I have a confession to make – I like NPR. Even worse, I like Juan Williams, probably one of the best known black independent commentators out there – not only is he a regular contributor to NPR, but he's a regular on the O'Reilly Factor. He often brings balance and sanity to polarized discussions, and has even written a book criticizing African Americans for their victim mentality.
But yesterday on O'Reilly, and this morning on NPR, he broached the idea that underlying the Tea Parties, the 75,000 people who marched on Washington this past weekend, and the outburst of S.C. Senator Wilson is racism – that's right, what is really driving these people is hatred for a black man in the Presidency. Wanna hear this tripe? Audio and transcript here.
But I've got news for you – making erroneous claims about your ideological opponents' motives only emboldens them. But go ahead, here's some more rope to hang yourself with – oops, was that a racist remark? Or just black humor. Oops, was *that* a racist remark? Whoa, was that a demon behind that Bush…hey, was THAT a racist remark?
This morning, Rush Limbaugh played a montage of all of the liberal media's conjecturing over the motives of racism among those who oppose Obamacare, and it was a disgusting cacophony of idiocy. I won't spend much time debunking them, since any clear minded person can see that they are being obtuse. But let me say this:
- Posters of Obama made up to look like Hitler is not racist (unless Obama is perhaps Jewish)
- Gun owners showing up wearing their guns as protest against Obama's gun control (and control in general) policies is not racist, esp. if you are BLACK and bring your guns (talk about liberal media hypocrisy). However, it is dumb to bring guns to any presidential appearance.
- Supporting the flying of the confederate flag might be construed as racist, but it is not necessarily so, and reading that support forward into Joe Wilson's outburst is circumstantial at best.
- I noted NOT ONE racist sign at the 9/12 rally (which the dishonest liberal media ignored or buried), even though what little the liberal media did show were some of the most fringy people at the rallies. I mean, where were the signs with the N word on them? Where were the slave references, or the 'boy' references, or the white face? They WERE in one place – in the minds of the fearful, hateful liberals.
What's really illustrative is Maurine Dowd hearing voices when she remarked that Wilson implied the word 'boy' at the end of his 'you lie!' outburst – you know, like 'slave boy.'
What is really going on in the minds of liberals, IMO, is a combination of anachronistic paranoia (living in the past and projecting it onto the present) and inability to transcend their own worldview – that is, they can't even comprehend that people could be so angry over Obama's well-meaning 'socialist' policies, so they look for some other more 'reasonable' motive, which in their minds, must be racism.
But the problem is, every criticism I've heard from the anti-Obama camp has nothing to do with race, but instead concerns his leftist policies, his out-of-control spending, his effort to railroad healthcare, and his disrespect for his opponents.
The only people playing the race card are the liberals and liberal minorities themselves, still living in the past abuses in their minds, and projecting that onto the anger and criticisms of conservatives and independents.
They have this conspiracy theory that there is some racist thread woven through the birthers' contentions that Obama is really a Kenyan, his Islamic sounding middle name, Senator Wilson's previous support for the Confederate flag flying over the SC capital, and the relative whiteness of the Tea Party and anti-tax rallies.
Never mind that this last point can be easily explained by the fact that 90% of African Americans voted for Obama, so of course they are not at these rallies. And really, it is the many African Americans who support Obama *because* he is black rather than based on his policies who are being racist, at least in a generic sense – they prefer him because of his race. Soft racism, but racist nonetheless.
However, this demonization by the left of the anti-big-government plans of Obama is sure to backfire in two significant ways.
- Spreading falsehood not only emboldens those accused, it wins sympathy for them among the independents
- Second, it actually CREATES racist anger on BOTH sides, the very thing that liberals are supposed to be eschewing in Obama's 'post-racist' administration.
I don't have time to search the polls, but let me say that the more liberals cry 'racism,' the more they are CREATING IT where it does not exist. And they are losing sympathy from common people who haven't drunk their Kool-aid.
Juan Williams may be right that minorities feel that Senator Wilson's disrespect for Obama, and the anger at the Town Hall's and anti-tax rallies are fueled by racism, but that fear has little basis in fact, and is instead embedded in the race-conscious victim mentality that liberals need to leave behind.
