Wick: Per Jimmy Carter, the left’s latest tack is to conflate growing opposition to Obama’s policies with white racism–which is hogwash, pure and simple. (Not that there aren’t racists around–of every stripe, in every party.) So I’d say it’s not surprising to see you–who voted for Obama, if I recall correctly–piling on with the rest of the gang.
51 comments
So you’re saying that Joe Wilson would’ve shouted if McCain said something he disagreed with whilst speaking to a joint session of Congress?
I think it’s worth noting that, for instance, Wilson is the first congressman in the entire existence of Congress to disrespectfully yell while the President spoke to a joint session of Congress. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder whether he would’ve done so if Obama was named Joe Smith, and was white.
Glenn,
Please clarify:
1) Do you think Limbaugh was not being racist in his linking of the bullying to Obama?
2) Are Wick and Dreher now part of “the left”?
3) Isn’t “left” supposed to be capitalized?
Bethany, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. If more of our political decision making was guided by “wondering” instead of all this stuff like critical thinking and evidence that’s just too hard we could get a lot more done elsewhere.
But you know, after I saw that old SNL skit with Kirk Douglas I too always wondered, “What IF Spartacus had a Piper Cub?”
Stan, I’m sure you thought I’d stop at “nail on the head.” However, I’m a smidge smarter than that.
But seriously – if it is a problem, it needs to be addressed. Otherwise, this is going to be a long four years.
I think the vast majority of those who oppose Obama policies would have done so even if this were a Hillary Clinton or John Kerry presidency.
But the blanket statement that it’s “hogwash, pure and simple” to consider white racism an element of Obama opposition is just not credible. It’s far more personal than merely about his “policies.”
Take guns. These people never showed up with loaded assault rifles at, say, Hillary events during last year’s dem primaries, yet she and most of her fellow dems have views little different from Obama, who hasn’t even mentioned guns since taking office.
Only he has gotten this anthropological treatment. That’s why some of us hear “boy” after “You lie!”
Fact is, these people are not mainstream. The Republican Party “base” has shrunk, a fact that’s been covered with empirical data since the ‘06 election cycle. It’s like a drought: when a river or lake dries up, a lot of gunk that’s buried on the bottom becomes exposed. It happens to political parties, too. Most of the moderate repubs are no longer in office, and many of their supporters have drifted away. Thus, the remaining elected repubs must rely on the base, and are, in some ways, sympathetic to it. It was easy to overlook this condition when the Party comprised a lot more than just the base, but that’s no longer the situation.
The base is what’s left. And the current crop of Party leaders just can’t “quit it.”
Instances of racist signage among the teabaggers and participants in the six-percent-of-a-million-rednecks-and-retirees-march-on-Washington are numerous and easily found on the Innertubes.
That doesn’t mean racism is the basis of the so-called movement, but it’s not “hogwash” just because Glenn Hunter wishes it were.
(Counting down until someone says I’m just as bad as a racist because I used the word “redneck.” 10 … 9 … 8 …)
Glenn, thanks for the guilt by association with Jimmy Carter (!), but I respectfully demur. My comment — and Rod Dreher’s — was about Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Forget everybody else. I did not mention everybody else. Forget Carter. I did not mention Carter. Read Limbaugh and tell me it was not a “racist outburst” as I described.
Neil: 1) Limbaugh is a provocateur/parodist who often flirts with the edge. So do Bill Maher and Dave Chappelle. And your point is? 2) They both have some views that might be considered to the left. Your point? 3) Probably not.
Bethany.
I am sorry but I agree with you 100 percent.
Well said.
pretty weak argument there, Glenn– oh wait, you didn’t even make one, you made “hogwash” a blanket fact that needs no justification… interesting.
Glenn, you’re forgetting that the modern right-wing have no sense of humor. They are impervious to parody, and to think that they “get jokes” is hogwash, pure and simple.
Bethany,
Actually, Wilson is not the first congressman to be disrespectful during a presidential speech. The Democrats booed in unison while Bush spoke on more than one occasion — some even refused to shake his hand.
When black members of Congress criticized Bush for his tax cuts, did that make them racists? I know they didnt yell at him during a presidential speech, but the left is now suggesting that ANY criticism of Obama is racist — so would the same hold for black elected officials who criticized a white president?
