Everyone from the Left side of the political spectrum knows exactly what lies behind the Tea Party’s animosity towards and fear of the President. Come on, they can call him a socialist, a communist, even a Nazi all they want, they wear their sentiments openly on the signs they carry, the ones representing the President as an African tribal chief. Even before the election we recognised the symptoms of the disease whose name we dare not say. Remember the man with the stuffed toy, attending the Palin rally:-
We recognise the not-so-subtle racism behind all this, and we know that it seems to have grown from a fringe group, into the mainstream of Rightwing politics. When you have such a major Presidential contender as Newt Gingrich openly refer to the President of the United States as a “Kenyan,” you know something’s not right in River City.
But we on the Left aren’t so clean either, and I’ve often said we ought to be more careful about planting our feet on the moral high ground; because racism isn’t something exclusive to the Right, or to the South, or to a particular demographic of people. Consider the fact that George Wallace, at his highest point of running for President – first as an independent and then as a Democrat returned to the fold in 1972 – regularly garnered more people at his political rallies in California at that time, than did the then-governor, Ronald Reagan, or even Richard Nixon.
We’ve had our dubious moments too, if anyone would care to recall Jane Hamsher’s efforts to defeat, first Michael Steel as an Uncle Tom from his bid to become Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, then Joe Lieberman in blackface, during his 2007 Senate campaign.
The racism on the Right is full-on fear and hatred. They hate the thought that there’s a black man in the White House; the racism on the Left, more subtle as befits a political demographic which prides itself in intellectual superiority, masks the same hatred with a tired patronising air: The Left hates the fact that there’s a black man in the White House, who’s smarter than any of them and who won’t jump when they snap their fingers and demand he do or say something to suit their specification.
The Right has Haley Barbour. Barbour is the Republican governor of Mississippi, only the second Republican in that state’s history to hold the office. He’s an affable enough Southerner, almost stereotypical in demeanor and accent – Boss Hogg in a business suit, Sheriff Buford T Justice dressed up for church on Sunday, Otis Campbell in a sober moment, minus the white suit.
Barbour has an inkling to become the GOP Presidential nominee in 2012, but this ambition was hampered recently last year when he gave an interview, wherein he waxed almost lyrical about the positive influence on Mississippi communities of the Citizens’ Council. The Citizens’ Councils were euphemisms for the Klan trying to pass (pun intended) as responsible community leaders, but subtly promoting an agenda of racism and segregation. Business as usual, bella figura Southern-style.
Barbour went on to relate how relatively easy desegregation came to his hometown of Yazoo City, Mississippi, how he attended a speech by Martin Luther King, who visited the local fairground in the early 1960s, and generally, how peaceful and prosperous the good old days were. But almost immediately he’d told us what we’d recognised as revisionist fairy stories, he walked back some of his statements, which totally didn’t align with Haley’s daily practices as a Mississippi politician, as Rachel Maddow so brilliantly shows us:-
Point is, Haley’s a wannabe big punching politician, aiming for the Oval Office, who wants to be taken seriously; but he never ceases to come across as a man stuck in a timewarp, one foot with the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the other, goodness knows where, but not in the 21st Century. He hasn’t moved on. He’s still the big boss, who slaps an African American constituent on the shoulder good-naturedly, shares a joke and stops short of calling them “boy,” an unpleasant remnant of another place and time.
Haley Barbour is the Rightwing’s embarrassment. This week, racial embarrassment came knocking at the door of the Left.
I used to like Joan Walsh. I actually liked and respected her as the one solid voice of common sense in a sea of dippy radical chic socialite phony Leftists like Arianna Huffington and Katrina vanden Heuvel, who preach platitudes about the middle class and the poor, whilst sending their daughters to exclusive and expensive private schools and debutante balls. Paying lip service to the hoi polloi, but avoiding association at all costs. Or shifty little sheisters, long on brains and short on common sense and political acumen like Adam Green. Or Jayson Blair journalism graduates like Sam Stein.