Until then, keep crying 'race!' to get a rise out of people and comfort yourself, and laugh at how people jump when you say it, just like the boy who cried wolf. But when you really need people to see injustice, they may not answer you. Instead, they will make Obama a single term president. And I can live with that.
Teabagger movement is a bunch of right-wing nutjobs. See here, here, and here for just a few examples. And, yes, I think there’s a strong strain of racism in these protests and from the right at this time. Just denying and claiming that there’s no racism emanating from the right is just plain wrong. It’s there; we call all see it (except for the right-wing nutjobs, of course).
Hi Daniel:
Regardless of whether or not racism DOES play some role in some of the anti-Obama hysteria, you have no reason to call Juan Williams and other liberals LIARS for suggesting it. You have no reason to think that they aren't honestly expressing their suspicions, and given xenophobic "birther" nonsense and some of the racially charged things I heard during the campaign, I have every reason to suspect racial motivations on a pretty decent fraction of the opposition. This doesn't mean that most opponents are racist nor does it mean your complaints aren't valid (I don't think your complaints ARE valid but that's a different issue). I still see a problem in your attitude here. It seems to me that you assuming that people who disagree with you are acting in bad faith. Even decent people, even smart people disagree, that's the way it is.
your friend
Keith
As we have already seen, seeker sees nothing but wickedness in his liberal opponents. In fact, he is quite irrational on the topic. His favorite epithet is "liberal," after all. For him, there are no decent people on the other side. Decency, for him, is a function of the right-wing, fundamentalist Christianist political movement – anyone who dares to disagree is, not just wrong, but very, very bad. In fact, he is so blind to his own faults that he has the temerity to accuse Obama of "disrespect for his opponets"! What a joke.
Somewhere (maybe around the time of Reagan) things went very, very wrong with conservatism. Classical conservatism (even the Goldwater variety) has been swallowed up by the John Birch Society/KKK brand. I guess it's no surprise that most of its leadership now is southern and fundamentalist/evangelical Christian (Joe Wilson, son of South Carolina, the state most zealous in its pursuit of secession and the Confederate battle flag). It's odd to say it now, but Nixon actually looks pretty good compared to Republicans nowadays.
For more analysis, here's something good.
btw: still waiting to hear from James and Aaron re: our discussion about ministers. It's funny, isn't it, that I extend the hand of peace and treat their challenges with dignity and then hear nothing at all? Or, maybe, to be expected.
>> KEITH: you have no reason to call Juan Williams and other liberals LIARS for suggesting it.
You are right, I shouldn't say 'lying'. That assumes conscious malice. I have changed it to 'making erroneous claims'. Thank you for pointing that out. Besides, calling a black man a liar is racist, becuase 'boy' is always an assumed pronoun in that sentence ;)
>> KEITH: You have no reason to think that they aren't honestly expressing their suspicions, and given xenophobic "birther" nonsense
But you see, even here you see racism where there is none. The idea behind the birther movement is not that he is a foreigner, but that he is a LIAR – they were just looking for a reason not to have a LIBERAL president, not a black Kenyan one. No one has disparaged him because of his skin color at all, that's just how liberals want to see it – or at least, that's the only way they CAN see it. But racism has nothing to do with even the birthers. They just want to get rid of a far left liberal president, and this was a presumed weak spot.
>> KEITH: I have every reason to suspect racial motivations on a pretty decent fraction of the opposition.
Do you now? And what reasons are those? I bet you can find nearly nothing from the recent movements and events, esp. not from the leaders of those movements. It's all reading history into the present, and that's my point – liberals and those bound by the victim mentality are locked into the past. They say they want progress, but they can't let go of the past, and drag it with them into the present. THEY are the cause of modern day racism.
>> KEITH: It seems to me that you assuming that people who disagree with you are acting in bad faith.
No, I am saying that they are grossly mistaken by projecting their prejudices on the conservative movement without evidence.