What’s far more fascinating is the previous post Rod mentions in the subsequent Limbaugh post that he decided to take down, a sensationalist post with video pointing up a bus load of black kids beating up a white. But he got a lot of flak for that post, so when the Limbaugh thing came to light he decided to take a sharply different tack away from anything that might seem similar to Limbaugh. Sort of like a zombie, alive one moment, dead the next, alive the next…ya just never know.
Wick, read the transcript. Rush was riffing on the m.o. of the moment, which is to blame all that is “wrong” in America these days–i.e., that which does not toe the Obama line–on white racism. (The charge that Joe Wilson was just being a Southern cracker when he gave his shout-out is only the most ridiculous recent example.) In other words, Limbaugh is a satirist who was making a point. Now, can we all get back to work?
Glenn, I defended Limbaugh in another thread, but his “point” wasn’t nearly as benign as you make it. He was riffing on the whole “How come blacks aren’t charged with hate crimes / How come only whites can be called racist” thing that gets a certain type of five-asterisks so riled up.
He was playing to racially based fears about the Obama presidency, plain and simple. But — no one ever said the man wasn’t deft — he did not cross the line into racism himself, it’s true. The quote being bandied about was spoken ironically and is being taken out of context.
I’d wager that the vast majority of Dittoheads do NOT consider Limbaugh a satirist. They probably also don’t consider Fox News performance art.
I agree with you, on both, but the people who hang on their every word and follow them blindly probably don’t.
It does not surprise me that Glenn would allow himself to be in a situation where he is defending the Rush Limbaugh style of Republican. I am glad Wick still has the courage to stand up for the conservative party he loves so much.
Glenn, your argument only lacks one thing: “I can’t be racist. I have a black friend.”
I posted the following under Wick’s post, but it bears repeating here
“the larger question is why the Left is now nearly unhinged about criticism of a black liberal president, when it was silent (well, there was always Harry Belafonte . . .) about the racial implications of the constant and vicious anger directed at Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, not to mention the rather personal, condescending attacks on Alberto Gonzales. For that matter, the ubiquitous Pete Stark once said some particularly unkind and racist things about former health and human services secretary Louis Sullivan (who is black).”
http://bit.ly/4fcXUW
to ignore what Carter and others have said is wrong and to conflate limbaugh’s monologue as a ‘racist outburst’ is to play into the hands of the Democrats.
what about the infamous black image of the current RNC chairman that was created by a Democratic operative? is that not racist? to say that conservatives are racists while ignoring better examples from the left is wrong
I wonder if Maxine Waters had stood up during GWB’s last speech to a joint session and said “You Lie!” during something about the Iraq War, would she have been pilloried as a racist, or lauded for “speaking truth to power”?
Not everyone who opposes President Obama is a racist, naturally. But then few people I know who dislike or hate Obama are completely unaware how, to any extent, the sub-text is increasingly becoming racial. Many of the people I know currently BEING racist are not actually ‘racists’ but rather, people whose worst unresolved deep-rooted demons had no prior hatch from which to escape. They had no prior echo chamber for their words to reverberate and boomerang. With President Obama’s election, they do.
A tangent case in point~~~A friend the other day when I mentioned a great house for sale CHEAP near my home. She’s looking for a house but explained she felt ‘safer’ where she is despite her area having several times the violent crime rate of mine. The difference? Her area is predominantly white upwardly mobile with some Hispanic segments whereas mine is heavily Hispanic and about 20-30% black and 20% white. Yet her immediate area has currently 1) rapist on the prowl 2) shootings in corner ‘upscale’ strip center 3) car break-ins so many that my friend no longer locks her car anymore. “It’s easier than replacing another window” she says. Meanwhile I have no garage and for 26 yrs. parked in my drive near the street w/o a single break-in.
At least with her, it’s all about subliminal racism. Not mean-spirited and overt as Rush’s re-packaged transparent slurs.
PS: As someone who lived near Plains, Ga. during the President Carter years and knows that turf: Say what you will about Jimmy Carter. He comes from a world that once defined racism. So he is better capable of recognizing it when he sees or hears it than we.
‘Conservatives’ that voted for Obama= Not conservatives
By constantly beating people who disagree with the President over the head with charges of racism, the Left is doing a huge disservice to people who are experiencing actual discrimination in this country.
