Our Purpose, Our Goal
Listen up, folks. This is no joke. There is a very serious problem afoot in this election and either we start taking the lead at dealing with it or nobody will.
That problem is the right-wing framing of our nominee.
If there is one reason that brings us all to this site, day after day, it is our deeply held, shared refusal to allow filth and lies of right-wing media to stand unchallenged, thereby ruining fair elections and undermining American democracy. We share that commitment no matter which candidate we support, no matter how many times we may have felt wounded by each other's words, no matter how frustrated we may be with the course of recent political events. Now is the time to step up and push back--to do what we do best. Only this time, we know exactly what needs to happen.
Before we do that, take a minute to reflect on how the smear of Rev. Wright has made us feel about the state of the nomination process. For my money, the best that can be written about what to say and do in response to Hillary Clinton's fanning of the smear of Wright has already been posted. Go read it, please, and then come back here...I'll wait.
(...)
And we're back.
The bottom line: Clinton's use of the phrase 'hate speech' to describe Wright was a disgrace, but it was not the action of a leader. It was the weak response of a follower, of a candidate unwilling to accept reality who fearfully re-enforced right-wing rhetoric and ended up looking like a fool in the process. Those press conferences where HRC denounced Obama's pastor deserve a stern push back. But that is only one small part of the picture--a very small part, I'm afraid.
To see the big picture of is happening with this smear of Rev. Wright we need to ask ourselves a very basic question:
Who wants to use race and racism to distract the country from discussing the real issues at stake in t his election?
The answer to that question is not Hillary Clinton. Certainly, her campaign is trying to climb on board this smear for short term electoral gain. But ultimately, that is not the agenda or the debate they want to drive. Think again: Who does want to distract voters? Who is so afraid of losing the general election that they are willing to undermine the entire debate by launching a smear so disgusting and so immoral that anyone with a conscience would be forced to pull away from the real issues?
Yep. Now we're starting to see what's going on in this right-wing campaign against Rev. Wright.
What's wrong with the smear is the way it reframes the election on terms the right-wing media wants.
It's the entire machine of people and money and power that we describe with the word 'Rove' that wants this election to be about race and racism.
But wait. There's more. It's not just about race.
The real goal of the smear of Wright---and the 'B Hussein Obama' covert terrorist' email smear--is not really racism. The real target is not even Barack Obama. The goal is to evoke that 'thing'--that unspeakable worst-case scenario that Americans worry about deep down in their gut when they talk about or listen to a debate about race.
It's about suspicion.
It's about fear.
It's about revenge.
It's about violence.
What we are seeing in the smear of Wright is the second part of a two-pronged effort by the right-wing to define the Democratic nominee as a violent threat to America--as the 'enemy at home,' to borrow a phrase from right-wing pundit Dinesh D'Souza.
A 'violent threat to America,' you ask. That reading goes to far,' you say. No way are they going to try that.
Guess again.
For the past five years, a well-funded, best-selling, daily-broadcasted right-wing punditry has been arguing precisely this without so much as a peep from Democrats. They names are familiar: Dinesh D'Souza, Pat Buchanan, James Dobson, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, Wayne LaPierre, Sean Hannity, and on and on and on. In dozens of books, hundreds of syndicated columns, and thousands of TV appearances, these pundits have systematically framed the American political landscape with violent language and logic.
What we are seeing in the smear of Wright is the first full-scale attempt to define a political candidate drawing on this already existing violent framing.
We need to draw attention to it.
We need to speak back to it.
And we cannot let it take one more step without a significant push back.
The Right-Wing Violent Logic of the Smear of Wright
Let's take a quick look at one right-wing pundit's successful attempt to frame the smear of Wright in violent terms. My strategy, here, is to walk through a transcript by a right-wing pundit, show how a key phrase was used strategically by that pundit on broadcast television, and then explain how that phrase defines the election in violent terms.
