The New Republic

There's an unfortunate typo in the second paragraph. As much as I might enjoy one, no one is discussing a "pubic option" for health care reform.

- Andisheh

September 17, 2009 at 12:23am

I think McWhorter is essentially correct. We don't really know what is going on in Joe Wilson's mind, although I have the same gut feeling he does. And as long as Wilson's actions are limited to the occasional incivility, he gets the public benefit of the doubt on the ultimate source of his animus (with Wilson, it is better to stick to the point that his outburst was not only rude, but factually incorrect; if you are going to be rude, at least tell the damn truth!). As for the lady in the photo, or anyone carrying signs of Obama as jungle boy, there is no doubt. A second Obama term would be a great way to show these knuckledraggers what modern America thinks of their prejudices.

- JEFF FREY

September 17, 2009 at 1:30am

Incredible. Anyone can guess about whether one is a racist. One shouldn't toss the allegation lightly. Evidence is required. What do we have? "Many" people think Mr. Wilson is? First, is John talking five, fifty, five hundred? Second, does it matter how many-without evidence it's mere speculation. Third, does it advance one's progressive agenda to so accuse-of course. "It helps explain Mr. Wilson's outburst. So does a hundred different explanations. Like, in Obama's speech itself, there are at least thirteen (13) misprepresenations of the facts-from individual policies costing 3 times more than group health policies to two (2) specific examples he gave of insurance recissions (both actually received the treatment sought-one lived 3.5 years more). Do you forget large numbers of Democrats booing President Bush's 2005 State of the Union address. "Ms. Dowd and some people" can't believe Obama is President. Of course, but that is no evidence that Mr. Wilson is one of them. "Subtle racism" today. Of course, historically, Americans found it much easier to display open racism. In fact, your examples of what can mask the racism-liberal animus, elite animus, etc. are more explanations of why Mr. Wilson spoke out-you defeat your own allegation here. An interesting study produced by two New York University graduate students is most instructive. They produced two polls, asking two groups of mixed Dems/GOPers how many of certain statements they supported. One statement was supporting a black person for the presidency. One set had one more question. Result-fewer Democrats supported a black president than Republicans. So, where do the racists live now? It seemed 25% or so of each party had problems with a black president. That could be one sign of the remaining racism in America. I assume Kayne West's outburst is an example of black racism and that hate crimes are disproportionately filed against black on white crime is a further example that racism works both ways. One wonders if the post-racial president, Mr. Obama, is really so pristine himself. Tiger Woods is Thai/Black-he embraces both parents. Mr. Obama, despite being raised by his white grandparents, chooses to identify as a black man. With the Harvard arrest dust-up, much like Mr. McWhorter, Obama supports the black man and denigrates the white man. Obama sat in a church for 20 years, whereat some pretty racism things were said about the whites. Now, John, here's the difference between the two of us-I'm not calling Obama a racist-however, the evidence is stronger than the allegation posited against Mr. Wilson.

- lobosven

September 17, 2009 at 4:02am

I'm not sure I understand why Mr. McWhorter thinks Congress' chiding of Joe Wilson depends on the assumption that he's racist. If it had been a congressman without Wilson's history of racism, but with a history of inappropriate outbursts, surely he would have been chided as well?

- Simon Greenwood

September 17, 2009 at 9:31am

I certainly agree we should hesitate in calling so many anti-Obama people racists, I see no reason why we can't call them ignorant rubes. These people screaming "keep government out of Medicare" and "Obama is a Socialist" are purely and simply idiots. As to Joe Wilson, he belongs to the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I am sorry, this is 2009, unless his father was 120 when he fathered him, he ain't any Veterans son. Even if people who belong to such organizations don't believe they are racists, they are insensitive a-hole scum. The Confederacy was evil, more than enough time has passed that the South can grow up to accept this simple fact. For a Rep. of the US Congress to still belong to such an organization shows far too a willingness to associate with an organization that has racial undertones, so it is not hard to imagine that he harbors some racist feelings. And lobo, your posting is utterly ridiculous.

- blackton

September 17, 2009 at 10:24am

It's the combination: (1) racist, (2) ignorant, (3) unintelligent. These people can't make good decisions on issues such as healthcare and don't trust anyone else to either. I'm smart enough to realize that I can't possibly figure out solutions to problems that vex seasoned experts, so the only thing I can do is respond to broad public policis -- whether more people should be covered (yes), who should pay (rich people such as me), etc.

