This is kind of a Chicken v. Egg situation, but why is it that those who criticize Barack Obama feel compelled to loudly proclaim that they’re not racists? Or more accurately, why is it they feel the need to accuse those who disagree with them about their criticisms of Obama of having presumed them to have been motivated by racism? I know… it gets quite convoluted. Here, the deep-thinkers at Fox & Friends touch on the issue with regards to criticism of the president by Angie Harmon.
Full disclosure here… I had to Google “Angie Harmon” to learn that she’s a former fashion model and now a “television star” of some repute (I thought right-wingers didn’t care what Hollywood “celebrities” thought about politics; except that is, when they agree with them, it would seem).
Anyway, I find the kind of presumption employed by Harmon to proactively defuse and irrefutably discredit any counterargument on the basis that it’s automatically nothing but a knee-jerk accusation of “racism” to be incredibly perverse and disingenuous. Not only does this conceit attempt to immediately rob any valid rebuttal of legitimacy, but it also effectively insulates and encourages base attacks that are actually borne out of naked, ugly racism.
20 Comments
March 31, 2009 at 6:39 am
The answer is simple. The more wingnuttery factions of the political left are quick to take any criticism (justified or not) and contort it into being motivated by racism. It’s their ace-in-the-hole method of deflecting legitimate comment, and it works. The proof of this fact is that we all know who Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are. They’d be relegated to the back pages of community flyers if the MSM didn’t endulge their race-bating, eggagerated grandstanding. Look at the national, week-long coverage that stupid monkey cartoon got.
I agree with you though, I wish people wouldn’t feed into it by trying to CYA before you counter-point a visible minority. It shouldn’t be politically incorrect to disagree.
March 31, 2009 at 7:03 am
Unfortunately, the charge of “racism” (or whatever… “homophobic” or “misogynistic” etc.) is all too readily deployed out of sheer laziness.
March 31, 2009 at 7:11 am
Ok. First off. Don’t care what Angie Harmon, or Sean Penn, or Madonna, or Richard Gere, or any other actor or celebrity thinks.
I’m only mildly more interested in what Glen Beck and Jon Stewart and Bill Maher think – because they are in the business of thinking and reading about political matters, and they occasionally have something that is worthy of triggering a discussion or debate.
That being said – I think there is an interesting lack of comfort in the discussion over Obama, because, candidly, race matters. The fact that a person was voted President in a Country that barely over a generation ago wouldn’t allow him to drink from the same water fountain as a white man is an incredible thing.. his election, as a man of color, matters. Aside from any of his qualifications or beliefs, the color of his skin matters. Anyone who says otherwise is disingenuine.
My concern regarding the clip, and in fairness, the criticism, is we don’t know how or if Harmon was actually called a racist, and what she allegedly said to result in that criticism.
If she said, “I think that his proposal on medicare is a bad idea”, and someone said, “you’re just a racist”. Well- the clip is well founded in it’s point.
If she said, “No black man is going to tell me how to live”.. and someone called her a racist, well, she got what she had coming.
If there was no suggestion of racism at all – well, your criticism is well founded.
I suppose – the point is that in such a situation – the little discussion amongst the talking heads ends upon being pointless because one might (gasp) suggest that the journaltainers maybe do a google or something to find out if in fact anyone accused Harmon of being a racist in the first place.
Honestly.. I’ve criticized Obama numerous times.. no one’s called me a racist, and I have’t worried about being considered a racist because of it.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
March 31, 2009 at 7:38 am
The fact that Obama is mixed race isn’t without some significance, but it’s fairly irrelevant now, so why people keep dwelling on the “issue” is a bit mystifying.
No, we don’t know whether Harmon was called a “racist” and my suspicion is that this was probably an imagined slight. Although it’s hard to say as there are a vast number of fantastically retarded people posting on the Internet. Check out the comments on YouTube videos sometime for a taste of the free-range insanity that circulates online.
I was critical of Obama at the outset of his run for the Democratic nomination and got called a racist by some leftist loons. Which was kind of funny because my reservations about him was that he was too inclined to cozy up to creepy conservatives like Tom Coburn. Sometimes you just can’t win…
March 31, 2009 at 7:40 am
Good points Rob.
And I find myself in the uncomfortable position of somewhat agreeing with Beck. “Racism” or “misogyny” are approaching the meaninglessness of “antisemitism” in political discussion. That is, they are too quickly and easily bandied about by those who wish to stop discussion, rather than by those who wish to continue it.
Often it is also being used as a smear against a political opponent, rather than a description and in doing so is losing its meaning and power.
So when someone does describe the words or actions of someone like Marc Lemire as “racist”, people equate it with “oh they call everyone they don;t agree with racists” and ignore or minimize it – allowing the racists a free pass.
It gets used to embarrass and shut people up who are concerned about such things, thus stiffling dissent. Observe how the very real and well-founded criticisms of Sarah Palin were attempted to be quelled by calling those who criticized her “sexist” – how many pull a punch or stopped short for fear of wearing that label.
Its a symptom of a political culture where ambush tactics and name calling trump substance and ideas.
The danger is that real instances of such labels bet missed in the confusion – I have seen many instances of genuine fascist ideation and action in various corners (fascist like Mussolini, Franco, Pinnochet etc) but I am reticent to actually call them fascist because people will think its hyperbole and ignore it. And when I have used the term, I wonder how many folks did just that.