On the March 18, 2008 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly offered the following "Talking Points Memo." about Barack Obama's speech (read the whole thing, then we will go back over it):
Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Senator Barack Obama speaks on Reverend Wright and race in America. And that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
The senator's speech was a mixed deal. First, the positives. He was right that race remains an unresolved problem in America on both sides. And that is a complicated matter. The senator is also correct when he said that Reverend Wright's anti-American statements were misguided and driven by an obsolete view of the country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static, as if no progress had been made. What we know, what we have seen is that America can change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Now that was excellent. However, Obama was weak in explaining why he continues to publicly support Wright.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick, and lift up the poor. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: If Senator Obama wants to be friends with Reverend Wright, fine. He can do that in private. But a sitting U.S. Senator simply cannot lend his stature, lend his stature to hate speech by publicly attending Wright's forums.
Barack Obama does not seem to understand that. What he does understand is the origin of black anger in America. And once again, Obama was excellent on that point. Like Reverend Wright, many older black Americans have deep wounds. And we should all understand that. It doesn't justify Wright's hateful viewpoint, but it provides context.
But what about Obama's own daughters, ages 9 and 6? Did they sit in church listening to anti-American stuff? Will they be subjected to Reverend Wright's anger?
Senator Obama says he wants to represent all Americans, wants to heal the divide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories but we hold common hopes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: That is another excellent sentiment, but do the senator's deeds match his words? When the Congressional Black Caucus, a very liberal group, joined with FOX News to sponsor a Democratic debate last fall, Barack Obama boycotted the event. Is that not divisive?
"Talking Points" believes Obama caved into pressure from the far left move on organization, but it doesn't matter. The senator refused to debate on this network, which by far, has the largest audience in cable news. Is that audience not worth addressing?
As I've stated, I think Barack Obama has been a positive force in America but many questions remain about him. Most Americans love their country, believe it's a noble nation. And while we condemn white racism, many of us are also tired of black race hustlers and the far left smear machines crying racism every two minutes.
OK, let's stop there for a minute.
With my emphasis added, we can already see a particular vocabulary emerging--what I call the narrative of the 'Angry Black Man.'
Two keep points come through in this opening segment from O'Reilly, and I want to emphasize that neither of these points are sufficiently described by the word 'racism.' Bill O'Reilly may be a racist, he may not be. I have no idea and right now that is not the point I want to make. The point I do want to make is how the Angry Black Man narrative frames Rev. Wright--and Barack Obama by extension--as disloyal and dangerous to America.
The logic looks something like this:
- Black folks are angry because of past racism.
- Some have dealt with that anger, most have not
- That anger takes the form of 'anti-Americanism' and some other unnamed threat (e.g., danger)
Now, up to this point, few people would argue with what I have just described. The narrative is very common.
But here is the contentious part--the part that the right-wing wants to make sure none of us will take the time to discuss: What is the actual threat that the 'anger' poses? What is it?
That unspoken danger O'Reilly is invoking with his strategic words is the mythical fear of African-American revenge, the fire next time--reprisal violence.
With the delegate math now clearly in favor of Barack Obama, the right-wing media narrative suddenly starts setting the frame that Barack Obama is not just a black candidate, but the mythical angry black man who, the moment he gets his hands on the White House, will use that power to exact revenge for hundreds years of injustice in America.
The fear of black reprisal is not new, but for decades we have taken steps beyond it. And now it is being pushed back onto the table in full force by an unchecked right-wing media.
The final lines from O'Reilly's memo:
O'REILLY: In the end, Barack Obama stopped the bleeding with the speech today, but the uncertainty about him continues. A president must speak to all the people and must understand hateful rhetoric and distance himself from it. You will decide if Barack Obama has done that. And that's the Memo.(transcript from LexisNexis)
What is 'uncertainty' about Barack Obama? Stop for a second and really think about that question.
The answer I find is crystal clearL The 'uncertainty' O'Reilly alludes to is whether or not Barack Obama is a danger to America. The final question the right-wing media wants voters to think about is this:
As a result of learning about Obama's church, should we worry that Barack Obama is an 'angry' black man after all and not the unifying leader he says he is? Should we worry that Barack Obama as President will finally bring to pass a deep fear held by so many Americans? The fear of black revolution?
That is the logic, that is the frame, and that is where we are right now.
Disgusting.
Clinton's Major Mess Up: Re-Enforcing Right-Wing Framing
That the Clinton campaign has messed up politically within the Democratic Party goes without saying. But two points follow on from reading the O'Reilly transcript in light of what the Clinton campaign has said in the past week.