- Mikelawyr2

September 17, 2009 at 10:43am

This latest dust-up over racism in America just shows how much the working definition of "racist" has narrowed, at least for white conservatives. Refer to blacks as "spooks" or "pickaninnies"? Not a racist, just a poor choice of words. Refer to them by a harsher epithet? Not a racist, just having a bad day and, anyway, that's not what's in your heart. Carry around signs showing a black man as a witch doctor or with whiteface? Not a racist, just really concerned about socialism. Routinely make racially provocative comments on your radio or TV show? Not a racist, just an ironist or a "rodeo clown". Praise segregatonalist politicians or the Confederacy? Not a racist, just honoring one's elders or one's heritage. Sometimes it seems that one could only truly be a white racist in this country is if he or she personally lynched someone.

- wildboy

September 17, 2009 at 10:52am

The right wing wants to nullify the election. The fact that Obama is black helps them rally support but their agenda is much larger. They oppose everything Obama does and use deep-seated cultural fears (death panel, foreigness, elitism) to do this. They also want to nullify facts. This is a new feature of the rabid commentators, and they are getting away with it. That's scarier than anything. Liberals are the new 'Communists' to them. The coverage and legitimacy these people get is dangerous. All the left does is fact check and explain things rationally. They haven't figured out how to fight this new type of demagoguery. The racists are there, sure. But the right is launching an attack on the very fiber of American society.

- CAMtwo

September 17, 2009 at 11:16am

"So what?" should indeed be the attitude. It's very unproductive - and could be counterproductive - to engage the nutty fringe, be they racist or not. Fortunately the president recognizes that, and has wisely refused taking the bait. I just wish many others like Jimmy Carter would do the same. lobosven: you protest too much....much more than Carter protested. All this black on white racism, including the president's and Kanye West's, are so clearly evident to you, but any charge of racism against Joe Wilson or the tea baggers requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. How very objective of you.

- scrubby

September 17, 2009 at 11:50am

CAM2 makes an excellent point - they're trying to nullify the election, just as they tried for 6 years to nullify the elections of 1992 and 1996. The difference between now and the 90's is that Obama's victory was clear cut - not muddled by the presence of a 3rd party candidate or the intervention of an ideological Supreme Court. The question we should be asking is not so much their motivation - I still believe that much of the animus is racial, but let's face it, most Republicans wouldn't accept a Democrat to the left of Zell Miller. The question is: why are we letting them get away with it? They are setting the agenda. In the 90s' when he was fat and sitting in the cat bird seat, when he and his GOP colleagues were shovelling the pork to their home districts Dick Armey famously proclaimed "to the victors go the spoils". Armey's now out of power, and he's STILL setting the agenda. Why is it that everytime I turn on the TV I see Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, that idiot Michael Steele? Palin's the losing VP candidate, she should be fading into oblivion - who paid any attention to what Joe Lieberman or John Edwards had to say in 2001 and 2005. And they were still sitting Senators. Instead of Michael Steele, where the hell is Howard Dean? He had such a reputation for being a hothead, well, where's that anger now that we need it? Where's our Tea Party? The Democrats won in 2008 and won big. Let's start acting like it. And please, can't we have more forceful leadership than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Need a real