I mean sure, anti-Obama rallies would be an opportunity for racist fringe to tag along, but not only have I not seen or heard from them, but the leaders and overwhelming majority of protesters say nothing of Obama's race – it's THE LIBERALS who keep bringing it up.
>> LOUIS: For him, there are no decent people on the other side.
No, just very few smart or moral ones. In general, liberals see evil and stupidity, conservatives see immorality and lack of understanding. Chew on that. And see Who's more dumb and evil? Neocons or libs? Part I.
>> LOUIS: Classical conservatism (even the Goldwater variety) has been swallowed up by the John Birch Society/KKK brand.
There you go again (to quote a hero) – living in the past. Racism lives on mostly in the mind and hearts of liberals.
>> LOUIS: I guess it's no surprise that most of its leadership now is southern and fundamentalist/evangelical Christian (Joe Wilson, son of South Carolina, the state most zealous in its pursuit of secession and the Confederate battle flag).
You see? Southern Christians are all bigots. Again, living in the past rather than transcending race.
If you have never lived in the south or studied the Civil War, then you can't understand why someone would want to continue to fly the Confederate Flag. Yes, it is an insult to blacks, but it is not primarily racism that these motivates people, it's just a sense of their own history. The Confederacy was so much more to people than slavery, it was an entire culture, the economic engine of the country, with proud and noble heritages apart from slavery.
While to Yankees and abolitionists the flag symbolizes only slavery, to a southerner, it is something much more, and harder to let go of. While some may see it as akin to a German flying the Nazi flag, longing for the good old days of the Third Reich, I don't see it quite that way.
I'm not saying that Wilson is right to want to keep the flag, I'm just saying that to do so might be racially insensitive, but it is not explicitly racist. Unless he has made racial comments, that's just circumstantial opportunism, not truth.
Louis, Keith, if you continue to humor Seeker with your thoughtful posts, that only encourages him to be more over the top in his replies. He'll say anything to get a rise out of you. Don't waste your time on him.
Hi Daniel:
I think the birther claims ARE based on xenophobia; it seems clear to me that the reason they gained traction in a (too large) part of the conservative community is because Obama is to them "the other", a guy with a strange name, an African father etc. I cannot read their minds but I stand by my impression anyway. If you think I am just reading racism into it, well I don't claim to be infallible so maybe. I DID see some pictures of signs at the DC rally that I think were racially charged. One of them had a picture of the President with the caption "Undomumented Worker". I suppose that a birther reference which as I said I think has a racial component. Another sign said something like "Africa has lions, we have a lyin' African" which is also racial if you ask me. I'm not saying most (or even very many) of the DC demonstrators were racially motivated. I do think race affects our judgments far more than we are willing to admit, so it would be surprising if race DIDN'T play a role in the opposition (as well as in some of the support).
About the Confederate Battle emblem on state flags: it is notable that the states that have it out the emblem on their flags during the anti-segregation movement. I honestly don't see how anyone can see that decision as anything BUT a southern reaction against blacks fighting to eliminate the 2nd class citizenship they suffered under. Of course the same is true about the Rebellion in the 1st place–it was obviously motivated by their desire to keep blacks in slavery. All the talk about "southern heritage" is IMO a bunch of hooey. I say this as a person who is FROM the south.
your friend
keith
your friend
Keith
I agree with Cin. It's pointless trying to reason with someone who has already demonstrated his lack of intellectual integrity (and even common decency) when he gives a pass to immoral fellow conservatives while screeching about supposed immorality among gay people (among others). His hypocrisy is blatant and stunning, and he is not worthy of taking seriously.
>> KEITH: I think the birther claims ARE based on xenophobia; it seems clear to me that the reason they gained traction in a (too large) part of the conservative community is because Obama is to them “the other”, a guy with a strange name, an African father etc. I cannot read their minds but I stand by my impression anyway.
“I think” is not fact. “It seems clear to you” – why? It seems clear to ME that, based on your LACK of evidence, that it is more likely that you are reading that in.