Joan made sense. Her criticism of the President and/or the Democrats was made pretty much when it needed to be made and it was valid. In fact, it was Joan who called the media and the blogosphere harpies down on their hyperventilating about the President’s dispassionate approach to the Gulf Crisis, telling them to get over the need for Daddy fulfillment. This was the President of the United States, not your father.
I appreciated that, because I felt Joan spoke my sentiments, most of the time.
But something’s happened to Joan in the last year, which I can’t explain. Maybe it’s hormonal, but it seems as though she’s trying to validate herself and ingratiate herself into the Arianna-Katrina circle of pained, but gratuitous criticism which must be thrown in the direction of the President at every opportunity.
Joan had a particularly bad week last week. She had a Haley Barbour moment, but – unlike Haley, who cack-handedly walked back the revelation of his true self and moved on, Joan refused to budge in her Barbour moment and, in doing so, revealed to an entire tranche of Democratic voter, the rife prejudice simmering just below the Progressive front.
On April 4th, when the President announced his re-election campaign, Joan’s blog of the day on Salon began thus:-
Monday brought a strange convergence of political events: President Obama officially launched his campaign for reelection, with an email to supporters asking that they come back and make “Obama for America” an even greater grass-roots behemoth than it was in 2008, along with a video of lovely campaign supporters to back up its title, “It begins with us.” Meanwhile, it’s the haunting 43rd anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination (which Obama’s materials don’t mention).
The King anniversary is front and center, though, in the AFL-CIO’s efforts to build on the momentum of Wisconsin and the rising tide of protest in the Midwest and elsewhere with “We Are One” demonstrations April 4, coast to coast. Finally, Monday was the day Obama broke a campaign promise by announcing that 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Muhammed would be tried in a military tribunal at Guantánamo.
WTF? First she appears to castigate the President for neglecting to recognise the fact that Monday’s release of the campaign video coincides with the anniversary of Dr King’s death, then ties in a subtle accusation against the President for refusing to involve himself in Wisconsin’s and the Midwest’s pro-union demonstrations. Dog whistles from the disgruntled Professional Left, seeking to invalidate the President, now with regards to the memory of Dr King. Hold that thought about Dr King – it will enhance your shock value later on, I promise.
The last sentence about the President’s allegedly “broken promise” regarding KSM’s civil trial is not only a deliberate piece of misinformation, it’s a decidedly nasty subterfuge in insinuating that this is a man, our President, who can be trusted only to break whatever promises he makes to the public.
Joan Walsh is Joan Walsh. I’m just a pleb. Joan’s the editor-in-chief of Salon, she writes books that get published, she’s an MSNBC news contributor, a job which probably pays her more money for fifteen minutes of her time than I see in a month. But why is it I can understand that every effort the President made from the Executive Order closing Gitmo to the failure of securing Khaled Sheikh Mohammed a civilian trial in New York City was hampered, blocked and prevented by something with which Joan, as a political commentator, should be very familiar: checks and balances.
Congress, specifically Democrat Dick Durbin, led the charge against closing Guantanamo Bay, simply because of the fear of having to incarcerate so many deadly dangerous terrorists on American soil. Congress, specifically Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, aided and abetted by Democrat James Webb, effectively nixed the idea of granting KSM the right to a civilian trial, much less in New York City or Virginia. Eric Holder acknowledged this. The President expressed his grave reservations about such a thing when he reluctantly signed into law the legislation that brushed his previous intent aside.
If I can see this, if I understand enough about government procedure and practice, why doesn’t Joan? My guess is that she does, but in this instance, she’s willfully misinforming, pandering not only to the lowest common denominator of Leftwing viewer/reader, but also to that part of the Professional Left of which she suddenly has a yearning to be a part.
She then goes on in the article to propagate another lie:-
We know from the New York Times that the Bill Daley White House shut down an effort by OFA to back the Wisconsin protests.
