Our "View"

ABC’s daytime talk show The View was full of discussion of Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright over the past week and a half, culminating in an appearance by Obama on Friday. We break down the discussion that took place on the popular program and offer commentary about the conversations.

First, it’s important to be aware of the show’s premise (from its website): It “is ABC Daytime's morning chatfest, featuring a team of dynamic women of different ages, experiences and backgrounds discussing the most exciting events of the day.” Anchored by Barbara Walters (who receives unnerving deference from the other women), the show has changed co-hosts over the years (Star Jones, Rosie O’Donnell and Meredith Vieira had stints of various lengths), but now includes Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Joy Behar, Sherri Shepherd and Whoopi Goldberg. Each apparently has a role to play. Walters is ostensibly the journalistic conscience of the program, though she is much more in touch with celebrity gossip than hard news. Goldberg is the “alternative voice”; replacing the controversial O’Donnell, Goldberg, with her overt progressivism and tell-it-like-she-sees-it style introduces the daily “hot topics” to be discussed. Hasselbeck is the token conservative voice. A former reality TV star applies talking points directly from AM talk radio and withstands constant attacks from the other women. Shepherd and Behar are comics (as is Goldberg) who put forth perspectives and humor, both intentional and otherwise. (For an example, consider Shepherd’s infamous moment where she admitted to not being sure the Earth is flat. The video of the original statement has been scrubbed from the Internet, but here is her defense of the comment the next day.).

What has become particularly interesting over the past week or so is Behar’s emergence as the intellectual backbone of the group. While the others resort to absent-mined categorizations and heuristics, Behar applies social science theory to the concept of racism. The day of Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech in Philadelphia (March 18, 2008), the crew engaged in a conversation about Obama’s responsibility to address Wright’s comments. Typical of many white responses to this situation, Walters said that it was too bad that racism has now become an issue and that she hoped we could “rise above” racism, as if it was this situation that brought about racism. It takes a special sort of arrogance or naiveté to not understand that racism is an issue every day in America; the only difference is that white folks have to think about it now. But if Walters gets her way, all that messiness will stop soon.

The next day, in response to the speech, Hasselbeck parroted the talk radio host line that Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by noting that she has made remarks that contain racist stereotypes. She then went on to use the faulty but common reciprocity argument by equating Wright’s comments with those of Don Imus by noting Obama’s outrage of the latter’s remarks about the women on the Rutgers championship basketball team last year. As Behar was trying to make a point, she noted that Imus’s comments struck Obama personally because he has two little girls, at which point Hasselbeck interrupted to say “It struck me and I’m white!” The equation of her being “struck” and that of an African American being struck is as offensive on its face as she likely believes it is empathetic (which Shepherd politely pointed out). Behar indicated how pleased she was to have heard such a “literate” speech by a presidential candidate on race. Walters, with a smug smile, noted that some might interpret Behar’s remark as racist.

This is a wonderful example of the intellectual shortcuts that people use to try to be politically correct. Walters was clearly thinking about the controversy over Joe Biden’s remarks in early 2007 that Obama was refreshing because he was “clean” and “articulate.” To a less sophisticated observer (as Walters is), this makes sense because paying a compliment to a person of color must be racist. What she fails to understand – and Behar points out – is that Biden’s remarks were reflective of his racism because he was using the “compliment” to distance Obama from other African Americans, as if this characteristic was not normally found in that population. Behar, on the other hand, was using the term “literate” to distance Obama from other presidential candidates, the vast majority of whom throughout our history have been white men.

When Goldberg returned on March 24 (Walters was not present), she weighed in with her perspective that there was nothing wrong with having close friendships with persons who have differing worldviews or perspectives (she mentioned her friendship with former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich). Hasselbeck quipped that she would never stay friends with someone she knew was racist. The half-second of silence was deafening. It was as if everyone in the studio recognized what a ridiculous statement she made, but no one was sure how to respond. (If you want to hear her parallel of Wright’s comments with Jeffrey Dahmer’s culinary habits, have at it.)

At this point, Behar provided what would have been the most thoughtful response about racial inequality on mainstream television to date if Obama’s speech hadn’t been given a few days earlier. She explained that she learned studying sociology in college that racism was “an institutional thing” and that it was “top-down.” She continued by noting that “you can’t be racist if you’re in the oppressed minority,” something we refer to regularly in this space but hear very seldom in the mainstream media. She continued, “So you have to call it something besides ‘racism’ according to the sociology professors that I took.” (We prefer “bigotry,” by the way.) At this point, Elisabeth felt perfectly comfortable saying, “Well, I don’t agree with those professors. I don’t think every professor is right. . .” (Check out the intellectually vacant commentary on this idea by the folks at NewsBusters.)