Beyond the fact that people perceive him as a spend and tax liberal (understatement, as we’ve seen), but that he was soft on Islam. That last fact might have some faint xenophobic flair to it, but it has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the reputation of Islam around the world, not to mention our recent history. And this concern for his soft dealing with tyrants is not only reasonable, it continues to today.
The problems w/ his middle name have to do with Islam, not ethnicity or skin color. I think those seeing racism are totally misreading what it actually happening, and that is one reason why the movement grows.
>> KEITH: I DID see some pictures of signs at the DC rally that I think were racially charged. One of them had a picture of the President with the caption “Undomumented Worker”.
Again, you are reading race in, when there is a simpler, more reasonable (in my mind) explanation. First, you have to admit that neither of those words directly reference race, so you’re inferring.
As you know, I am in vehement disagreement with the ‘anti-amnesty’ republicans, and favor Bush’s plan for earned citizenship and workers programs. The real motive behind the anti-illegal-aliens people is not racial, it’s based on their fear of gaps in national security (in the wake of 9/11) and the drain on our failing economy that uncontrolled immigration has.
Most all of the neocons I know readily and proudly admit that our nation was built by immigrants, and backpedal from accustations that they are anti-immigrant.
Additionally, they are concerned with the rule of law, which keeps our society safe and orderly, and they see illegal immigration as a breach in the rule of law, leading to social and economic chaos.
As I mentioned in An Open Letter to Michelle Malkin: On Immigration, the problem with the anti-amnesty crowd is that they are are so concerned with the rule of law that they are correct by the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it – that is, unlike GWB, they lack the balance of compassion with their concern for law, mostly out of fear, I think. They even go so far as to brand all illegal aliens as law breakers, as if they are all drug dealers or criminals, which is wrong.
Even the push for English-only is not racist or xenophobic. While it may in some senses be based on fears, esp. when they go into the local gas station or restaurant, and can’t understand or be understood by the help. That is frustrating, and perhaps even disconcerting. Previous immigrants had the courtesy and respect for America to learn English.
So to some extent, they object out of fear, but also out of a love for and respect for the ideals of America – people who became and become citizens swear an oath to deny loyalties to other countries, and be loyal to Lady Liberty and the Country she stands for.
Lastly, it is a thing of principle – we don’t want a balkanized US like we see in parts of Europe, and even in Canada, where Quebec is always fomenting secession.
To summarize, the example you give that you think is racist is easily and better (IMO) explained by non-racist reasons.
I think the charges of racism are almost ENTIRELY a projection of the liberal mindset, and not reality. And you’ve provided the weakest of evidence. Not to be mean, but I am pushing back on this b/c i really think it’s bogus.
>> KEITH: I honestly don’t see how anyone can see that decision as anything BUT a southern reaction against blacks fighting to eliminate the 2nd class citizenship they suffered under. Of course the same is true about the Rebellion in the 1st place–it was obviously motivated by their desire to keep blacks in slavery. All the talk about “southern heritage” is IMO a bunch of hooey. I say this as a person who is FROM the south.
I dunno, sounds like you’re from no further south than Virginia ;). Seriously, though, I understand your point, and it has merit, but I think you are wrong about the love of the Confederate flag being about race only. And as I’ve said, your conclusion that is is racist is, unfortunately, circumstantial. At worst, it shows insensitivity to blacks. But I think you underestimate the residual power of the southern culture and identity, which is not just about slavery.
>> LOUIS: It’s pointless trying to reason with someone who has already demonstrated his lack of intellectual integrity
Keith, thank you for your wonderful example of kindness and continued dialogue, I can only hope to continue to learn from it. You provide a great example to myself, and to both CIN and LOUIS, who haven’t learned from it, it seems.
More racist droolings from the tea bagger, right-wing, nutjob, seeker, screw-loose, Republican, fringe. To think that such people still exist in America. Shame on us.
Hi Daniel:
I supose we will have to just disagree on the racism thing, although I will agree that I am not too careful (nor concerned) about distinguishing between racism and any other form of xenophobia including anti-Muslim bigotry.