Poppycock! OFA was involved in the background with organising the union’s efforts in Wisconsin; it was only called back by Daley when the media released news of its involvement. OFA is the President’s organisation. Again, I cannot believe that Joan does not realise that the President simply could not directly become involved, even via his association with OFA, in what was essentially a legitimate protest between the citizens of Wisconsin and their elected governor. Working subtly behind the scenes in lending his support was one thing, but when that’s been irresponsibly leaked to the public, then the involvement had to be seen to be walked back until such a time it could surreptitiously become involved again.
And, pardon me … but Joan’s progressivism takes on a rather different hue, when I remember that she was a very high profile PUMA during the 2008 campaign. If her Progressive credentials are genuine and she finds it so difficult and distasteful to support the policies of a “centrist President,” how does she explain her support for Hillary, who was particularly centre-Right in attitude and whose foreign policy was a carbon copy of her Senate BFF, Old Man McCain?
But that’s not all she had to say. It gets worse. On Tuesday, April 5th, her article began:-
Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker did more to galvanize America’s progressives – and Wisconsin’s – than any real or imagined progressive since President Obama ran as one in 2008.
Let’s not mince words, shall we? I mean, give credit where credit is due: Scott Walker, Progressive Hero.
It seemed Joanie was proven wrong in her claim that Bill Dailey axed OFA’s involvement in easing Wisconsin’s woes, which she grudgingly admits and then dismisses:-
To be fair, at least one of my readers suggests the Wisconsin election is an example of why I’m wrong: This Daily Kos diary lays out how veterans of Obama for America, the president’s once-amazing then mostly moribund 2008 campaign organization, which morphed into Organizing for America, stayed together in Madison, Wisc. as a cohesive band of rebels to mobilize for Kloppenberg in the Supreme Court race and an upcoming recall of Walker supporters.
I’m going to say we’re both right. I think that diary’s great, and I’m happy to know the 2008 Obama campaign left behind such a great legacy of organization in Madison. On the other hand, well, it’s Madison. And lest I sound like someone who scorns a liberal college town, remember I’m a Badger, and I’m proud of the rabblerousing tradition. Still, it’s not like OFA was starting from scratch, organizing on Madison’s west side. There’s a venerable progressive infrastructure there. But let’s just call that one a draw: I can’t prove there would have been an organizing juggernaut without OFA; my correspondent can’t prove it’s all about OFA. We can agree that the vibrant “Madtown O’s” show that OFA didn’t necessarily drain progressive energy from other political priorities, at least in Madison.
It would simply be too much for Joan to go against the accepted grain of the radical chic, wouldn’t it, and laud the President’s efforts, however indirect they had to have been? No, she has to follow the fashion of giving credit everywhere but where it belongs and then belittling the endeavour as “that’s just Madison and I know because I’m a Badger too.” That’s as ineffectual as me presuming to belittle Tom Perriello’s winning Virginia’s 5th District Congressional race in 2008 as “that’s just Charlottesville and I know because I’m a ‘Hoo too.” Poppycock again, but kudos, at least, to her for admitting that maybe she was incorrect.
Then, the spirit of Haley Barbour descended upon Joan and she dropped the proverbial clanger, and I’ll quote the bulk of it, because all of it’s important:-
I know some people are dreaming about a magical unicorn campaign by Russ Feingold or Howard Dean; I don’t see it. And let me be clearer about how I believe a primary challenge would hurt Democrats: I think many, maybe most, African American Democrats would stay with Obama, and the racial tension that made 2008 painful would be radioactive this time around.
On the other hand, let me say this: I deeply resent people who insist that white progressives who criticize Obama are deluding themselves that they’re his “base,” when his “base” is actually not white progressives, but people of color. Ishmael Reed laid out this pernicious line in December, in the New York Times, after many progressives, of every race, criticized Obama’s tax cut compromise. Reed compared “white progressives” who wanted more from Obama to spoiled children, compared with black and Latino voters “who are not used to getting it all.” I’ve been getting a similar message from some of my correspondents, and it’s depressingly divisive.
I also had some folks dismissing me part of the “professional left,” and I just want to say: Thanks, Robert Gibbs! If anyone wants an example of why this isn’t a progressive adminstration, there it is. Why don’t we just let the GOP play the politics of division to split the Democratic base; it’s tragic when an allegedly progressive administration tries to do it too. Please, folks, refute my specific criticism of the president, but don’t call me names. As I’ve said before, calling people the “professional left” implies they’re getting paid specifically to criticize the president, which is a type of corruption. That’s deeply unfair.
Finally, too much of the left pretends that presidential primaries are the best imaginable way to change the country; as we know from history, they’re not. When we “win,” as in knocking off Lyndon Johnson, we get Richard Nixon; when we lose — as in backing Ted Kennedy over Jimmy Carter — we get Reagan. And sometimes even when we “win” — backing Obama against that evil conservative, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – well, we at best draw.
Excuse me, but the boldface is a dog whistle of race-baiting if ever there was one.
Implying that African Americans will support the President on a race basis alone is deeply insulting, as is the snide resentment that anyone of colour need consider himself a more valid part of the President’s base of support than Joanie and all her professional moaning minnies. As for her total slating and deprecation of Ishmael Reed’s January op-ed in The New York Times, she’s deliberately taken this out of context, but she must have felt a nerve or two twinge. Reed, rightly, calls out the hypocrisy and exclusivity of a Progressive demographic whichi seems to consist of affluent, ueber educated, idealogical white people, from equally affluent backgrounds, whose idealogy renders them, more times than not, as narrow-minded and obtuse as the undereducated, overtly working-class Tea Partiers whom they disdain. Reed says:-
When these progressives refer to themselves as Mr. Obama’s base, all they see is themselves. They ignore polls showing steadfast support for the president among blacks and Latinos. And now they are whispering about a primary challenge against the president. Brilliant! The kind of suicidal gesture that destroyed Jimmy Carter — and a way to lose the black vote forever.
Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.
The only thing I would add to Ishmael Reed’s piece is the inclusion of the the white working poor, a demographic once a part of the old Democratic base, but discarded as irrelevant when the Progressives undertook reform of the Democratic party in the early 1970s. Relevant to remember, as well, that during this reform period, the unions were deemed surplus to requirements as well.
Let’s add to Joan’s resentment, a little of my own: I take umbrage that she’s casting blame for dividing the Left everyplace from the GOP to the Administration, itself. Of course, a divided Democratic party serves the GOP’s agenda very well, so well, in fact, that all they had to do was sit back and wait for us to divide ourselves. But it wasn’t the Administration, and certainly not Robert Gibbs, who divided the Left with that remark. The Left was being divided from within systematically, first by Arianna Huffington, a ratfucker Republican masquerading as a Progressive who developed Obama-baiting into an art, and aided by people purporting to be Progressives such as Islamophobe Bill Maher, who preached for a year about Obama accomplishing nothing and being the equivalent of Bush, and Ed Schultz and his now infamous “abandon the vote” cry. Joan may have come late to the “divide and lose” party, but she’s certainly playing a big part in the proceedings now.
And she felt the repercussions of her remarks, when she was involved in a Twitterfest of an argument with several prominent African American bloggers on Wednesday evening. These ladies assailed her with very succinct and accurate accusations of her hypocrisy – the hypocrisy that’s part and parcel of the patronising form of racism practiced by certain parts of the Progressive Left:-
truthrose1
@joanwalsh read your article, I resent white progressives who pretend they are the base of Dem party and ignore AA’s, we are even
truthrose1
@joanwalsh PBO is not your lap dog, thank god Gibbs called out the liars in the progressive media, u have done nothing but act like baggers
truthrose1
@joanwalsh the divisive ones are the racist ex libertarian, ex repub, ex green, fake Dems who want PBO to fail. The real base supports PBO
The last tweet, in particular, refers specifically to Cato Institute fellow (read Koch-payrolled) Salon contributor Glenn Greenwald, Arianna Huffington (whose staff at Huffington Post look like a meeting of the Young Republicans) and Katrina vanden Heuvel, who propagated the message throughout the campaign of 2000, that Bush and Gore were both the same and Nader was different. That worked out so well for us, didn’t it?