Racism is a digusting and vile concept, yet by attempting to invoke it in any and all circumstances just to win an argument, all you’re going to do is desensitize the public to the word. If you’re going to call us racists everytime we disagree with the President on healthcare legislation and fiscal policies, then so be it. People are going to stop caring about charges of racism, because no matter what they say, you Lefties are going to call them racists. All you’re doing is making it harder for someone down the line who is experiencing legitimate discrimination to be taken seriously.
There’s a great little fable out there called “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” I suggest some of you folks reread it.
Well, that was condescending.
I don’t think anyone on here is accusing everyone who disagrees with the President as being racist. That’s crazy.
It’s just as crazy, though, to pretend that Obama’s race isn’t an issue. These people aren’t just politely disagreeing with his policies. This is personal.
Personal because I 180 disagree with his policies….makes me part of the kkk ?
People weren’t personal with bush? Please.
I don’t believe disagreeing with the president makes you a racist, just on its face. But I think it’s the language, the demeanor, that is more telling.
I’ve said this before, elsewhere, but you have certain media types that probably don’t even really believe half the stuff they say on the air, stirring this fetid gumbo of racial animosity, ignorance and assorted insanity to a rapid boil.
Because people have forgotten how to be provocative, and are now simply settling for being shocking. There’s a difference – and one requires a lot more intelligence and elan than the other.
Amen, Bethany.
“But I think it’s the language, the demeanor, that is more telling.”
besides Limbaugh and Beck could you provide examples from the Republican leadership or other leading conservatives.
what you are describing can be ascribed to the left. but in the past that was okay
“I don’t think anyone on here is accusing everyone who disagrees with the President as being racist. That’s crazy.”
it may not be happening here but Limbaugh in his monologue pointed out the following
“CANDY CROWLEY: (b-roll) Critics think this is about resistance to a black man as president.
JAMES CARVILLE: People are upset with President Obama because of the color of his skin. Who cannot believe that?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Could there be a refusal to accept the legitimacy of Barack Obama as president because of his race?
WOLF BLITZER: A small but disturbing minority within the tea party movement is also blatantly anti-black.
JOHN RIDLEY: When you talk about racial image, this is not just standard debate.
ELAINE QUIJANO: (b-roll) A small but passionate minority is also voicing what some see as racist rhetoric.
JOHN AVLON: Hitler. Communism. Racism. All this ugliness is bubbling up.
ANDERSON COOPER: There is an undercurrent of racism in some of the criticism of the president.
JUAN WILLIAMS: An attack on somebody because you really don’t like the fact that they are president or because of their race.
ROSS DOUTHAT: Clearly Barack Obama’s race plays some role in the kind of anxieties that are roiling the political right.”
many on the left are accusing those opposed to the President’s policies of really being racist.
calling someone a racist just brings the discussion to a screeching halt
Mark Davis, Rod Dreher (at times), Rush Limbaugh…do I need to go on?
Not to mention the children’s treasury of photos of signs at various rallies.
If you don’t want liberals to say racism is what drives the criticism, then change the drumbeat.
That being said – as I posted on Wick’s original post, not every critical thing said about Obama is racist. I myself disagree with him at times.
But it’s this steady cadence in the background that allows all rational conversation about issues to be shuttered with talk of racism. ON both sides. Notice I didn’t give a particular bent or persuasion to my accusation of stirring the pot. It’s equal on both sides.
But it has to stop on both sides, too, for the next four years to be anything close to even semi-productive.
(Er, PeterK, Ross Douthat is one of the brightest conservative stars in the country. That’s why so many people on the right campaigned for him to replace Kristol as the conservative op-ed columnist at the Times. IJS.)
President Obama may very well usher in a post-racial America, even if ironically, by presiding over a public square in which by sheer overload any and all references to race come to be seen as uniformly banal and obnoxious, like a social inept blithely narrating the history and most current state of his bowel.
Until that happy day, though, spend your race-denominated scrip as fast as you can, before it loses all value entirely and you are finally forced to produce genuine coin.
I think what’s amazed me more than anything throughout the last few months is the number of people willing to just play dumb.
Here we have the issue of race smack in the middle of everything and the people who should be smart enough to try and sort this out with honesty, integrity and sensitivity, like a Matriarch from some old movie say, “Race? Why, I’m sure I don’t have any idea what you’re talking about,” Meanwhile the inmates take over the asylum. Shame is what it is.