- dubyadoubte

September 17, 2009 at 1:03pm

To paraphrase a post of mine reflecting on the "meaning" of "being a Jew": 1] delineate in some detail what "racism"....what being a "racist"....is. What you are convinced it means 2] note how close to or far from this description your own moral and political values propelled you 3] demonstrate how the relationship between your assessment of racism and your values is not mere personal prejudice but reflects the sort of conclusions any rational man or woman would come to if, as they say, they were "given all the facts" So: Instead of trying to peel back layers of the existential onion that is the ultimate mystery of human identity...instead of ever disassembling, assembling and reassembling all of the unique, personal, individual experiences and relationships that had nudged [or outright shoved] them into embracing one set of values about race rather than another another...many who ponder what being a black white brown red yellow man/woman/racist means start at the shallowest end of the identity pool instead. Joe Wilson wasn't born destined to understand, to broach or to defend these things the way he does now...anymore than you and I were. We aren't all destined to think, feel and behave in a particular way because this is what being a member of the black white brown red yellow race MEANS. No, we were raised in a particular family, in a particular community that came of age at a particular historical and cultural juncture. We had/have particular experiences and relationships that ever breakdown or reinforce these attitudes and behaviors. Had we been born in and raised by very different families, in very different communities, at very different historical and cultural junctures...or had very different experiences and relationships...would we be the same man or woman we are today, sharing the same moral and political values, subscribing to the same sense of what it means to reflect on the world around us as a member of one race rather than another, of what it means to behave as a member of one race rather than another? So, what do you think about race and racism? Why do you think this and not something else? Is what you think the most rational and moral manner in which one can think about this? How would you go about demonstrating it? And part and parcel of this, of course, we must then ask: IS there a way to know essentially what race, and race relations, MEAN? Some folks...of all moral and political inclinations...come to an existential juncture [that others simply do not] where they have convinced thmselves that questions like this can be answered with a fierce certainty. Not only that, but with a certainty such that, if you can answer them, you have than answered in turn what one must think, believe and do as a true brown black red yellow white man or woman. Some are just far more crude or dense or unthinking than others about these things. But being far less crude, dense or ignorant doesn't necessarily afford you an explanation that obviates all others. But: Probing all the variables that separate us [or can be said to separate us] is just one part of the puzzle. The other part revolves around the things that all of us share in common. These things: 1] we all must have access to food 2] we all must have access to water 3] we all must have access to shelter from the elements....from the storms and then in order to survive as a community... 4] we all must have access to a social environment stable enough to reproduce 5] we all must have access to a means of defending ourselves-----from enemies within and without And much of this...for all races...revolves around political and economic power. And political and economic power is often sustained by those who have access to both by exploiting differences in race, gender, sexual orientation, religious faith, political and ethical values etc. If we were like our ancestors in the caves, these things would be crystal clear. As they are for any number of aboriginal communities around the globe today that still grasp how survival itself trumps all. But in our more modern socially, politically and economically complex world there are many, many additional layers that work to obfuscate "the human condition" as the vast majority of our ancestors lived it day in and day out for countless generations. Race, of course, is just one of these factors. But it is easily rendered an explosive factor by those [for many conflicting and contradictory reasons] who choose to make it so. george walton d/a

- iambiguous

September 17, 2009 at 1:06pm

JM: And yet, even if Dowd and I are correct that Wilson's outburst was motivated by dislike for blacks, I'm not entirely sure that I, or anyone else, should care. george: Yes, here and now, this argument can be reasonably made. But there was no doubt a time when particular Jews in Germany were speculating in the same vein about Adolph Hitler. When he was still a speck among specks on the political horizon. We care or do not care historically when our options become more or less restricted. We still have the luxury of being intellectuals now. And this I suspect was always Jean Paul Sartre's argument [before, during and after the war] to Albert Camus. Sartre situated the individual in history in the manner in which Camus was ever reluctant to follow. Simone de Beauvoir's brilliant novel The Blood Of Others grapples with this connundrum....political, philosophical, personal...as few other assessments have. Far more excruciatingly than the novel considered to be her masterpiece, The Mandarins. Why? Because The Blood Of Others was situated IN the Second World War....not AFTER it. george walton d/a

- iambiguous

September 17, 2009 at 1:38pm

Loboseven is like jacobtl after you've added water (sorry, TNR vets inside joke!). Reading his long meandering screed is like watching polenta thicken, but the result is less attractive. More concretely, lobo, if there is even one example out there of Obama "denigrating the white man" I'd love to hear about it. Indeed, the president's self-discipline in trying to keep his team from being distracted by the yowling and the hyperbole coming from the "They are taking my country!" camp is impressive.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2009 at 2:36pm

I apologize. Different views are not accepted by you guys, fine. Some parting thoughts: Obama said the white policeman acted stupidly-without knowing any of the facts (he said he didn't) Most polls show that among progressives and conservatives, there's pretty even distribution among the educated and the uneducated For you theories to work, only progressive thoughts and policy are "smart", every conservative thought or policy is "stupid" As the last 40 years have shown, majorities are temporary and fluid Here's one example of progressive "smart" thought: Pelosi just said that in the 70's, a similar environment (GOP anger directed by the vast right wing conspiracy) led to violence-the deaths of Moscone and Milk. Never mind that then, talk show radio and Fox News barely existed. Never mind that Senator Feinstein said that those deaths had nothing to do with homophobia. Events suggest that a sick and angry man, acting alone and without encouragement, committed the murders. This is why America is rightly afraid of your Democratic majorities-she's one of you biggest leaders. Sad Whether you or I are actually more intelligent and educated is never open for discussion, eh, despite fact progressive spent decades saying Reagan was dumb (history negates) or that Bush II was dumb (exact same grades as Kerry).............I do, know, from history and life experience that ad hominum attacks begin when you are simply and painfully wrong. continue to prove my point. Love you all.

