It's easy to call people "racists." We've seen the "right wingers" call people "racists" who were fighting against it, or at least their conception of it. But what exactly is this "it?" In the "old days," it was obvious. Not allowing people to vote on the basis on skin color was clearly "racist." Even those who supported such policies probably agreed, on some level. For example, if you asked them if the "white race" was superior to the "black race," there would be few if any who wouldn't answer "yes" or "hell yeah!"
What we've seen recently, I think, is something at least a bit different. Specifically, there are statements about what used to be called "reverse racism" (now such folks seem confident enough to simply say "racism," though this makes little sense in any context). Being against affirmative action is one thing, but claiming that it, or similar notions or programs are "racist" is another. I don't necessarily agree with all such ideas myself (mainly because they don't address underlying problems, especially poverty, but rather create a "minority elite" of sorts), but only someone who is not thinking clearly would equate the attempt to right the truly racist wrongs of the past in this way with "racism" itself.
And this is a key point to me: "teabaggers," the mobs turning out to prevent discussion of urgently needed healthcare reform, some of Pat Buchanan's recent statements about Sotomayor, etc. are not about being reasonable, but instead about encouraging a kind of mindless lashing out. For example, if the "right" wanted to be part of a bipartisan healthcare bill, they would insist on something that is reasonable, such as caps on malpractice lawsuits. This is something other nations with a successful "universal healthcare" possess, and in this way they could then put Democrats on the defensive, and claim that Democrats are in the pockets of lawyers. Again, this is not about being reasonable, but instead about reveling in "crazy talk." Why?
My answer, and of course it's a general one and I doubt it applies to all these folks, is that a "raw nerve" has been struck. It is the nerve that exists between capitalist excess and "middle class prosperity" (the "American Dream"). Non-"white" folks generally understand that government is required to prevent corporate greed from destroying the nation. Many "white" folks, on the other hand (especially those living in certain parts of the country), see themselves as privileged, in a capitalist game with unspoken rules. They built this country (though it would be their ancestors, even if it was an accurate statement), people like Buchanan tell them, and because of this "fact" they deserve to have certain things that some other, lesser folks may not be able to afford, even if the reason involves racist or exclusionary policies.
The idea that there should be no distinctions among people who are upstanding citizens is something that causes a great deal of "cognitive dissonance" among such individuals. How can they continue to thrive in such a harsh, capitalistic system if they are not special? "Socialistic" solutions are not for them, because they want to feel privileged. If they have a cut that requires a stitch or two, they don't want to have to worry about some "minority" being taken ahead of them at the emergency room because he or she is on the verge of death (hasn't O'Reilly said as much?). They are the important people, and they deserve to always be treated as such! But they have to be careful about how they phrase things, lest they come across as clearly "racist." Thus, it's no surprise that there are so many incoherent or ludicrous statements being made by these kinds of people. Understanding this mentality makes the latest incarnation of this phenomenon, the mob disruption of meetings designed to clarify healthcare reform ideas, sadly predictable. They have an ideology, but they can't articulate it without showing themselves to have monstrous notions, whether or not they are consciously aware of these how these notions are perceived by the vast majority of the rest of the nation and world. So let the inanities and shouting begin! There is no other option for them.
Edit: Judging from some of the comments, I should be clear about one thing: I am not going to tell you what a "racist" is or is not. I do not view myself as a "special" person who can make such grand pronouncements. I think my statement about "monstrous notions" speaks for itself. However, I think it's simply too easy to call people "racists" and walk away. I am more interested in understanding why people act in a silly way when a serious issue is on the table, and when they would have a chance to speak about it, but prefer to act like enraged fools. I think a large part of the answer lies in a sense of privilege that is hardly ever made conscious. We can thank Buchanan for providing a glimpse into this mindset when he spoke on Maddow's show about Sotomayor not long ago. If you want to call this "racist," I won't object, but I will then suggest that there are different versions of "racism."