I could make a career documenting the weekly outrages that inflame passions on this site -- outrage that is generated by taking quotes out of context, or parsing them down to create an entirely different narrative, or even outrage that comes from assigning guilt by association.
Today's narrative is that Hillary Clinton has said something vaguely racist, or racially patronizing -- purportedly saying President Lyndon Baines Johnson, a white man, was able to accomplish something that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., a black man, could not. Of course, that is not what Senator Clinton said, but that is clearly of no importance. Once the outrage machine starts cranking, there is no stopping it.
Here's what Senator Clinton actually said:
"I would...and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried. But, it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in peoples' eyes because we had a president who said 'we are going to do it', and actually got it accomplished."
Anyone who bothers to read the entire quote would have to admit she is comparing LBJ to President Kennedy. She's not drawing a comparison to Dr. King, at all. She's not saying that LBJ did something King couldn't do. She's saying that LBJ did something JFK didn't do.
Clearly, an activist like Dr. King plays a different role in a social movement than a President. Changes as sweeping as Dr. King's vision require both roles...and so much more. Dr. King agitated for equal rights and caused white society and politicians to take notice of the justice of the cause. Pres. Johnson, however, did the arm-twisting and spent the political capital to pass the landmark legislation that established the legal footing for real world changes that eliminated some of the most heinous abuses, and enabled blacks to participate in the political process and effectively exercise political power at the ballot box, for the first time.
To be truthful, one should admit that even LBJ did not bring about equality, or an end to discrimination, for African-Americans. Poor schools, legacy admissions to top colleges, ghettoization, limited economic opportunities, unequal distribution of government spending and community resources, creating conditions of environmental inequity in minority neighborhoods, continued discrimination/resistance from private citizens, even the unconscious insults that well-meaning whites daily deliver to African-Americans -- each of these create conditions that continue to oppress minority populations.
However, Hillary Clinton is not guilty of the racial insensitivity that she stands accused here of showing. She didn't diminish Dr. King's role in the civil rights movement. She didn't elevate LBJ's role vis a vis Dr. King's. She didn't even link the two, much less compare them, except to say that LBJ did what JFK did not in signing legislation that Dr. King worked towards.
So, how do we get to the day's narrative that Clinton did something awful, perhaps even racist, with her comments? Because, some folks have decided to get outraged –- fairly or not. They've parsed her comment down, taking out the reference -- the comparison to JFK. From there, it's almost possible to see her comments as saying that it was LBJ, not Dr. King that did the heavy lifting.
That is not what Clinton did in her comments, but that's so easy to overlook, when the tidal wave of outrage sweeps through. Everyone wants to be on top of that wave. There's even some perverse excitement in getting outraged about your political opposition. It gives an opening to slam your opponent, and create your won narrative about the candidate. It's also easy to believe terrible things about that other candidate, especially if it fits your own narrative that they're capable of the basest acts, if it will further their political career. If you can create some reason why the candidate might have done this thing, then it's easy to believe they did. Facts and reason get twisted beyond all recognition, and you do not even notice.
I've been seeing a lot of this kind of thing here, lately. If I offered a list of these manufactured outrages, I would overlook the majority of the instances, but I want to mention a few of them. I would like this diary to stand, primarily, for setting the record straight - for demanding fairness, accuracy, and objectivity. I would have liked to stop there, but I'm disturbed by what I see in common among these examples of manufactured or misdirected outrages.
My list includes the outrage over the Washington Post piece about the persistence of venal Internet rumors about Obama's heritage and religion. Although the writer of that article clearly noted that Obama is a churchgoer, he didn't write in bold letters that there was no basis to the original rumors that Obama attended an Islamic religious school. The article could have been written more carefully, anticipating such criticisms, given the nature of the subject matter. However, the outrage seemed to me to be blown way out of proportion, given that any fair, intelligent reading of the article would have revealed that there was no basis for the rumors -- that they represent only ridiculous, base speculation. I don't defend the article as great journalism, but I do question the response to it -- the quality and quantity of outrage.