- lobosven

September 17, 2009 at 3:29pm

"But these people, and the people who compare Obama to Hitler, are far and away in the minority on the conservative right. Most conservatives find those comparisons offensive. Yet comparisons between Bush and Hitler were common on the progressive left during Bush’s two terms in office and few in the mainstream media or on the left were offended by that. This brings me to the third double standard, the issue of motivation. What drives individuals to engage in collective action? In the case of left-wing protesters, they are pushed to participate due to a sense of great moral conviction. They protest because it is the right thing to do. What about conservatives who protest? What is their motivation? The predictable response from the mainstream media is racism. Conservatives protest because our president is black. That is some sad commentary on the state of American politics in the 21st century." http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/demonstrations-and-double-standards/

- noga1

September 17, 2009 at 3:32pm

I'll answer for lobo, Irony! Obama denigrated John McCain repeatedly in the general election, right through Election Day. That was a humiliation that a lot of white men in the Republican Party just could not stand, going as it did against the scientifically proven course of human events. He also denigrated George W. Bush repeatedly, and denigrated and keeps denigrating Dick Cheney, both of whom were visionary genius leaders the like of which have not strode the Earth since Churchill, at least until the Iraq War started to go really sideways back in 2005 and then the economy imploded last year. Finally, Obama foolishly denigrated Officer Crowley of the Cambridge PD, who heroically risked life and limb to arrest a middle-aged bespectacled black man in his own house when the man had the temerity to get angry about showing his ID to the officer, and then fabricated a police report to make it appear that he was responding to a call about black burglars in the neighborhood when the caller never mentioned race. With this many denigrations of the White Race, I'm expecting spontaneous uprisings of outraged patriots to take their Country back and to march down the National Mall waving flags and exclaiming patriotic slogans. Oh wait ... BTW, I love your reference to jacobtl. I miss the little guy and his cut and paste skills.

- wildboy

September 17, 2009 at 3:32pm

Lobo, don't flatter yourself. Everyone is given a hearing around here (or, at least, when we had people to hear them), and many people with minority positions have had extended discussions with other posters (ChanRobt, dtohmatsu and SeattleEngineer come to mind). Nonsense, however, is quickly identified and treated as such.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2009 at 3:49pm

"This brings me to the third double standard, the issue of motivation. What drives individuals to engage in collective action? In the case of left-wing protesters, they are pushed to participate due to a sense of great moral conviction. They protest because it is the right thing to do. What about conservatives who protest? What is their motivation?" Noga, this is a very dicey problem that I've long puzzled over, reaching no good end except the candle flickering out and the sound of the town crier calling "three o'clock!" as a lone horse and buggy clatter over the cobblestones. Obviously, collecting numbers of people together to exert political pressure is a common action in a democracy. It's not a common action in an authoritarian or totalitarian state, although it can happen at moments of crisis (e.g. Iran in recent times) and often pseudo-spontaneous "gatherings" can be staged by a dominant regime to register a claim to popular support. Indeed, often there is popular support even in an authoritarian system, as Chavez could probably call out a hell of a lot of people in Venezuela who genuinely do believe in him. European fascism is a unique example of using democratic methods of demonstration and persuasion to gain power and then essentially crush those methods by awarding the right to demonstrate to one party only -- essentially "nationalizing" grassroots politics. One could argue that the Bolsheviks did much the same thing, although they had less of a democratic tradition to work with (or against) and they had little time for racial/ethnic hatreds (but plenty of time for class hatreds). But leaving those more extreme examples aside, the primary motivation for taking to the streets in a democratic nation is pretty much the same: conservatives take to the streets for the same reason that progressives do. They want to bring extra-parliamentary pressure to bear upon the central political institutions. Is there any reason to feel that one should differentiate beyond that, as regards motive? Pehaps -- it seems to me that if a movement gathers to right a clear wrong, e.g. racial segregation in the Jim Crow South, then it is perhaps legitimate to see those marchers as occupying a somewhat higher ethical plane than people gathering to block access to the first black student at the University of Mississippi. I would have no problem asserting that, in any case. It's a bit fuzzier when one comes to, say, the anti-war protests of the Vietnam era. There is no reason to believe that those demonstrators were any more morally or ethically equipped than the people who thought it was the right thing to fight the war, or indeed the soldiers and marines who fought it. I think one could e.g. feel horror at the intensity of our B52 bombing of the North (and Cambodia, which was kept secret) or at the My Lai massacre, however, and that was certainly a strong motivation for many marchers. But I think one can ask about motivation, without starting off from a condemnatory position. What is the motivation for people claiming "their country" is being "taken" from them? They were on the losing side in the election, certainly, but in contrast to more recent times Obama's victory wasn't razor thin and wasn't decided by a compliant Supreme Court. They'll get another chance. What is the motivation for the Hitler comparisons? Certainly stupid and crude Bush=Hitler stuff was seen on the Left but it came from a minority. You didn't find Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich echoing the polemic of the activist fringe. Today, we have respectable members of the Republican establishment echoing the looniest language of the conservative nutter zone. Race, ethnicity, identity, can be odd things. I've always been curious about what might have happened if Gore-Lieberman had won. My own feeling is that a certain hostile posture vis-a-vis Jews would have begun to emerge from the same conservative fringe. You can't always keep these things quiet. I think that while racial paranoia is not the objective of the current campaign on the Right -- that would be the desire to make sure Obama doesn't have a major achievement in domestic policy -- it is certainly one of many tools being deployed. And, unfortunately, there is still a constituency of Americans ready to be moved in that way, as their posters and statements reveal.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2009 at 4:32pm

