returning to seperate but equal policy in your state"? or "Would it be better for America if the President were assissinated"? "Are white people better equipped to handle important matters"? I think the results would be scary.
September 12, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still can't buy the "it's racism" argument. I remind (as others have) the "Bill Clinton is a murderer" meme that went wildly viral among these same people -- and that was the early days of the Internet.
People are irrational because they are people. You may want to take a look at George Lakoff's most recent book which makes a very interesting link between neuroscience and the political mind. (Lakoff being a well-respective neuroscience speaks with a great deal of authority on that topic and he is a political liberal so you will find the tone comforting.)
September 12, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reference. I will check it out.
September 12, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder why WaPo would be the place where a progressive would go to learn about how to think about race in the US. Would the following words from Tim Wise be allowed on its op-ed page?
Or how about this from the Black Agenda Report:
September 12, 2009 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do understand people questioning Wilson's racial impetus for yelling "You lie." I thought so when I heard him.
But my take was Immigrant/Alien fear-fervor, not so much about "the Black."
There are so many Mexican immigrants being detained in cruel and unusual ways along the southern border, and so many Muslim-americans quaking in their boots since it's 9/11 week, and the conversation always goes to Black racism. I wish we could widen the discussion sometimes.
September 12, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think is behind the immigrant fear other than racism? What planet are you living on?
September 12, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get that it's racism; I thought the bulk of the "racist" accusations have been about Black racism and Obama. Am I reading it wrong?
Full disclosure: there are times I don't know what planet I'm living on. Melmac?
September 12, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well yes, but Wilson, like most white racists, is a racist both against Mexicans and black people and anyone else who is not 100% white. His racist hatred for Obama's blackness is what prompted the heckling. Those crackers don't think they owe any respect to black people. His racism against Mexicans is only a secondary motivator and a distant one.
September 12, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record --- I'm not insane or blind. I chose an overstated subject heading. My bad.
Of course this isn't the "last word" on on the topic of race; of course we should continue to talk and learn about race and how racial attitudes affect all of us; and OF COURSE our President's race is behind so much of what has been thrown at him (and will be in the future) and, far worse, what threatens him. I - and Robinson and Coates - were talking about race as a possible factor in motivating Wilson to act as he did. That can't be proven and so what if it was: he insulted the President of all of us and the Presidency itself. Does speculating on a possible racial motivation behind his actions make those actions any less or more offensive?
If Lee Harvey Oswald had been a virilent anti-Catholic or segregationist, would that have made his act any more or less a tragedy for all of us? No. As with Wilson's actions, but on a far greater scale, the act is profoundsly damaging, whatever the motive. It impacts us all - equally - not more or less because of the color of our skin. The atmosphere of ugliness and hate (present also in 1963) is offensive and dangerous, whatever the source of the hate.
September 12, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: comments on the JFK assassination: God you are good, Elizabeth2! Thanks for another great blog and the discussion it induced.
September 12, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am on a public computer and can't get your comment above (about swallowing) to copy, but if I hadn't been in the library I would have stood up and cheered!!! Not real practical, but the thought of it made me smile big time!
September 12, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink