Dear Mr. Beck,
I am struggling with the joys of post-racial politics in America.

See, in a post-racial America, when we see a member of Congress break all traditional rules of decorum and respect by shouting, "You lie!" at the President of the United States during a joint session, we say to ourselves, "That was so rude, he should be censured; his emotions got the better of him."

In a post-racial America, we say, "well of course he is against reform-- his top campaign contributors are health care professionals. Money and corruption remains a very powerful force in American politics."

Sometimes the really savvy observers in a post-racial America speak not of race, but of generic othering--  the grouping of someone into a scary category by accusing them of being Marxist, communist, fascist, Hitleresque, Heath Ledger Jokeresque, or liars. People can do that to anybody of any party and of any race, e.g. George W. Bush. This is just a feature of the coarseness of contemporary political dialog.

But in this post-racial America, if someone wonders if this, by all accounts, unprecedented effrontery was in any small way related to emotions embedded in racial themes that are part of our collective history and psyche, well, such a ponderer is herself or himself a racist, trapped in the old America. Yes, in the post-racial America, erasure is paramount, so when a white Congressman from South Carolina, born into the segregated south in 1947, whose two political mentors were Strom Thurmond and Floyd Spence (fellow South Carolinians who were members of the States' Rights Democratic "Segregation Forever!" Party), cannot contain himself when in the presence of the first African American president in U.S. history, we cannot discuss these possible influences on the emotions that caused his outburst. Surely they would be irrelevant to the ideas of a policy maker from South Carolina, a state that holds firm to the Confederate Flag, that refused to honor the federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr., and is home  to GOP operative Mike Green who likes to tweet knee-slappers like: "JUST HEARD OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT'S WHITE AND IT WORKS." That, too, is Post-racial America.

So Mr. Beck, you seem to have this labeling thing down, knowing just when it is okay to call someone a racist, so I am wondering if you could tell me about the gentleman from South Carolina, the Honorable Addison Graves "Joe" Wilson, Sr. (R - SC). Since he apologized, nevermind. Forget I even mentioned any of this. Please.

Kilpatrick texts are the photo essay?

a) Are you guys fucking serious?
b) Is this an attempt to gain fair & balanced credentials at the expense of journalistic merit?
c) Is this some obviously not very "post-racial" voyeurism into the lives of some bourgeois Black people?
d) Is this TPM's version of Star/People/National Enquirer style compassion (see Rhianna/Chris Brown)?
e) It was written?

i am deeply disappointed with the results of the prop 8 ballot, but i don't understand why andrew sullivan continues to want to lay this at the feet of african americans; his use of exit polls is selective at best. if we are going to win future battles, we need to diagnose the loss properly.

1. african americans made up 10% of the ~10 million votes cast; with a 70/30 split, this means ~700k african americans voted for inequality. well so did ~970 latinos and ~432k asians/others; the margin we lost by is currently at ~427,000. so why not say we lost because of those asian/others? (cuz that's wrong too)

2. even if african americans voted like "enlightened" whites did, 49% yes to 51% no, we would have lost by ~220k votes.

3. what about people 65 or older? ~945k voted for inequality; white and 65 or older? ~672k voted for inequality. So is this not as much generational as about race?

4. the split between yes and no was most extreme along party lines with 81% of republicans, or ~2.27 million, voting for inequality. the number among white republicans? also 81% or ~1.86 million voting for inequality. ideology played a far more significant role than race, and african americans are overwhelmingly democrats.

clearly,due to the role certain christian churches have played in african american communities, there is deep homophobia therein; the same can be said for latinos and catholicism. religion is the primary culprit here, not race, and this dovetails with the secondary culprit, republican conservatism, as evidenced by the numbers.  if we want to harp on african americans because of the irony of a once legally discriminated against group supporting legal discrimination against another group, that's fine, but that that will only get us intellectual kudos. if we want to win, african american preachers like... ah rev. wright.... who welcome openly gay and lesbian members into their congregations and preach against homophobia as a form of hatred, need to be engaged... and latino pastors.... and white pastors. it would also help if white gay and lesbian people would open their eyes to the racism within the lgbt community and start engaging with communities of color on points of conflict in urban areas like gentrification, employment, mass incarceration and political  representation.

saddened but not defeated,
g.ken patton

i am deeply disappointed with the results of the prop 8 ballot, but i don't understand why andrew sullivan continues to want to lay this at the feet of african americans; his use of exit polls is selective at best. if we are going to win future battles, we need to diagnose the loss properly.

1. african americans made up 10% of the ~10 million votes cast; with a 70/30 split, this means ~700k african americans voted for inequality. well so did ~970 latinos and ~432k asians/others; the margin we lost by is currently at ~427,000. so why not say we lost because of those asian/others? (cuz that's wrong too)

2. even if african americans voted like "enlightened" whites did, 49% yes to 51% no, we would have lost by ~220k votes.

3. what about people 65 or older? ~945k voted for inequality; white and 65 or older? ~672k voted for inequality. So is this not as much generational as about race?

4. the split between yes and no was most extreme along party lines with 81% of republicans, or ~2.27 million, voting for inequality. the number among white republicans? also 81% or ~1.86 million voting for inequality. ideology played a far more significant role than race, and african americans are overwhelmingly democrats.

clearly,due to the role certain christian churches have played in african american communities, there is deep homophobia therein; the same can be said for latinos and catholicism. religion is the primary culprit here, not race, and this dovetails with the secondary culprit, republican conservatism, as evidenced by the numbers.  if we want to harp on african americans because of the irony of a once legally discriminated against group supporting legal discrimination against another group, that's fine, but that that will only get us intellectual kudos. if we want to win, african american preachers like... ah rev. wright.... who welcome openly gay and lesbian members into their congregations and preach against homophobia as a form of hatred, need to be engaged... and latino pastors.... and white pastors. it would also help if white gay and lesbian people would open their eyes to the racism within the lgbt community and start engaging with communities of color on points of conflict in urban areas like gentrification, employment, mass incarceration and political  representation.

saddened but not defeated,
g.ken patton

Oct. 11, 2008
David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall
McClatchy Newspapers

As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Read full article here.

Let's not get totally distracted by Palin; this kind of ideological subterfuge will have long term consequences if it goes unchallenged. This is the first campaign in recent memory in which fundamental conservative economic gospel-- free (when convenient) markets, trickle down theory, privatization of public goods (social security, health care, etc.)-- has been a part of the political debate, and much of this has to do with the financial crisis. Acquiescing to these false, partisan, racially-tinged attacks on legislation designed to end documented institutional racism also means ceding important ground about the fundamental role of government in preserving our national economic interests.
gkp

As of 10pm pst, Drudge still has no mention of the Troopergate report and Palin's violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act up on his site. Seems breaking news is not as important as hyping erroneous youtube videos that blame the financial crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act.

The basic argument [is] that the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to loan to all people and, therefore, precipitated the sub-prime crisis and irresponsible people getting loans they couldn’t afford.

The Drudge Report happily hyped this video and injected it into the conservative blogosphere. From there, the CRA meme caught like wildfire. Soon, we were seeing it in top conservative blogs and even on the op-ed pages of major newspapers. 

It is now an article of faith among many conservatives that the housing crisis is rooted in the CRA - and, in turn, the millions of people of color who were able to obtain mortgages through it.

This argument is not only morally repugnant, but simply factually off-base.

i saw the referenced video a couple of weeks ago and it is a true piece of race-baiting, partisan hackery that was designed to generate votes for mccain. at that time, i noticed it only had roughly 60,000 views, so i wasn't too concerned. it now has an accumulated 1.7 million views and counting thanks to drudge. so we've got a lot of catching up to do-- while not as powerful as video, this piece gets the basic record straight.

The gist:

The basic argument [is] that the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to loan to all people and, therefore, precipitated the sub-prime crisis and irresponsible people getting loans they couldn’t afford.

The Drudge Report happily hyped this video and injected it into the conservative blogosphere. From there, the CRA meme caught like wildfire. Soon, we were seeing it in top conservative blogs and even on the op-ed pages of major newspapers.  It is now an article of faith among many conservatives that the housing crisis is rooted in the CRA - and, in turn, the millions of people of color who were able to obtain mortgages through it.

This argument is not only morally repugnant, but simply factually off-base.

I'm not going to get into whether I agree or not with the tactic, but certainly McCain and other republican blow-hards might want to shut up about Obama naively wanting to invade Pakistan.

really hope this guy is just being coy and wants to be bound by duty to join the ticket; despite the risk of losing a senate seat, i think he would help seal the deal. btw, his comments on incarceration in this country are spot on-- there needs to be a serious national dialogue about not just how we ended up going from a prison population of  200,000 to 2 million + in a little more than 30 years, but how dwe deal effectively with 750k people coming back from prison every year without skills, services or community. a sad footnote to this crisis is that the '96 crime bill that Clinton signed was one of his classic triangulation moves that only exacerbated this american tragedy.

Anyway, on the VP stakes, as i've sad elsewhere, i'm putting my money on long shot chet edwards. 

rationale for edwards: geographic balance, record of winning in gop territory, strong military support, in line with obama on other issues, white male in his late 50s. weakness is that he comes from the house of reps, no major executive experience.

rationale for why others fall out the mix: sebelius, richardson offer one too many firsts; webb, strickland and rendell have all pulled themselves from the process; warner is needed to gain a senate seat; control of the senate is critical, so dodd and biden, like webb, are staying put; hagel disagrees on every position obama holds besides the war, but he will pop up in the cabinet; powell is too tainted by iraq though he will likely pop up in the cabinet; bayh is too young; j.edwards won't run a second time as vp, but should get new cabinet level position on poverty; clinton brings too much bill baggage, will likely get debt relief and a first look at a supreme court slot. could be another sleeper out there with military experience that i've missed, but i think cats like clark and zinni are already out the mix.

thoughts?

gkp

Yes, I get the joke. Yes, I was raised on Pryor and Carlin, I know how to laugh. But there is something about the "unintended consequences" that go along with this absolutely, unequivocally protected free speech that still bugs me.  I'm certainly glad we are not so fragile that we cannot have this in the public square, but that doesn't mean it is not damaging. A quick perusal through the comments section on Politico and other sites will show that this image will serve as a campaign poster for McCain, for the intractable racists in this country, for the subconsciously biased liberal among us, among others. Images are powerful, and they quickly lose context or shed the explanations of their creators. Think about that wall of magazines in every newsstand,  airport, corner store... very little time to read the fine print. Not to mention the lack of exploration about what White Americans actually know versus what they think they know about the Civil Rights Movement, the Black Power Movement or even Bin Laden's "jihad against America." Perhaps my real gripe is that the quality of the dialogue that will follow this latest "controversy" will again, likely, disappoint. The punditry will say whatever their demographic target is supposed to hear, bloggers will throw words like racism around carelessly and debate what is and what isn't, and in the end, the potential for discussion will end up mere talk-- the news cycle will move on and nobody will process the deeper subtexts. gkp

Valuable Washington Post piece on Obama staffers encountering bigotry in the field. For me, this begs the question: are "white working-class" voters Obama's problem, or is race their problem? In other words, why are apparent voter patterns (though I question how these will hold in a general election) always cast as the candidate's failure? Clinton has not failed to connect with African American voters-- if she became the nominee, 90% of African Americans would vote for her just like that community has voted for the Democratic candidate  in at least the last  ten  presidential elections.  The real failure is our superficial discussion-- cast in terms of Rev. Wright-- of the bigotry that remains a salient, but ignored, feature of American life.

Nicholas Kristof wrote this interesting piece on implicit bias and its impact in the current election cycle. I recognize and appreciate his admirably intent, but I've got beef.

I truly long for the day when we can be more precise with our language without being shouted down as being slaves to political correctness. My current beef is with the term racist. Kristof-- by virtue of his actions in the world, his commitment to the powerless of any color, and his consistent willingness to examine and revise his own impact in the world around him-- is not a racist. A racist takes his or her learned, embraced or implicit racialized biases and then seeks to impose them upon the world through policy and action, individual and institutional violence, or other structural means that impact everything from housing to education, air quality to wages, health care to equal legal protection.

This is also why Geraldine Ferraro is not a racist-- her public service demonstrates her commitment to racial justice-- but she retains and expressed racialized and gendered baggage that is very common in America. Her overblown response was based on defending herself as not being a racist-- and she isn't-- instead of defending her ridiculous comments. Thusly, she was able to sidestep the real issue and chop down a very particular strawman called the "race card."  The "race card" construct was cleverly designed to make any substantive discussions of real or perceived discrimination off limits; tossing about the term "racist" has an equally paralyzing effect. (btw, I'm an Obama supporter).

While linguistic precision will not solve our racial impasse, it certainly can make it easier for people to have difficult conversations when they are not on the defensive. Because racism was denied in this country for generations, and then the political right quickly moved to declare racism a thing of the past following the civil rights movement, African Americans are quick to use the term "racist" as quickly as weshoot the imaginary people in the study Kristof cites; similarly, other Americans often quickly jump to use the term "racist" to distance themselves from harmful comments or ideas. None of this helps us define what policies and practices need to be examined for their racial legacy; none of this helps us engage in the kind of poly-logue this nation needs to have around biases, discrimination and the future; and none of this allows us the space to examine our actions in the world. 
peace
gkp

(is this standard practice or am i just special?)

this was a reply to the <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/04/the_santa_clausification_of_ma/">santaclausification</a> of king post and a comment which objected to my holding rev. wright and dr. king in the same breath.