irony, you are damn right about lobo, my does lobo have a thin skin. You and I have had a boatload of arguments between ourselves about the Iraq war (I supported it), about abortion (I am against it), etc. I never felt in the slightest offended when you disagreed with me. The fact is I want my opinions to be challenged, and on some issues where I am liberal and I said something stupid and was called out by someone like butchie I was certainly happy to admit I was wrong. lobo brings Kanye West into the conversation, Kanye West! (someone whom pretty much everyone left and right agrees is a jackass). Of course that is utter nonsense, a search for some kind of false equivalency (the far right always brings up Sen. Byrd's Klan days) I am pro-life, I was for the Iraq war, I am for school vouchers, etc. there are a lot of issues where I am Conservative and I have never had my viewpoints derided as stupid (wrong, misguided, etc. sure) I agree with Noga that the majority of these people are not racist, I think most of them are ignorant chuckehead who haven't got a clue. To be honest I felt the exact same way about the jackasses at Moveon who called General Petraeus General Betray-us and I and a lot of people at TNR said so at the time. So, of course, irony you are absolutely correct in your assessment.

- blackton

September 17, 2009 at 5:59pm

"What is the motivation for people claiming "their country" is being "taken" from them? " What, indeed? If I recall correctly, this claim was a pretty common complaint among the more rabid Leftists on CR boards. What I have seen in the last week on so is a mirror reflection of that group. With the same reluctance from the more thoughtful people to distance themselves completely and irrevocably from these deranged groups. "Yes, they are over the top, but..." was always the answer to this demand. You may recall that even Obama had difficulties distancing himself from Louis Farrakhan. It took some persuasive proding from Hilary Clinton to get him to deal with his own faithful lunatic fringe more decisively and completely. And afterwards she was condescendingly portrayed in the media as too petty-minded for insisting on a more thorough and explicit separation.

- noga1

September 17, 2009 at 6:49pm

I would like for a moment to set aside the debate about left/right and Conservative/progressive and get back to McWhorter's thesis, which I take to be that, though the hysterical opposition to Obama is likely rooted in, or at least tinged by, racism, it is of no consequence because it is merely "subliminal" racsim. Subliminal racism, according to McWhorter, cannot be eradicated and, in any event, does not cause any real harm. But I submit that the rhetoric and actions of the current right-wing protestors, while not always explicitly racist (some of it IS explicit, e.g., the placard in the photo accompanying McWhorter's piece), is far from "subliminal." The fact that people invoke pretexts (pretexts that themselves invoke "otherness," such as that the President was not born in the US or is a Che Guevara-like Communist) for their racist actions, does not mean the racism is subliminal. More importantly, whether subliminal or not, it is not harmless. With the aid of demogogues like Beck and Limbaugh (and some Republican politicians), much latent bigotry is rising to the surface. At minimum, it poisons any meaningul debate and threatens to defeat health care reform on illegitimate grounds. More ominously, it undermines the Presidency itself, and creates an atmosphere in which something truly tragic could happen. We should not take it lightly.

- dhurtado

September 17, 2009 at 9:07pm

dhurtado: it will be a lot more tragic than you ever imagine if we fall into the GOP trap of responding about race. The Right's plan is to keep prodding in all sorts of offensive ways, without actually saying anything lifted directly from T.W. Dixon's 1905 novel The Klansman, and thus inveigle the Democrats onto those fateful grounds. They will then immediately assert, as they have done, that they are only expressing some mild disagreements with the president on policy issues, and that we have no other argument except accusing them of racism. And there's Michael Steele of course, so how . . . ? This is sheer humbug, as almost everyone knows, but it's potentially effective humbug. Our best and indeed most urgent tactic is to allow this anger and this resentment to blow over, and for its nastier elements to do the damage to their own case that they are so well equipped to achieve.