March 31, 2009 at 7:44 am
Quite the little pity party they had going on there at Fox. It takes mere seconds to find ample evidence of racist or misogynistic statements from those on the right with either Google or just glancing on Media Matters. The right has been playing the victim card for at least the last 20 years, if not longer.
Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement with Rob H. Are there times where people are quick to claim racism? Sure, but it’s more anecdotal than not and the right uses those anecdotes as some sort of salve with which to try to immunize themselves when they’re about to be racist.
In the same way that they’ll proclaim “I’m not a racist, but…”; I’m reminded of the phrase “With all due respect…” where you know someone’s about to say something incredibly disrespectful.
March 31, 2009 at 7:59 am
..I love “with all due respect”.. as a lawyer that is a common introduction to a Judge before you basically say, “I have no respect for you at all..”
March 31, 2009 at 11:27 am
The answer is simple. The more wingnuttery factions of the political left are quick to take any criticism (justified or not) and contort it into being motivated by racism. It’s their ace-in-the-hole method of deflecting legitimate comment, and it works.
Liberals/lefties/progressives wouldn’t have to be on racism patrol all the time if the imbeciles on the Right dealt with their racists more effectively. They let all kinds of bigots and chauvinists speak for them and that only causes decent people to refuse to have anything to do with them.
The bigots in the Conservative party of Canada is *the* reason I will never vote Conservative. Bigotry and chauvinism are the most entrenched and destructive forms of ignorance that exist and beyond a certain age, are conditions that are likely irremediable.
March 31, 2009 at 11:38 am
Thanks for stating that. The fact of the matter is that far too many people on “the right” sit on their hands saying absolutely nothing while all manner of racists freely spew their hateful venom. Exceptionally rare (if ever) is the day when they’ll speak out against it. It’s natural to assume therefore that they tacitly approve of this nonsense, but are just too spineless to say it themselves.
March 31, 2009 at 12:00 pm
It’s natural to assume therefore that they tacitly approve of this nonsense…
I’m willing to give some of them the benefit of the doubt and observe (because I’ve seen it for myself) that a lot of them haven’t articulated for themselves what it is exactly they are objecting to in people who are different from them. Usually, it’s cultural; language, religion and lifestyle are in fact real barriers to good relations with other people. So there’s nothing inherently wrong in reacting to difference with a certain amount of unease or trepidation. But the point of being a grown up is to overcome that unease.
Too many on the Right are just not prepared to engage in the type of reflection they need to do that and let the real bigots think for them and provide them with easy answers.
March 31, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I can understand such cultural reservations and appreciate the sense of diffidence about the whole matter some might have, but I was referring more to incidences of outright, flagrant bigotry and racism where many pseudocons will simply stare off into space and twiddle their thumbs, allowing the more rambunctious, extroverted elements of their nasty little tribe to ventilate on their behalf.
March 31, 2009 at 12:16 pm
will simply stare off into space and twiddle their thumbs, allowing the more rambunctious, extroverted elements of their nasty little tribe to ventilate on their behalf.
…because they know very well what the retribution will be. Righties are nothing if not vindictive.
March 31, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“allowing the more rambunctious, extroverted elements of their nasty little tribe to ventilate on their behalf.”
can’t help but think of one of their favorite projected bon mots: “useful idiots”. when did cynicism become a primary tenet of conservativism?
KEvron
March 31, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“because they are in the business of thinking and reading about political matters”
and there’s no possible way a bottom line could sway a person whose bread and butter depend upon “thinking and reading about political matters”. better to distrust anyone who doesn’t make a living from punditry….
sheesh.
KEvron
March 31, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“‘I have no respect for you at all..’”
with all due respect, rob….
KEvron
March 31, 2009 at 12:28 pm
when did cynicism become a primary tenet of conservativism?
February 12th, 1972.
Actually, I’m more upset with the fact that conservatives have destroyed healthy cynicism and have turned it into nothing more than whining and an excuse to behave immorally.
March 31, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Oh, nice to hear from KEvron.. and I’m quite broken up about the lack of “respect”.. que sera.. though, I have to confess that I’m completely mistified by your comment regarding pundits.. I don’t recall saying I trust what these poeple say – in fact, my post says I don’t care what celebrities think and am “mildly interested” in what political talking heads have to say.. didn’t say I buy any of it.. but, it provokes discussion and thought – like this blog and others.
Do I agree with everything RT says – nope. But his commentary is sensible enough to get me thinking from time to time, in a challenging way that I don’t find on right-side blogs.. I’m guessing that you’ve never found anything profound or even curious in Blogging Tories
See KEVron, the point is – listening (or in our case, reading) can be more powerful form of persuasion than speaking… and keeping an open mind to those who I disagree with, allows me to be, well, a potential beneficiary of an idea that I would never get by hanging with “my crowd”.
March 31, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“sensible enough”… Heh. I should add that as subtitle to this blog.
I laugh, but that’s actually a very nice compliment and I thank you for that.
April 1, 2009 at 7:10 am
You’re welcome.. last I checked there was no rule that said people who don’t agree on everything can’t at least be civil
April 1, 2009 at 7:11 am
How does the saying from Ghandi go.. “live the change you want?”