If you watched Morning Joe this morning, you saw a riveting discussion about how “everyone acknowledges that racism still exists,” but <em>none</em> of Obama’s critics are racist. At least according to Joe Scarborough, as he was debating Michael Eric Dyson on the topic. And he knows this, because he’s from The South. (The way he pronounces it, the region deserves those capital letters).
If you missed it, then you missed one of the most unfortunate manufactured debates in recent memory. Joe enjoyed it so much, in fact, that he was anxious to continue it and invited Dyson to come back to the studio (where, presumably, they will talk “man to man”):
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Of course, this is all in response to Jimmy Carter’s recent interview with Brian Williams in which he says he’s disappointed (rightfully) to see the level of racism some of Obama’s critics seem to be displaying. After they play the clip, you should see co-host Mika Brzenski (now officially on autopilot) as she silently shakes her head in disappointment. “How dare you, Jimmy Carter,” her face is most definitely saying.
Nevermind the fact that Carter is absolutely correct in this case — as always, the story is the controversy, not the issues at hand. But if claiming that Obama is a Muslim is not about race, then why do it? If questionning his citizenship isn’t about race, what is? If calling him a <em>racist</em> is not about his race, then what is?
It’s not hard to agree with Carter in this regard, and what he said is not particularly controversial. No one is saying that ALL opposition to Obama is racist — but some very obviously is. After all, if a person happens to be a racist, how could they <em>not</em> oppose Obama?
August may be over, but we’re still knee-deep in silly season.
Related Posts:
2 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
I object to your remark that “No one is saying that ALL opposition to Obama is racist.” Well, that much is true. But do you honestly not feel that MANY commentators are immediately jumping to race as the underlying factor anytime someone disagrees with the President? Are you really saying this isn’t happening? Media attitudes did a sudden about face when President Carter made his remark, and now they’re saying that he was wrong and of course people can disagree with the President without being racist, possibly in an effort to never be on the same side of an issue as Carter, which is a wise policy. But have you genuinely not seen this behavior as common throughout the Obama presidency?
It’s part of a larger pattern of behavior where this administration and innumerable commentators refer to those opposed to various policies as either deliberately obscurantist or afraid of something or in thrall to special interest or whatever. The attitude that reasonable disagreement with actions and proposed policies of the Obama administration is an utter impossibility is ubiquitous. As though if you don’t have a beatific smile on your face as you gaze on the President’s visage in rapturous ecstasy, something is crazy about you. (All right, I engage in hyperbole. But it cannot be denied that the current President is treated like a pop celebrity to a great extent, with many people just assuming that you have to love him, like he’s the “Stairway to Heaven” of politicians. I find this shift away from support into adulation inappropriate and potentially insidious, and believe me I’d find it so with ANY Commander-in-Chief.)
I’d also like to deal with your words “if claiming that Obama is a Muslim is not about race, then why do it?” If I were to go about claiming that Obama is a Muslim, it wouldn’t be about race at all. It would be about religion. Now, I DON’T go about claiming this, because it’s patently foolish. Obama says he’s a Christian, and we know it’s a statement of religion, not race. Equating the two, as though religion were some kind of genetically heritable characteristic, clears the way for the continued indoctrination of children and is repugnant to me. For the record, I no more believe President Obama is a Christian, as he says, than I believe he’s a Muslim or a Scientologist or a worshipper of Ra. Nothing about him suggests that he’d ever bother to attend church at all were he not in the public eye, nor that he’s foolish enough to believe preposterous things about the fundamental nature of the world on the basis of no evidence at all. I disagree with his interpretation of what the role of the government should be and how far it should extend, but I don’t think he’s stupid.
Which brings me back around to my first, main point (I think I had one, but you can never tell with me). It seems like so many commentators are incapable or unwilling to imagine that people could disagree about political issues without one of them being unreasonable or stupid.