- ironyroad

September 18, 2009 at 1:50am

Irony, you and I fundamentally disagree about this. In my view, the "humbug" of using pretexts for racism is effective humbug precisely because we have been cowed into believing we cannot stand up to racism unless it is explicitly articulated. That is the trap that we have already fallen into, and we should shake ourselves free of it. What tragedy do think will occur if we do that? (I should clarify that I do not suggest that Obama or the administration should call out the racism. That would be politically injudicious, to say the least.) Moreover, much of the current anti-Obama rhetoric is explicitly racist. And the bigots are being emboldened by the explicitly racist rhetoric of demogogic media personalities. They are being further emboldened by political leaders who are apologetic for, or refuse to condemn, the racist and inflammatory rhetoric. So our point of disagreement is what the rest of us should do in the face of this phenomenon. Should we just lay down in the hope that it will blow over and have no impact on the agenda that Obama was elected to pursue, or that it will not result in violence? Or should we say something about it, in the hope that leveler heads on both sides of the political divide will take action to try to tamp it down? I think the latter. By "saying something about it," I don't mean that we should take to the streets with our own signs calling people "racists" and "bigots." But certainly we can calmly point out in commentary that racism appears to be afoot and that it is dangerous. That is what Carter did. And that is what we are doing in this thread of comments. Indeed, that is what McWhorter does in his piece. But his conclusion is that we shouldn't care because it can cause no harm. With that I cannot agree.

- dhurtado

September 18, 2009 at 7:50am

Dhurtado I agree with McWhorter and disagree with you. If you hive off the crazies, they are not worth any intellectual time or trouble, and then try to apply "subliminal racism" to the non crazies, you are in a near to impossible position. After all what is sublimimal is not act of consciusness by definition: "Existing in the mind, but below the surface or threshold of consciousness; that is, existing as feeling rather than as clear ideas." So if you are not dealing with crazies and you are not dealing with overt racism, how can you ever prove subliminal racism? According to McWhorter the results of testing for it are indeterminate and ambiguous. So then an argument against you becomes that you are "playing the race card". Then you get into distraction and diversion over race, which exacerbates the issue, and your good liberal policy agenda gets set back. I can't see getting into subliminal racism either as a matter of principle--because how can you know--or as matter pragmatic calculation.

- basman

September 18, 2009 at 9:16pm

p.s. did you prechance see the Spider take apart Forrest Griffin. Unbelievable: http://www.mmaroot.com/anderson-silva-vs-forrest-griffin-fight-video-ufc-101/

- basman

September 18, 2009 at 9:20pm

p.s. Did you perchance see the Spider take apart Forrest Griffin. Unbelievable: http://www.mmaroot.com/anderson-silva-vs-forrest-griffin-fight-video-ufc-101/

- basman

September 18, 2009 at 9:20pm

Hey Basman. It has been a while. If you read both of my posts, you will see that my point is that what is going on now among a certain vocal element is not the least bit subliminal. There is a difference between subliminal racism and racism that is camouflaged by pretext. The pretexts here are that Obama was not born in the US, that he is a Communist, that he is an Arab (meant in pejorative sense), that he wants to establish "death panels," and that he wants to subsidize healthcare for illegal aliens, etc. The pretexts are irrational and/or unfounded, and themselves evoke a notion of "otherness." The demographics of those who despise or fear Obama on those grounds is consistent with a view that they are rooted in discomfort or resentment of the fact that a black man is President of the US. Some of the placards that were brandished by these people are explicitly racist. To cite just one example, "There is an African in the Zoo [showing a lion], there is a lyin' African in the white house." Are these just a few crazies on the fringes? Well, they are egged on by people like Beck and Limbaugh, who make overtly racist statements and who have millions of viewers and "dittoheads." And they have among their apologists numerous Republican congressmen. So I think it is reasonable to muse that racism may be afoot, and that it may be dangerous to simply ignore it. To be sure, the apologists will accuse those who suspect rascism of "playing the race card." But I think it is cowardly to back down for that reason. The answer is that the conservatives are playing the race card and then trying to deny it. Re: the MMA bouts, I don't follow them to the extent that I follow boxing. I was interested in the Carano/Cyborg bout, but Cyborg is so strong and powerful that it really wasn't much of a contest. I am looking foward to the Mayweather/Marquez fight tomorrow (or should I say tonight).