@Bethany
It won’t last 4 years. During the election cycle, the Republicans tried to make you afraid of the scary black man. Since he won, now they’re trying to make all of the things that they wanted you to be afraid of appear to be the truth. They can’t get 4 years worth of mileage out of this particular nonsense (don’t mistake me, they have a font of nonsense to return to). At the very least, once Obama can do something that benefits the common good, he’ll fall into the “this one’s okay” status, that I myself enjoy from time to time.
If Bush called Kanye a “jackass” would he be labeled as ‘racist?’ Racism or not, a big problem is that the media, left or right, has this country so polarized right now that we cannot engage in civil discourse before somebody is thrown onto “Team Liberal” or “Team Conservative.” And when things get really dicey, why not do a “Johny Cochran” and throw out the racist card to stir it up. At this point am I supposed to be a victim of all the white person guilt or I am supposed to continue to actually feel guilty and let the President have everything that is proposed, regardless of any consequences? And herein lies my point. Eventually everyone gets sick of being confused and they are going to speak their mind. Who cares if criticism of the presidents’ policies comes from a racial standpoint, a fiscal standpoint, or a love/hate of our country standpoint? Why should it ever become wrong in this country to criticize any President on policies no matter where the seeds of that criticism are planted?
If Wick’s 4:30 post was a James Thurber cartoon, the caption would read: ‘Touche’.
Candid Elizabeth Lavin snapshot of Wick Allison at a Cyber-Fencing day camp.
http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?sitetype=1&sid=19016
Where were all the calls of racism when Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzalez were under relentless attack?
What this boils down to is that liberalism is a now a secular religion in this country. These people simply cannot grasp the fact that someone could disagree with the ideals that they worship, so they have to find some way to rationalize that dissent. And if in that process, they get to play the ever-coveted “victim card” then all the better.
It’s always liberals who try to sound smart by throwing around the words “discourse” and “civilized debate”, but they’re also the first ones who try to bring said discourse to a grinding halt by playing whatever victim card is the most convenient at the time.
Arguments that Obamacare opponents’ opposition to the health care legislation stem from their intrinsic racism simply fail to explain why the same idea was just as unpopular 16 years ago when the Clintons tried forcing it on the US.
I don’t believe disagreeing with the president makes you a racist, just on its face. But I think it’s the language, the demeanor, that is more telling.
In other words, much like Maureen Dowd, you don’t have any actual proof of racism, you just know it’s there. How do you know it’s there? Well, gosh, they’re white and they’re not blindly following a black president like good, non-racist, politically correct people do. Not that it matters, the left overplayed their hand on racism years ago, nobody takes you seriously anymore, except “conservatives” like Wick. And speaking of Wick, you are so far out of touch with conservatism there’s no coming back for you at this point. Which i’m sure suits you and conservatives just fine. Ross Douthat? Bright conservative star? Really? *shakes head in sadness*
Well, there’s always this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html
Wait for the part where Mark Williams is pretty darn proud to call Obama an Indonesian Muslim Thug.
I don’t think Rush is a racist, which is a word that ought to be used with more discretion than it is these days.
I do think he’s a fool, a blowhard, and — under certain conditions — possibly dangerous. He’s almost always wrong. He isn’t interested in facts, nor in the truth. He’s cunning, but not very bright. He’s lowered the level of political dialogue in this country several orders of magnitude. He appeals to the basest instincts in his listeners.
But racist? I don’t think so.
Hey guys, thanks for the help on what conservatism is….many of us don’t care about the politics of it. Joe Wilson should have formally apologized, but low and behold….illegals were officially voted off the bill.
Glad we can have a substantive conversation.
A comment by “Steve” states that “liberalism is a now a secular religion in this country.” Well, since America has no official state religion, and is thus a secular government, that’s not so bad. ‘Ol Thomas Jefferson would certainly agree. People are free to worship whatever they want, or nothing if they want, unlike, say, countries in the Middle East. The former Republican senator from Missouri, John Danforth (himself an ordained Episcopal priest), wrote a great book a couple of years ago bemoaning the fact that his political party has become overwhelmingly sectarian, beholden to the religious right. I’d say that’s what we should be worrying about. And he’s a Republican!