About the south: I am originally from Kentucky so your guess about my latitude was pretty good. I think I;d call my view about the Confederate flag a little nuanced. Except for open racists like the Klan, I do not think the Confederate flag wavers are trying to express racist sentiments. But during the anti-segregation movement in the south, the clear purpose for adding the Confederate emblem to state flags was to tell the north that nobody was going to tell the south how to treat their n-words. Nowadays I assume the point of the flag is to show pride in what their Confederate ancestors did. But how can they be proud of that? What the Confederates did was fight a war to protect their "right" to buy and sell and whip and mutilate and rape and kill other human beings. That should be a matter of shame, they should no more celebrate that heritage than the Germans celebrate Hitler's regime.
your friend
Keith
Louis, only the first one seems racist to me, and it was rude. But just because the fringe shows up doesn't mean that it's the heart of the movement, any more than Code Pink is the heart of the progressive movement.
Again, I think your point on the Confederate Flag has some merit, but I don't think it is conclusive, and I think that MOST of the pouplarity of the flag in the modern south has little to do with racism, and more to do with celebrating southern culture. As stated nicely on wikipedia in the Confederate flag:
But I maintain that the various accusations of racism are greviously erroneous, to the hurt of the liberal movement. That perception is merely demonization, not fact. The few fringe racists that might attend these meetings are opportunistists, but even close to being part of the movement's main motivations.
And quite honestly, unless people are objecting using racial slurs and objections to his skin color, the other motives i have stated are a better conclusion, and not circumstantial.
I'm gonna blog on this to add clarity. Thanks for your dialogue.
seeker accusing others of demonization and judgmentalism is the height of hypocrisy. Of course, as he is totally blind to his own faults, as he is always right (as a proper christianist always is), and as liberals are devils incarnate, he sees nothing wrong with this. For him, racism doesn't exist, and, when confronted with blatant evidence of its proud, loud, and public existence, he waves it all away as merely an annoyance perpetrated by a teeny, tiny minority, unworthy of consideration. I've seen this pattern with him before when he dismissed any evidence of historical Christian wrongdoing as nothing more than a minor blemish caused by the Roman Catholic church. He is so typical of the hard-core Pharisee: he is so self-righteous, so in with God, that everything he thinks or says or does is beyond reproach, and anyone with the temerity to challenge or even mildly disagree is wicked or sick or something bad. People in his corner can do no wrong, or, if they do, it is minimized as irrelevant or the fault of the media for calling attention to it (ala Gingrich). To him and his ilk, forms and rules and regulations and dogmas and the conservative religious and political agenda are the be-all and end-all of spiritual and religious experience, and anyone who fails to adhere to them exhibits bad taste (at best) or punishable wickedness (at worst). Apparently, the fundamentalist/evangelical/orthodox mindset enables its adherents free reign to judge and condemn everyone but themselves: they are literally above judgment because of their righteousness and "in" with God. Truth is their exclusive property. They are without sin, therefore they cast the first stone. They do not see as through a darkened glass for theirs is a clear pane.
Boy, are they in for a surprise.
So what do you really think? [smirk]
By the way, I think that my contention that racists are on the fringe and not part of the central motivations of conservatives is supported by the writings and speeches of the movement.
As Hannity rightly said today, accusations of racism are not only incorrect, they are a form of intimidation and slander, which will only embolden conservatives. Liberals continue along this contentious route at peril to their own movement, and independents will continue to shift towards conservatives as the far left economic (and in some cases social) policies and demonization of opponents.
Hi Daniel:
I will look at your new post. But I'd like to comment on the "southern cultura; pride angle" a little bit more. You quoted:
Supporters of the flag view it as a symbol of heritage and the freedom of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the oppression of Northern government.
But that's my point. The heritage they are celebrating is the willingness of the South to go to war to prevent the slaves from being free! That is not anything to be proud of. The South should be ASHAMED of Robert E. Lee, of Jefferson Davis, of Stonewall Jackson. They should be ASHAMED of the symbol of their treasonous rebellion. Race is an inseparable part of the very thing they are proud of in the heritage. If you ask me there is no way to get around that inconvenient fact.
your friend
Keith
I agree, but again, the symbol now has a broader meaning to people in the South than slavery.