In response to the face-off in Arizona between President Obama and Arizona governor Jan Brewer last week, Jackson said, “Even George Wallace did not put his finger in Dr. King’s face.” And it’s true; he didn’t. Similarly, not even Josef Stalin wrote two autobiographies the way Obama has. And even Genghis Khan didn’t have a Swiss bank account the way Mitt Romney did.
Of course, Jackson’s non sequitur is a single note in the cacophony of asininity surrounding the wildly overhyped confrontation between Obama and Brewer. An MSNBC host (and putative expert in matters racial) said the photo reminded her more than anything else of the iconic image of Elizabeth Eckford, the 15-year-old black girl who was harassed in 1957 by racists on her way to a desegregated school in Little Rock, Ark. And liberal talk-radio host Stephanie Miller concurred that Brewer was “playing the fragile-white-woman-scared-of-black-man card.” Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and Maureen Dowd sounded similar refrains.
Advertisement
Lost in all of this is the simple fact that the president instigated the confrontation. He was upset with how an earlier meeting with Brewer was characterized in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast (full disclosure: my wife collaborated on the book). She probably shouldn’t have raised her finger, even if it was only to get a word in edgewise.
But good Lord, given the liberal overreaction to this incident, you’d think the governorship of Arizona outranked the presidency, or that Obama was a beleaguered civil-rights activist sneaking into Arizona by cover of night, and not the president of the United States touching down in Air Force One.
Obama simply messed up a campaign swing by stepping on his message. But his most ardent supporters had to turn the incident into some sort of racial Götterdämmerung. Obama had it right later when he said it was all “not a big deal.”
But this absurd controversy is surely a harbinger of greater inanities to come. As even some Democrats in Washington concede, Obama can’t run on his record. That’s why he’s running against a “do-nothing Congress” and unfairness in the tax code. That’s simply not exciting enough for his supporters, particularly given the fizzling of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
And nothing more excites the base of the Democratic party — or gets more free media — than wildly implausible hysterics over racism, even when there’s so little evidence to support the claim.
Take what appears to be the Left’s strongest claim: Newt Gingrich’s blowout victory in South Carolina was a triumph for his racist “dog-whistle” political rhetoric on child labor and the huge rise in food-stamp use under Obama.
“Dog-whistle politics” is a term imported from Britain that implies politicians use language with two frequencies, one for normal people and one for less savory constituencies. Dog-whistle messages are real. But dog-whistle spotting can be hard — you’re listening for things that, by definition, normal people cannot hear — and prone to wild misinterpretation.
For instance, Gingrich has been talking about food stamps and child labor for a long time. During that time, he also worked harder than most GOP politicians to reach out to minority groups, even to Sharpton. Does he phrase things too provocatively? Absolutely. But he does that about everything from tax cuts to moon bases.
When Gingrich came down like a ton of bricks on Juan Williams in the South Carolina debate on the food-stamp issue, liberals instinctively saw it as a racial transaction, pure and simple. And although I have no doubt that racists enjoyed seeing Gingrich belittle a black journalist, there’s zero evidence that Republicans overall cheered for racist reasons. They’ve cheered Gingrich for attacking white moderators from every outlet, including Fox News.
And to the extent there are racial implications to what Gingrich proposes, they’re no more racist than remarks made by prominent African Americans who see the culture of poverty perpetuating poverty.
But for reasons that say a lot more about the weaknesses of the first black president, liberals yearn to hear racism where it isn’t to make this campaign into something more exciting than a referendum on Obama.
"She probably shouldn’t have raised her finger, even if it was only to get a word in edgewise."
Nonsense-
Obama described bread&butter Americans as bitter people who cling to weapons and religion so he could squeeze more campaign money out of a crowd of limousine liberals. This is the breadth of the man's respect.
The president discredited a police department in Massachusetts in the second or third minute of his term over a silly man who thought he could trump a cop for doing his job. For a finale he had a ridiculous sit-down to cover himself (huh?). Just add beer, you regular guy, you.
He sat in front of members of congress in a formal setting and referred to each by their first name during one of his staged "teaching, my way or the highway, moments".
Asked to address congress (he has to ask), invited the Supreme Court Justices to attend, then publicly admonished them before the entire country.
Is this what you do in someone else's house you were invited to, to people you invited?
At that, he trots congress out to suit him, and seems to not know it is a division of our government that is equal to the one he represents.
The scene with Brewer was classic Obama- delivered what he had to say, then cut Brewer off by turning around and walking away while she's in mid-sentence.
He dismissed her showed her his a**.
Pointing a finger? In my world he warranted a foot- we live in a constitutional republic where we replace the people who govern because as individuals, they are non-essential.
I'm with Jonah. While I think she was justified in her use of body language. Gov. Brewer needs to represent all the people of her state. It would have been politically wiser to avoid this "gotcha" snapshot.
Remember when the Media declared Rick Lazio a sexist for invading Hillary Clinton's space during the NY Senate race? Obama is MUCH closer to Brewer than Lazio was to Hillary. I fully expect the Media to apply the same standard and declare Obama a sexist....Yeah, I know.
Are we in Kansas Toto? This picture is the best example of "speaking truth to power" I have ever seen. Governor Brewer was pointing in obvious rage (something we all feel) at the "community organizer" who, by definition, specializes in enragaging those who disagree. It is Obama who, after an endless stream of public insults and accusations resorted to arm twisting, threats and finally suing the Governor and the state of Arizona for enforcing the law! More Liberal frothing insanity, the absurdity of their accusations shows again they obtained that divorce from reality they wanted so badly a long time ago.
The remark that Governor Brewer was exhibiting "fragile-white-woman-scared-of-black-man behavior is laughable. If there's one characteristic I'd assign to Jan Brewer, it's fearless. There are many "diminutive" women who think nothing of confronting a larger male, threatening or not, black, white, or whatever, when they get a whiff of something from their challenger that one would normally be scraping off the bottom of one's shoe or shoveling out of a barn.
I think Miller's claim was that Gov. Brewer was cynically manipulating the public. "She was playing the card", not that she was sincerely scared or intimidated. Since when does an intimidated person get back in the face of their intimidator anyway?
As you said, Miller's statement was laughable in Gov. Brewer's case and offensive generally.
Racism is still very much a part of our national experience and will continue to be for some time to come. I'm White (whatever that means in terms of skin texture) but I can tell you that prejudice towards other races is very much a part (however well hidden) of European American culture. Of course it also works in other races. Take Latin America where there is still a wide gulf between South American Indians and the lighter skinned Hispanics who tend to run everything down that way. I have been all over the world and I can tell you that wherever European Americans go (except Europe where they can't get away with it) that there is a feeling that Whites (and especially Americans) really believe they are superior to other races. I happen to live in Kansas in a town not far from Interstate 70 where there is a large billboard with a brooding looking Obama superimposed on a black background with the caption "Wanna Be Marxist Dictator". Right above it is "God Bless America" and a big American flag. This is nothing but subtle racism posing as a political statement. It might as well say what it means but of course it can't because of the taboos imposed on the subject of racism by those on both the right and left of our somewhat warped American political spectrum. I do believe that the message on the Conservative side of the house is that this man of Mixed race is being tolerated but this won't happen again, and Whites will get back in the White House and things will be back to "normal". This is the unstated message. The United States might get away from this for a while, but I expect that in this century we will see a Native American, and an Hispanic American and an Asian American as President. No doubt we will see a woman President.
Had you not implied what a rabid racist I am I never would have known. Thank you for enlightening me on the terribleness of Americans. Granted, you threw in the obligatory statement that people in other countries look down their nose at the "lessers".
And it must be true because you have traveled the world - unlike us rubes.
The racism you see everywhere (which I will admit exist somewhere) is evidence only of your fixation on the subject - not of actual racism.
The distinction that you miss is that many Americans may indeed feel superior, but that is not equal to racism. And it may go so far as to dredge up the ugly American image. Thats just rudeness. The exceptionalism thing is not racially based - whether right or wrong. It is ideological and based on culture, not race. I assume your comment only reflects upon white Americans when in countries peopled by those of a darker complexion, and not on black Americans in the same or reverse situation.
I have to wonder whether the Hump recognizes the obvious racism in his own comment. Sadly for him, I doubt it. Look...."Racism" is the belief that "race" is a significant determinant of human traits, abilities, character....In other words, the belief that race *matters*. To be fair to the Hump, he might be merely dishonest, rather than racist. If he believes that *all* people are, to some degree racist, then it's dishonest to say *whites* are; it would be like saying "Blacks commit crimes; blacks commit rapes, muggings, murders, they sell dope." Every single element of that is inarguably correct. The statement is nonetheless dishonest, because it implies that blacks *particularly* or even *exclusively* do those things. On the other hand, if Hump truly believes that whites are particularly or exclusively racist, then...he is arguing that race truly *does* make people different in important ways...and that's simply racist.
It must be tiring for you to spend so much time and effort ferreting out the 'hidden' racism that you believe exists in white Americans! I feel sorry for you more than anything else--such blind cynicism must be exhausting. Feel free to lay down and take a break from your efforts--they're not likely to be missed.
It must be tiring for you to spend so much time and effort ferreting out the 'hidden' racism that you believe exists in white Americans! I feel sorry for you more than anything else--such blind cynicism must be exhausting. Feel free to lay down and take a break from your efforts--they're not likely to be missed.
This is just ridiculous. Everywhere you go, the people who live there believe they are superior, in some crucially significant way, to the people who don't.
I love the "proof" that white people "everywhere" are racists: a single anti-Marxist billboard in Kansas (because Asia, Africa and South America are exactly like Kansas and "Marxist" is code word for "kill all the [black people].")
Humpty Dumpty used words that only meant anything to him. I get the reference, and it is uncannily accurate, because you are using the words "racist" and "Marxist" in a way that has meaning only to you. Extremely fruminous, if you ask me.
Are you sure you're not just living in the White King's dream? (BTW: That's code for "I was an English major").
Right on with the "Through the Looking Glass" reference. It almost makes me wonder if Humpty is being satirical. But I've heard enough far-liberals claim that everything from calling Obama "socialist" to "tall" is coded racial invective that his sincerity wouldn't be surprising.
Even if it were true - which it is not - what does it matter? I would vote for the King of Siam if he could fix the problems we have today like anyone else would - and you know it! The fact is that this Marxist Ayatollah has squandered four years and trillions with nothing to show for it. We have the exact same basic problems today that we had when he was elected - except that now we’re so totally bankrupt we can no longer do a thing about it. Racism? That card doesn't play anymore, you sang that tune too many times - it won't work anymore. Keep talkin' trash and show the world how you have no record to run on, no solutions, no new ideas, and nothing to contribute but trash talk - please!
Humpty-Dumpty's message is that white people are racists and conservatives especially so. H-D, how do you explain the popularity among white conservative racists of Herman Cain, Alan West, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley?
I can't help wondering whether Humpty recognizes the blatant racism in his statements. Sadly for him, I doubt it. Look....Racism is the belief that "race" (whatever that means) is a significant determinant of human traits, abilities, character....In other words, that race *matters*. By suggesting that whites (Europeans and white Americans) are "racist", the Hump is being either dishonest, or racist, and I suspect the latter. It might be "mere" dishonesty, in the same way that the statement "Blacks commit crimes. Blacks commit rapes, commit robberies, and sell drugs" is inarguably true, but dishonest in implying that *only* blacks do these things, or that blacks do them more than whites. If the Hump believes that all people are inherently racist, then by singling whites out for mention, he's being dishonest. If he truly believes that whites are racist and blacks are not (or are less so), he's saying that race *IS* a significant factor. In other words, he's being racist, more blatantly than anyone else I've seen on this blog. So, which is it, Hump? Are you dishonest...or the most brazen racist among the commenters?
Follow