In conclusion, why do I bother having political back-and-forths with you when it only keeps us from the more important business in life–not to mention things on which we can agree–like which Lethal Weapon sequel is best and how Paul Reiser is totally despicable and evil in Aliens, proving that art often imitates life.
Well, this blog post was about exactly two things. 1) That racists will very obviously oppose a black president, and 2) That, the first statement being obviously true, it is absurd to claim that no opposition to Obama is race-based, as Scarborough (my favorite talking head) does. Now, granted, Dyson does a terrible job in the above interview expressing the correct side of the debate. He is nearly as vague in saying that “some Obama opponents are racist” as Scarborough is in saying that none of them are.
Which is precisely why I decided to write my first blog post in seven years about the incident. Not only am I upset about the manufactured political controversies which occur late in summer, but I wanted to give specific examples of the more “racist” Obama opposition out there. I understand that calling him a Muslim is definitionally about his religion, but it is pure naivety to believe that such an absurd storyline has captured the minds of so many for any other reason than hatred of middle-eastern-types — otherwise, there is no reason to fear and loathe a Muslim president. Such is the case with complaints about his citizenship, which are definitionally about questioning his legitimacy as president, but much more obviously about whining about his race. Just because one is a racist doesn’t automatically make them a blithering idiot, which is why you hardly ever hear anyone saying “man, I hate them blacks” in this day and age. Such rhetoric is simply not politically correct (thought police alert!), so euphemisms are commonly employed.
Of course, no one loves dissent more than me, and I dissent every chance I can get. Like many on the left, I oppose Obama’s shitty health care plan, the Cap and Trade bill he signed, his support of DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, his allowing the firing of gay military officers, and his support for Rendition, domestic spying, and other war crimes, and his refusal (thus far) to reform financial regulation. Like many on the right, I opposed Obama’s shitty health care plan, his absurd deficits, and the auto company bailouts (though I flippantly say “I approve” in a jokey blog post on this very blog, a column I wrote opposed it).
So obviously, I recognize that there are real, legitimate reasons to oppose Obama and/or various specifics of his policies, and so do most commentators. Unless you are watching Olbermann — who is an entertainer, not an analyst — I don’t see how you can get the idea that “the media” blindly approves of Obama’s actions thus far. The very fact that we even know who “The Birthers,” “Tea Partiers,” and Town Hall Protest Organizers are proves that the media gives these people ample respect and attention (and in many cases, far more than they actually deserve).
This week in particular is an odd week to start getting bemused about the media’s reaction to dissent, when the whole world seems united in support of dissenting conservatives. I don’t know why many are choosing this week to feel victimized — other than the fact that Republicans always, always doth protest too much when they are called racist.
In fact, I’ve long believed that the psychology of the Media is such that they, most of them being liberals, are happy to air dissent against Democrats because it makes them feel impartial and respectable even though they’re not (that’s how it makes me feel, anyway), and they are conversely terrified to air dissent about Republicans, because then when they are called biased it hurts more because it is true. So they avoid that.
I agree somewhat with the Tea Partiers, though its difficult to take them seriously when they claim that their taxes have been raised (they have not, but they should be), and when their “leader” uses his platform to decry Obama as “an Indonesian Muslim.” At least I agree that the deficits are unworkable. Unlike them, however, I cannot see unrelenting war and an ever-declining tax rate as the solution to anything. Rather, I’m ready to pay more and have serious discussions about what government should — and shouldn’t — do.
And the “serious discussion” is where this all goes off track. When you have a deeply unpopular political party such as the GOP, nothing but the fringe supporters tend to remain. This is lovingly called “The Rump” of the party. And currently, The Rump is controlling the discourse of the GOP, which is why you have members of congress shouting at the president while he is delivering an address, others going on TV and questioning his citizenship or religion, and still more promoting morbid falsehoods about anything their opponents are trying to do. This is absurd, absurd stuff, and unlike the Looney Left, which rightly gets no attention from the media, these people are leaders of their party, and that’s why said party is such a joke at the moment.