Sen. Mark Kirk
At a time when race relations in America are a rapidly growing element of our public conversation, Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) is not having a very good week. Last week, the freshman senator really stepped in it when, while hailing his commitment to spurring African-American entrepreneurship in a wide-ranging interview with the
Peoria Journal-Star, he offered an exceptionally horrible coda to his answer (emphasis mine):
I want to make sure we have elected people constantly looking at helping the African-American community. With this state and all of its resources, we could sponsor a whole new class of potential innovators like George Washington Carver and eventually have a class of African-American billionaires. That would really adjust income differentials and make the diversity and outcome of the state much better so that the black community is not the one we drive faster through.
Kirk took, unsurprisingly, no shortage for grief for those fateful thirteen words. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which has made the defeat of Kirk in 2016 one of their highest priorities,
jumped on the statement, which was one of several recent Kirk verbal soilings of the bed.
On Wednesday, Kirk offered a follow-up to the Chicago Sun-Times. He probably shouldn't have:
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., up for re-election, told the Chicago Sun-Times he won’t be talking about race or ethnicity in the future.
“I would say that whenever a targeted member talks about race or ethnicity, it is impossible for him to get it right. So I’ll leave it at that,” Kirk said.
On first blush, it reads like Kirk is arguing that, as a 50-something powerful white dude, he is a "targeted member" of society. It's not hard to think of it in this context, given that the patron saint of right-wing television basically
insisted as much earlier this week. Therefore, it is not hard to think that Kirk probably watched the
O'Reilly Factor this week.
Head below the fold for more on this story.
But defenders rushed in, arguing that he meant as a "targeted member" of Congress (electorally), he couldn't say anything on the subject safely. But even viewed through that lens, this is an ill-advised comment. The right play here (not that I feel like counseling Mark Kirk on political rhetoric) was abject contrition, not "you meanies are twisting my words."
It was a horrifically bad comment, on multiple levels. First of all, who is "we"? I am a white guy who is not dramatically younger than Senator Kirk. I drive through black neighborhoods all the time, and I don't find myself mashing the accelerator. I suspect there are lots of folks like me. Are there white folks who do speed through black neighborhoods? Or avoid them altogether? Of course, but a responsible member of the U.S. Senate should be mournful, or condemning, of that behavior. Not justifying it indirectly by saying that the only way to fix it is by creating black billionaires through more government largesse to the business community.
(For now, because it's too easy, we'll set aside the absolutely moronic implication that a handful of black billionaires somehow will eradicate income inequality. Maybe he is looking at means instead of medians, or something.)
Which brings up the other problem: Is he serious when he suggests that the only way for his imperial "we" not to fear black communities is if more members of the African-American community become billionaires?
Someone needs to ask Senator Kirk this question—does he drive faster through lower-income and working-class white neighborhoods?!