Hi Don-
Unfortunately you have been misinformed by the media. Black liberation theology is not separatist at all-- <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/cotton-picking-dialogue.php">as I have written elsewhere</a>, pro-black is not the same as anti-white, and there is absolutely nothing separatist about Trinity United Church. I challenge you to find a single passage or link in which Rev. Wright or any other adherent to Black liberation theology advocates hatred of white people, violence against white people, separation as a nation from white people, or anything else other than self-love in the face of a system of white supremacy designed to teach Black people to view themselves as inferior.

And as for the so what question: isn't it sad that we would accept sanitized history? Isn't it unfortunate that we, the American people, are not deemed mature enough to handle the full truth? And, by the way, who gets to decide what gets expunged from the official record? Perhaps our acceptance of this "reality" is why the quality of our national discourse is so poor and it is rare to find critical thinking skills among our electorate. 

And MLK's dream; do you really believe that King's philosophy was static and ended with the "dream" in 1963? Do you think his philosophy was unrelated to the prophetic traditions of the black church that formed one of the two pillars of black liberation theology? As per <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone">James Cone</a>, pillar one was King's prophetic call for radical love and justice, which were the teachings of Jesus; the second was the self-love and self-respect of Malcolm X, but without the call for self-defense. I highly recommend <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Martin-Malcolm-America-Dream-Nightmare/dp/0883448246">this book</a>, which shows the direct link between the teachings of King and the teaching of Wright.

I find nothing shameful in the truth. If that means our convenient concept of King is no longer functional, so be it. This is not about a political moment-- Obama, Wright or anybody else-- this is about the need to challenge ourselves on all fronts, including the dogmas we rely upon in our daily lives. Buying more stuff just ain't enough to call this good living.

Newsflash: <a href="http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-rosa-parks.asp">Rosa Parks was not simply "tired" either</a>. She was a trained civil rights organizer who knew exactly what she was doing. 

peace,
gkp

It would be ridiculous to argue that military service inoculates someone from criticism, but service to the country should give people pause before they play the patriotism card when they can't handle someone's critique of American democracy  in practice.

the media's trumped up claims, based upon a single poll, that clinton supporters won't support obama in the general, and vice versa, is hooey. this clip illustrates this point. and it shows that the rabid obama supporters who have so infuriated some folks are also a minority, or at least level-headed enough to regain their senses right after the heat of the battle moves on to the war in november. some say that obama is playing the "fear card" by saying that that if hillary doesn't drop out now, mccain will win in november-- which i don't get. i don't quite see how saying we (dems) might lose to mccain is playing the fear card if it is based on valid strategic considerations such as the following, regardless of the candidate: 1) who is more electable? 2) what are the implications of having a candidate 2 months before the general versus 6-7 months beforehand? and 3) will a prolonged primary drain the enthusiasm of a newly invigorated democratic party (which had been proclaimed dead & buried after the 2004 cycle). fear is a card when it is divorced from reality, used to confuse or or obfuscate, or pinned to one group, party or perspective without reasonable verifiability. issuing threat alerts as political diversion is playing the fear card. intimating that adversaries will cheer one party or candidate over another is playing the fear card. suggesting that if the democrats do not select a candidate quickly (30-60 days) versus 5 months from now is a legitimate analysis based on the criteria above, regardless of which candidate is the beneficiary. the case for clinton would be 1) she can go toe to toe on experience with mccain and the wright thing makes obama unelectable; 2) mathematically, neither side can actually secure the nomination outright without unrealistic blowouts, so let's decide now-- she has won the big states and swing states, so let's go; 3) folks are getting worn out and things will only get more nit-picky and vicious as the media gets more headline hungry. i've heard many clinton supporters make this argument. obama supporters use the same criteria: 1) he offers a clear contrast to mccain and brings a mass movement behind him; 2) same as above except he has won more states and run well in the big states she has won (including actually winning more delegates in texas); and 3) same as above. i am an obama supporter who thinks that the race should be called after puerto rico votes in june, and not before, and by called i mean that the superdelegates should make a mass move that makes it clear to whichever candidate that they should withdraw. i am also an obama supporter who would vote for hillary in a hot second, without hesitation. lastly, i am an obama supporter who thinks that the best way to resolve MI and FL would be for the clinton votes to be counted and for obama to get the remaining voters with consent from the other candidates (dodd, edwards, kucinich), and nobody puts the states in the win column. this would seat everybody, and net clinton 100k votes and about 20 delegates. that she broke the rules is irrelevant now (just like whether we should have ever invaded iraq is no longer relevant to our withdrawal strategy); what we need is a solution prior to august 25th. i am confident that it will be resolved mid-june after puerto rico. all this media driven frenzy about dropping out or staying in, or dems tearing each other apart, would be meaningless if it wasn't so damaging to relationships and the quality of the discourse. folks really need to relax.