I see that Steve’s comment also links to his “sports” blog. On it he notes that “I’m also the resident hippie-hater. Don’t bring your liberal crap in here, because it won’t be tolerated!”
OK, I understand his part about being intolerant, because, hey, that’s the modern coin of the realm. Just look at all the venom and vitriol at the town hall meetings and the signs at the Tea Party rallies. But what I don’t understand, in 2009, is the term “hippie-hater.”
So here’s my question: What’s a hippie?
Well, there’s always this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/tea-party-leader-melts-do_n_286933.html
Wait for the part where Mark Williams is pretty darn proud to call Obama an Indonesian Muslim Thug.
Ok, so…….where’s the racism? Is Indonesian a racist term? Not that i know of. How about Muslim? No, not racist either. Thug? Nope. Yet, if we combine three words that aren’t racist we magically have a racial epithet? Just because he doesn’t like Obama doesn’t mean he’s a racist, hard to believe i know, but it’s true. The time when liberals could silence their critics with charges of racism is long gone and you’re just making yourselves look foolish.
Well, Steve, not liking someone SHOULD be racist if it’s not. Or something. It should be not-likeist, or not-lickist if you REALLY should like someone but still don’t, which just proves what a sociopath you really are. That’s it…people who don’t like people that should be liked are sociopaths and probably should be examined by a State-appointed mental health professional. We just can’t have social happiness if people don’t like who they should like. Not-liking is just mean, and there’s no way you can argue that it’s not.
@Bill Marvel “I don’t think Rush is a racist, which is a word that ought to be used with more discretion than it is these days.”
OMG! I agree with Bill on something. Has H frozen over?
I do disagree with the rest of his post, but won’t get into that.
@Bill Marvel,
You’re partially right. Limbaugh is marginally shy of racist, and he’s certainly more than a bigot. Should we coin a new term for the casual racist? Like, oh say, “racially insensitive” or “racially careless”?
I know people don’t like being “racists”, but maybe some people would be okay with being the “racially careless”.
Give time, “racially careless,” could be the new black! …er, white!
I just think that if people keep using the term “racist” for marginal characters like Rush, then the word will be all used up by the time we come to a real cross-burning racist. Same is true of “Nazi,” “fascist,” and “socialist,”by the way.
Marvel’s right about overusing these terms, but signs at rallies that show the president as an animal and read “”The Zoo has an African and the White House has a Lyin’ African” are decidedly racist. And it isn’t just a few people, it’s lots of them. And those standing next to the signs don’t express any objections, either.
I was raised to be shocked if I found myself next to someone with a sign like that. But these people are not shocked, they’re just fine with it. That says everything.
And signs saying “We came unarmed (this time)” are decidedly threatening and designed to intimidate, pure and simple. As are loaded guns strapped to the leg at a presidential rally. This is all un-American and uncouth.
Can you imagine members of the Black Panthers showing up with loaded guns at a Nixon rally in, say, ‘68? Good Lord.
This is nuts.
Jackson raises an important point, and one very few are willing to address: Who is it those guns are meant to intimidate? Let’s be perfectly clear on this: They’re meant to intimidate you and me. They are meant to silence any of us who dare to disagree with the gun-bearer. Those guns are aimed straight at our right to discuss, to dispute, to disagree.
Please, no smarmy, evasive language about the right to bear arms, here. If someone shows up at a political rally with a gun, or with a sign that warns that the next time they will bring a gun, no ambiguity about the intent is possible.
I have no objection to folks owning guns. I have no objection to hunting, target shooting, collecting. But when you wave your gun in my face at a public gathering, at a town meeting — when you even threaten to wave it in my face — it can only mean one thing. And we both know what that is.
By the way, Jackson. I can assure you that brandishing arms was very much a tactic of the extreme left in the 1960s, and for the same reasons that the extreme right is waving its guns today. Disgust at the one should not blind one to the other.
True, Bill, but outside the front door of a high school gym in the ’60’s, with the president appearing inside?
I don’t think that happened, or would have been allowed.
In the early 20th Century, sure, and certainly before that. But that’s a silly position to take, and I realize you’re not taking it.
In the 60’s, there were threatening placards every bit as shocking, and I’m not naive or unknowing about the history of the country.
Yet surely we both agree that today’s civic juice is like that intel Colin Powell sold to the U.N. in the run-up to war: it’s laced with steroids!