It’s Joan’s reply to truthrose1 which reveals her philosophical consaguinity to Governor Barbour:-
@truthrose1 Not saying white progressives are THE base; opposite. But I resent African Americans who say THEY are THE BASE. Wrong.
Things carried along in this vein until Joan replied to truthrose1′s assertion that history would declare that the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was “a toxic and deceitful bunch of back stabbers.” (A bit harsh, but very true in so many ways), to which Joan replied:-
@truthrose1 You’re toxic, I’m sorry. Jesus. Get some help.
Classy, right? This is Joan Walsh, esteemed political pundit, editor and columnist, responding to a member of the public. I’m sorry, this is no longer the 1960s when “Disgusted in Tuscaloosa” could respond to a newspaper columnist’s opinion by means of Letters to the Editor of his local paper. In the 24/7 cable news media’s texting, tweeting, cyberspace and Facebook blogosphere, such people as Joan, KO and even Glenn Beck, are accustomed to readers and followers commenting on their stated opinions, and quite often, these opinions vary.
These people have a bully pulpit. They are the Professional Left and the Professional Right. Part of the job description in that instance should be that they should be able to take criticism and strong criticism on the chin, rise above it as professionals and move on. Joan is no different from Olbermann on the Left and Beck on the Right: She’s thin-skinned, petty-minded and prickly to any sort of criticism divergent to her opinion from people who read her blogs and listen to her ruminations on television. Any criticism on her Facebook page is met with a snide put-down or a banning – just like Olbermann uses ad hominem in addressing disagreement with his opinions on Twitter and his blog page and Beck screams down the phone at callers to his radio show, who demonstrate the ability to think differently from him.
Joan Walsh went from hero to zero in my estimation this week. She played the politics of dog whistle, deliberately misinformed and sought to take the old kneejerk limousine liberal approach of the 1970s budding Progressive in adopting a degradingly patronising attitude to African American Democrats expressing their valid opinions. Joan, of course, will strenuously deny any racism on her part, but I believe that African Americans and Latinos know when they’re experiencing discrimination just like women know they’re experiencing sexist behaviour. I leave the final word on this to Ishmael Reed with his status posting yesterday on his Facebook page:-
typical well-off “progressive” joan walsh calls me “pernicious” for saying that african-americans are obama’s base. where did i say that? and isn’t the word
“pernicious” a little strong. why no blacks nor hispanics at salon.com?
He has a point.
The ubiquitous Bill Maher once observed that anytime a person begins a sentence with the qualification “I’m not (racist/sexist/homophobic etc) but …”, it means that you really are (racist/sexist/homophobic). I would go one step further. I’ve confronted several so-called Progressive commentators on several sites regarding perceived racism. They, effectively, do a Palin. They turn the remark around and make themselves the victim.
“Why are you bringing race into this?” They ask. “You’re racist to even think that or to bring it up.”
This is what Joan did in her tweet argument with the lesser mortals – because that’s essentially what we are. We’re ghosts on an internet site, disembodied voices down a telephone line on a call-in show. We rattle the almighty, who -even though they purport to support open-minded critical thinking – really want us to follow their line of thought blindly. Glenn Greenwald sock puppets the proletariat who strike an unwonted nerve and bombards their blogsites with hateful invective; Ed Schultz responds to a woman’s e-mailed criticism of his show by returning the e-mail and calling her a “cunt.”
Who are these people, and where did they originate? As for Joan and her patronising form of racism masked as guidance for the lowly, I can only surmise that either her mama didn’t bring her up to respect others’ differing opinions or she really needs to address her self-esteem problem.
With Joan enacting Miss Scarlett in disparaging the little people, which is obviously how she views her following, all we need now is for Haley Barbour to assume the Rhett Butler role, and we've got a union of racism rampant from Right to Left. Maybe it's about time we had that discussion about race in America.
Meantime, I’ll let Joan have the last word, from 2009, about wanting black people to make us feel good:-