- dhurtado

September 19, 2009 at 1:44am

Dhurtado: Between my perhaps overly broad distinction between crazies and non crazies there are some, to be sure, who, as you say, use pretext to cover their racial animus, which is, I agree, a good counterpoint to the notion of subliminal racism. But even here, if the racism is not palpable, I would tend to make the same arguments for much the same reasons. And I would make another distinction: between musing “...that racism may be afoot” and politicians, including Carter –whose ex-presidency makes his “musings” quasi institutional-- taking a public position to that effect. Once Democratic politicians start up along these lines with the likes of Beck and Limbaugh, both of whom I despise fwiiw, they cannot win to that and become dragged into a battle of unlikes, and get mired in culture war, distracted and diverted from pushing forward their good liberal policies. Different context granted: but wasn’t the blowback from Gates/Crowley an example of unwinnability--its perhaps only memorable teachable moment, that being a hard political lesson? There are plenty of Democratic proxies who can join issue with the likes of Limbaugh, Beck. In the political realm it is not I’d think cowardly to assess the charge of “playing the race card” and therefore not give the impression of playing it unless in a clear case. It is rather discretion being the better part of wanting not to appear, or be, uncowardly. After all, even in your own examples, there is a difference between drawing an analogy to Obama from a lion in an African zoo and disseminating a notion of death panels. The former is overtly racist; the latter an unwinnable case that has no political benefit, which is why it is a path Obama does not want to go down. (One would need to be arguing that S. Palin is a racist.) Plus if you gather together all the black conservative politicians, justices, public intellectuals and figures of national prominence, such as they are, the assimilation of notions like death panels to a racist impulse is going to blow up in the assimilator's face.

- basman

September 19, 2009 at 6:31am

p.s. A fight to watch for is Anderson Silva against Lyoto "The Dragon" Machida should it ever come to pass. What makes the Silva Griffin fight notable to me in part is that Silva went out of his weight class of 185 to 205 to fight Griffin who had been UFC champ at 205. he dispatched him without breaking a bead of sweat. The point being that Silva is a Michael Jordan or a Tiger Woods in a sport that is still under the manstream radar, his fighting brilliance no less for that.

- basman

September 19, 2009 at 6:37am

Basman, I agree (and I think I said so somewhere above) that neither Obama nor other democratic politicians should, as a matter of good politics and governance, weigh in on the matter of whether there is racism underneath some of the hostility and fear regarding Obama. But I think the rest of us should not be afraid to say what we see merely because we might be challenged for it. And I don't we think we need to obnoxious or inflammatory, ala Limbaugh (or ala Oberman on the other side). I think Carter (who I don't regard as part of the current Democratic apparatus) set the example of how to say it. His comments were thoughtful and measured. And he got the rest of us to start talking about it.

- dhurtado

September 19, 2009 at 5:33pm

I didn’t have the impression that this was the way the issue was framed. I don’t think anyone really cares “about the rest of us” and they and I can of course say and argue over whatever we want. There is no political calculation to made about general discourse. I think Carter (who I don't regard as part of the current Democratic apparatus) set the example of how to say it. His comments were thoughtful and measured. And he got the rest of us to start talking about it. But I disagree with you about Carter in at least three ways: 1.When a former president speaks everyone else listens regardless of whether he’s part of the current apparatus, that last not being anywhere near the point. If that’s so, if there is something quasi institutional about such utterances, it as a matter of wisdom—not rights— behooves the speaker to be temperate in his chatting. As a circumstantial point going to this I’d note all the accoutrements surrounding him as ex president, the pension, the secret service, his access to power, his symbolic authority and even the protocol of referring to him as Mr. President. 2. I didn’t think his comments, being those of one who is not “the rest of us”, were measured and thoughtful especially in their well understood firestorm repercussions. What do you make of the fact that the administration has to spend time distancing itself from them and that they dominated a few days of news cycles. 3. Finally, that his words got us all talking does not justify them, I argue. Across the political divide the talk I apprehend is divisive and unhealing. Intra the divide the talk on the lefter side is either self affirming or nuanced as to process bringing no substantive understanding to the issue of race--if so what is the new insight-- but rather turning on whether, as with us, Carter should have said what he said how he said it. I vote no.

- basman

September 20, 2009 at 2:00pm

Basman, I drafted a response to your latest post, but it was not accepted. I do not have time to re-draft it, but very briefly: When I say the "rest of us," I am including anyone who is outside the administration or who is not currently holding or seeking political office. So Carter is among the "rest of us" in that he does not have to be concerned about the impact of his words on his ability to govern. The extent to which Obama has had to respond to Carter's words has been minimal and simply goes with the territory in a society in which we value freedom of expression. To the extent Carter's comments have dominated the news cycle, I don't see that as a bad thing. The loud vitriol of the right-wing is already dominating the news cycle, so I cannot see the downside of injecting it with comments from an influential person who is not foaming at the mouth and is speaking the truth. Potential divisiveness, while sometimes legitimately part of a politician's calculus, is not per se a reason to refrain from opposing dangerous and destructive attitudes. Martin Luther King preached non-violence, but if he feared divisiveness he never would have spoken out at all.

