Skip to main content

View Diary: We continue to overplay the race card (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmm, uh, how about this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, blindyone, Bene Gesserit1

    Yes, if Sen Clinton had been elected President in 2008, the right would have used her sex as a reason to belittle her and hate her.  That would be wrong.  

    What confuses me, as I read more of your comments is this:  Why is finding an equivalency of moral wrongness important to you?  Why is it important to create a hypothetical President HR Clinton victimized by vile sexist attacks to justify or mitigate the racists attacks against the non-theoretical President Obama? Does this mean people of color under a theoretical President HR Clinton should respond to diaries claiming she's the subject of sexism, simply by saying "Do you think that if Mr Obama was elected the right wouldn't have deliberately used racism against him?"  as an answer to the claims of sexism? or by comparing sexist attacks against her to the attacks on John Kerry's war record?  Nothing special, nothing different?

    What is your point exactly? I am confused.

    "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 12:14:14 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  My point is that this isn't accidental. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, Dirtandiron

      This is deliberate. It is purposeful and it being done by a group of amoral people.

      The point isn't about equivalency. It's about the use of whatever is available by the right wing to push their agenda. I wasn't realy a big Kerry supporter, but those idiots wearing purple band-aids at the Thug convention made me angry. But the Democrats should have anticipated this. They didn't.

      They should have anticiapted that President Obama's race would be used to divide. The Thugs are demagogues and they use demagogic tactics. They have been around foever.

      I don't know if you are old to remember George Wallace. Many people don't remember that he failed in his first attempt at Governor, where his opponent received the support of the KKK. After the election he said, "I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again." Just like the modern Republican party, Wallace effectively used racial fears to gain support.  

      Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling. - Cake

      by slatsg on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 12:55:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do remember Mr Wallace (4+ / 0-)

        and I know the KKK (personal bad experience).  But I believe you miss the point about the reactions to Mr Obama, it's not simply about the slimy tactics used by political operatives to win at any cost and by any means (like Mr Wallace, or Mr Vrydolyak of Chicago, or Mr Rove) but about those with whom racism resonates. What you or I would consider political dirty tricks actually appear to be "speaking the truth" to those racists like Mr Wilson of South Carolina, or the unfortunate myriad of Tea Baggers with their Obama n-word witch doctor signs, and Ms Taitz, and Glenn Beck (vs O'Reilly whom I believe is simply using racism as a ratings gimmick).  It's the mass of "true believers" who turn political theatre into 400% increase in death threats (over all those other white male Presidents) to this black President.  There is a difference, and it is quantifiable, at least in death threats (a very sad and dangerous statement on that difference) according to the FBI.  

        I am still not sure why you believe it is important to define the particularly violent racist reaction to our first black President within a context that makes it no different from any other kind of negative reactions to any of our recent Presidents regardless of race.  Does a 400% increase in death threats fit within that context?

        I get that Clinton was hated by the right. So was John Kerry.  And Al Gore.  And Jimmy Carter.  But why the huge spike in death threats?  What's different about Obama?  Is acknowledging that the one main undeniable difference (despite the sameness of: Democrats, progressives, liberals, "socialists") in skin color problematic for you?

        And yes, some of us knew that racism was going to be an on-going tool used by the right.  Every African American knew it. This was only a surprise to those who chose to pretend racism was never a tactic used by those who opposed Obama, and a tactic that will continue to be used - there are many who oppose him on his race, not his policies.  What would you suppose the response to those who saw and see this should be?  To talk about, to name it, to expose it, to educate about it.  And yet there continue to be diaries that suggest that the naming of racism, that the exposure of this tactic, is "playing the race card."  Sometimes it seems as if we can't win for trying.  When we name it, we're accused of overreacting.  When we don't, we're accused of not anticipating.

        Such is the state of the race conversation in America.  

        "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 02:12:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I believe we may be talking past one another (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uncle Moji, Dirtandiron

          and probably agree on most points.

          My main point is that this is not accidental. The ordinary racism in this country can account for some of the virulent reaction to President Obama, but not not all of it. Now I am not a CT guy but I believe this was intentional. I don't see how anyone can look at the events of the last 15 months and not see that. On election night Bill (the Gambler) Bennett basically said that now there were no more excuses. Now that a black man had been elected POTUS, Americans could no longer be considered racist. The gloves were off, so to speak, and all the vitriol could come out. And come out it has.

          I rather doubt that the teabagger movement was simply a spontaneous movement. It was manufactured much as the supposed outrage over Kerry's war record. Much like Kerry's record, President Obama's background was viewed as a positive. His biracial heritage was seen by some as a metaphor for the country as a whole.

          The Thugs were not interested in seeing Obama succeed. They made no secret about wanting him to fail, regardless of the impact on the country. These are amoral idealogues who had seen their ideology fail. Their challenge with Obama, as it was with Kerry, was to take an essentially positive construct and turn it negative. Despite the talk of a post-racial society, there was still an undercurrent of racism in this country, and that made producing outrage relatively easy.

          I believe that this is where we probably agree. The fact that racism is much more deeply ingrained and insideous than sexism (or any other issue) made the work of the producing fear and outrage much easier for the Thugs. I think that the attacks on Kerry's war record may have been a gamble, and the fact that they gained traction probably surprised the Thugs as much as anyone. On the other hand I doubt they were surprised that they could harness racial hatred to their advantage. The fact that they could do it so easily speaks to how far we still have to go as a society.

          Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling. - Cake

          by slatsg on Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 03:02:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site