There was the outrage over the Bill Shaheen comments. Although they were an incredible embarrassment to the Clinton campaign, and Shaheen was forced to resign the next day, most of the outrage was directed at the candidate, insisting, without any basis in factor reason, that the top ranks of the campaign, probably the Senator herself, had directed Shaheen to make his baseless attack on Obama. Similarly, a couple of days before, people had similar reactions to the story about a Clinton campaign volunteer that had been sending out emails containing the bogus 'Obama is secretly a Muslim' rumors.
Last month, Bob Kerrey came out to endorse Sen. Clinton. He was asked on CNN about an article he'd written more than six months before, in which he'd offered a few comments in praise of Obama's potential as President. He tried to explain what so many are saying generally -- that Obama's election would be a powerful symbol to the rest of the world that might be most welcome especially in the Muslim world. Unfortunately, Kerrey had used the phrase "secular madrassa". As it turns out the phrase was inaccurate, but the very use of the word madrassa enraged Obama's supporters (though this outrage didn't surface until Kerrey endorsed Clinton). Though Kerrey tried to explain that he was praising Obama's potential, the outraged supporters insisted this was really a coded message meant to undermine support for Obama.
Saturday night, a pair of diaries (perhaps more) suggested that it was time to get outraged at CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, because he referred to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama." Of course, this is the candidate's actual full name, but the diarists, and some readers in agreement, maintained that use of his middle name was a not so subtle attempt to undermine Obama. Apparently, these outraged folks believe there are people who would vote for someone named Barack Obama, but not someone named Barack Hussein Obama.
Clearly, Toobin was making the point that it was amazing that someone with Obama's background, even his name, would be winning, and Toobin emphasized how great and historic that was. Using the middle name emphasized how extraordinary this moment was. It wasn't meant to undermine Obama, but rather to emphasize how singular the moment was -- something Americans could take some pride in. While there was some agreement that it was outrageous for Toobin to use Obama's middle name over the public airwaves, it was my impression that common sense largely prevailed, as people largely accepted this was simply the candidate's name -- not a cause for outrage.
There have been numerous other instances where I have felt there was tremendously overblown outrage -- even completely unjustified outrage -- on this site. Many of those instances have not involved Sen. Obama, and weren't directed at Sen. Clinton, or her campaign. However, I cannot deny that some of the loudest outrages have been directed at Clinton, or were about perceived slights toward Obama. I would not think to suggest that there is an organized effort led by Sen. Obama or authorized by his campaign. However, there is a highly defensive mentality among Obama's supporters here that fuels these reactions of misplaced, overblown outrage. If one puts credence in the polls, this sense of victimization, this hyper-vigilance, this outrage engine has boosted the Obama campaign. With each instance, Obama's numbers have gone up. These missteps by a couple of Clinton’s campaign workers helped to generate the narrative that Clinton’s campaign was desperate and coming apart. Whether or not that was true, it was quickly reflected in the polls, and this narrative became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I want to say that I have not favored Sen. Clinton's campaign at any point. If it matters to anyone -- and I do not think it should -- I have supported John Edwards (although I hoped for a Gore candidacy). However, I am disturbed by a series of deeply unfair personal attacks waged against Clinton, on the internet. I suspect that many of those expressing the greatest outrage are only too happy to see her numbers fall in the face of these incidents. If I shared a belief that the criticisms and the outrage were justified, I would probably share in that schadenfreude.
The problem for me is that those numbers were artificially influenced by a bogus narrative generated by false or misplaced outrage. I would like to believe that this was not calculated in any way. I'm just not sure that's true. This thought is one I find deeply disturbing. Because I see a consistent, repeating, even escalating pattern, I cannot dismiss, out of hand, that some people are deliberately fanning the flames of outrage. The latest incident involves such a twisting of Sen. Clinton’s words and meaning that I find it hard to believe this did not begin deliberately.
I would hope, now that Obama seems well on his way to a convincing sweep or near-sweep through the primaries, that some sense of perspective is restored. If Obama's hopeful visions of change are to be realized, we need to practice what we preach. If we want a fair society, we need to be fair, even in our campaigns. It's not all fair in love, war and politics. There are rules in war, there are morals in love, and there should be honesty and fairness in politics. I hope that I’m wrong that some of this is calculated, but even if I am, we all need to try to be more objective in the future. am, we all need to try to be more objective in the future.