- dhurtado

September 20, 2009 at 7:44pm

Dhurtado too bad you lost your draft. If I am writing something long I usually save it until I know it’s posted, having lost a few myself. We may be at the not infrequent point here of being on the verge of repeating ourselves. No disagreement that Carter can say whatever he wants, but the issue for me is the wisdom and substance of what he said considering his ex presidency. There we are doomed, it seems, to disagree. There is obviously no disagreement between us about the value of freedom of expression, and which of course Carter has the full right of; again the issue for me in this regard is wisdom and discretion rather than him being a foreseeable by him lightning rod. And the issue is not vitriol of the right wing nuts, but the tendency to assimilate opposition to Obama to that vitriol and its dimension of racism. My reading of Carter's remarks is that implicit in them was that very assimilative implication and inclination. That gets you into issues of whether Joe Wilson is a racist or even whehter Sarah Palin is, as one of the prime movers of the notion of death panels. Your mention of King elides McWhorter’s distinction between a kind of straight up Jim Crow, racism and the complicated, unwinnable notion of subliminal racism, which latter is not always distinguishable from your own helpful notion of pretextual racism. But the latter by, definition at least, involves self conscious action. Again, a premise of my argument is that, even amongst “just us”, a club I continue to contend Carter does not belong to, it's okay to call out the crazies for what they are, but that calling them out even in public discourse doesn’t get us very far. I'd equte them, I think, with Code Pink for example and like people who insisted Bush/Cheney were fascists.

- basman

September 21, 2009 at 1:57pm

Basman, my point about King is that the potential divisiveness of a public leader speaking out about racism, whether subliminal, pretextual or explicit, is not by itself a valid reason for refraining from speaking out. I agree with you that pretextual racism probably involves self-consciously racist action that the actor is attempting to conceal, but I also think there are different kinds of subliminal racism, ranging from the subliminal preconceptions that even people who fight for civil rights might have, to the subliminal racial resentment that is very close to the surface but which people refuse to admit even to themselves. But when someone like Beck, Limbaugh, or Gingrich provides them with a pretext for their hatred and resentment of the black president, they grab on to with great fervor. And some cannot restrain themselves form overtly racist epithets. But by the same token, they feel less restrained than they might otherwise feel because of the apparent imprmatur of Beck, Limbaugh and Gingrich. I think our primary disagreement is that I think the racism that is apparently afoot should be a matter of public discussion, even if it should not be discussed by the administration for reasons of governance. Your view appears to be that it should not be discussed by people who have public influence, even outside of government, because it might be divisive, and in any event, will not get us very far because the racists are just a few nutballs. If in fact we were talking about a few "crazies" who would have no significant impact, then I would agree with you. But my sense is that the racist hatred is gaining sufficient traction -- albeit still with a small minority -- that it is potentially dangerous and therefore there needs to be a public acknowlegment and condemnation of it. (By the way, I am of the considered view that if Cheney (not Bush) had the power, or lived in a conducive political environment, he would establish a military dictatorship. How is that for being a left-wing looney tune?) As to Joe Wilson, I actually did not initially react to his outburst as being racist, but only as another manifestation of the depravity of the opposition to Obama, and the level to which incivility in Congress has descended. But once one considers Wilson's background, then it is at least plausible that he would not have shown the same disrespect to a white president, regardless of the extent to which he disagreed with that president's policies. You say: "And the issue is not vitriol of the right wing nuts, but the tendency to assimilate opposition to Obama to that vitriol and its dimension of racism. My reading of Carter's remarks is that implicit in them was that very assimilative implication and inclination." I THINK what you are saying here is that it is not fair or accurate to say that opposition to Obama's policies or the belief that he is not performing well as President is based in racsim. If that were what Carter said, then I would disagree with him. But that is not what he said. He said that he believes an overwhelming portion of the intense hostility toward Obama (not his policies) is based on the fact that he is a black man. That is at least an arguably true statement.

- dhurtado

September 21, 2009 at 11:36pm

Thanks dhurtado: I think I will leave the issue here. We will I’m sure have other opportunities and contexts to moot these points.

- basman

September 23, 2009 at 11:25am