First point: O'Reilly seems to have used the the phrases first that both Bill and Hillary Clinton subsequently used to fan the smear of Wright. O'Reilly's phrasing that Wright used 'hate speech' was subsequently used by Hillary Clinton in two reporter press appearances and one purported interview. O'Reilly's phrasing that Obama does not 'love America' was used by Bill Clinton in one press appearance. Both instances by the Clinton campaign received heavy push back from the media, but nobody has yet to point out the obvious: The Clinton campaign was using language directly from FOX News.
Second point: Hillary Clinton's fatal mistake is not described adequately using the words 'racist' or 'racism.' That only scratches the surface. What her campaign did was reinforce the right-wing 'angry black man' frame as it was being pushed by right-wing pundits. And they did so, apparently, to reframe this election as a threat to the American way of life--as the potential starting point of an era of great suffering in America rained down at the hands of a black candidate masquerading as a uniter, but secretly harboring an agenda of anti-White apartheid.
Consider this quote from Ann Coulter's recent column on Wright--Ann, who took a break from her weekly routine of Jew baiting and gay bashing to add her voice to the 'angry black man' frame of the election:
We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, "Isn't that cute?" As a post-racial American, I do not believe "the legacy of slavery" gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.
Obama tried to justify Wright's deranged rants by explaining that "legalized discrimination" is the "reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." He said that a "lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families."
That may accurately describe the libretto of "Porgy and Bess," but it has no connection to reality. By Rev. Wright's own account, he was 12 years old and was attending an integrated school in Philadelphia when Brown v. Board of Education was announced, ending "separate but equal" schooling.
Meanwhile, at least since the Supreme Court's decision in University of California v. Bakke in 1978 -- and obviously long before that, or there wouldn't have been a case or controversy for the court to consider -- it has been legal for the government to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race.
Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it's not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations.
So for half of Rev. Wright's 66 years, discrimination against blacks was legal -- though he never experienced it personally because it existed in a part of the country where he did not live. For the second half of Wright's life, discrimination against whites was legal throughout the land.
And there you have it. The Coulter column makes the case that lies beneath the rhetoric--the logic behind O'Reilly's ambiguous question about where Obama lies--the frame re-enforced by Bill and Hillary Clinton when they drew from FOX News transcripts for their media appearances last week: Obama is the achievement of black revenge against whites in America--the product of decades legalized apartheid in America against whites.
What We Can Do
Yesterday, I put up a diary calling for volunteers to help with the creation of a new series here on DailyKos--a new project designed specifically to monitor this kind of right-wing violent framing.
Please consider joining that effort by following the instructions at the bottom of that diary.
Our task is simple:
We need to shine a bright light on the violent framing of this election by right-wing pundits and media
Towards that end, I have set two smaller projects in motion. First, I published a new book that describes in great detail how right-wing pundits frame American politics in violent terms. Second, I organized a panel at this year's Netroots Nation to bring this discussion clearly into the open in a large, public forum.
What you can do is join this effort.
What we will need from now until November and most likely beyond is a coordinated effort to monitor the media and push back when right-wing pundits attempt to frame the election in violent terms--when they attempt to give voice to the idea that Democrats and liberal/progressive ideas pose a danger to this nation.
DailyKos is the best to base that effort.
In the meantime, while the nomination process continues, consider taking some part of your time and dedicating it to keeping an eye on the right-wing media. The more eyes we have, the better job we can do.
Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments/suggestions in the thread below.
Update [2008-3-26 16:10:47 by Jeffrey Feldman]:
Title Update - Originally, the title of this post was "Why the Wright Scandal is so Wrong." Several comments pointed to my word choice of 'scandal' as problematic. In fact, the phrase 'Wright Scandal' did not relay the meaning I was looking for, so I changed it to 'smear of Rev. Wright.' I also revised the phrase 'Wright Scandal' where it appeared in the diary to reflect this change in the title.
Bold Type Above the Fold - Several comments suggested that my original use of all-caps and bold face above the fold was ambiguous. I've revised that section to something that looks more like bullet points.
Thanks for the suggestions. As always, I try to update the diary to reflect points made in the comments whenever possible.
Permalink | 32 comments