It’s a fair point, but only to a point. Academics need to be held accountable for their work (and are), but that’s not the same as saying that a sociologist’s perspective on racism is dismissed because a talk show host with no advanced degree or study on the issue doesn’t like (“agree”) with the position. It’s yet another illustration of the anti-intellectualism that has become increasingly common under this administration: If the science doesn’t fit, just deny it. Global warming isn’t real because we don’t want to change what we’re doing and lose money. Evolution isn’t real because it is at odds with our religion. Racism goes both ways because we (white folks) don’t think it’s fair that we get accused of it and people of color don’t (and, by the way, “we” get to determine what is fair and what is not).

In any event, Behar continued to explain why racism doesn’t go in both directions, and Hasselbeck, in typical fashion asked if she was condoning Rev. Wright’s statements. (Similar to the way trying to explain the 9/11 attacks is invariably met with a statement that one is excusing them.) Behar said, “I’m disagreeing with your use of the term ‘racism,’” and Hasselbeck, not being able to understand that she doesn’t get to just invent her own definitions of things to suit her position, figuratively threw a fit and said, “I believe it’s racist, it’s a form of bigotry, it’s wrong, no matter what side it’s coming from, it is wrong!”

Here she’s correct, but she doesn’t know it. It is a form of bigotry, and most would acknowledge that the few snippets of Rev. Wright’s sermons that are under consideration are “wrong” (some are factually so, others are arguable). But she failed to acknowledge that the difference in definition is more than semantics: it is a distinction of concepts that is fundamental to understanding racial inequality and the reasons behind why Wright and others hold such views.

Reacting to Obama’s statements that his grandmother is a “typical white person who, you know, when she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction,” Hasselbeck pointed out that she doesn’t feel that way, at which point, Shepherd and Goldberg shrugged their shoulders and had looks on their faces as if to say, “yeah. . . and?” Similarly, Sean Hannity this week also went to great pains on his radio show to point out that he was not racist in any way. After a caller admitted that Obama’s speech forced her to look at herself and be honest, Hannity noted that he had to be honest, too: he “doesn’t think that way.” Fox News reported that Geraldine Ferraro was offended that Obama lumped her in with Wright, who she believes is a “racist bigot” – a term that’s almost as funny as South Park’s Eric Cartman calling his friend Stan’s dog a “gay homosexual.”

Hasselbeck went back to old faithful – the reciprocity argument – and said that people would be outraged if someone talked about a typical black person. Goldberg correctly noted that it is done all the time (though not usually so explicitly, we would add), and Behar returned to trying to explain that racism could only be a label for the majority (white) population. She said of whites “they can take it,” that they haven’t been oppressed. Hasselbeck said that she understood that pain (which she clearly does not and cannot), and demanded to know, “When does it stop?! Write me the rules, then; write me the rules on racism.”

Elisabeth, listen to us, PLEASE. The rules on racism are written. You can choose to understand them and work to change them if you wish, but to not even acknowledge that there are rules is unacceptable for someone who insists on talking about such things publicly. What is happening is that you, Elisabeth, thought you knew what the rules are (everyone just be nice to everyone else), and now that you are hearing that it is more complicated, you are unwilling to withstand the psychological discomfort that comes with it.

At one point in the discussion, Behar asked if someone could look it up, and the “crack research department” (Behar’s words) at The View went to the dictionary. It’s not the ideal place for a sophisticated treatment of a complex topic, but the two definitions Behar read helped to make her point. The first was not race-specific, but did note that racism usually involved the idea that one’s race is superior and fit to rule others. Say what you like about African American bigotry, but there are very few who claim that blacks are superior and deserve to rule over whites. The second definition had to do with the policy or system of government based upon such a doctrine.

Finally, Obama appeared on The View Friday morning (here is part 1 of the 4-part clip of the appearance). Before he appeared, Elisabeth Hasselbeck found another snippet of a Wright speech to critique, one in which he referred to the Romans who prosecuted Christ of having “garlic noses.” She made the comparison with the infamous “hook nose” caricatures of Jews, and Joy Behar tried to explain that the difference was that Italians’ noses were never points of contention that were used to oppress. Elisabeth shouted (having not learned anything over the past week, apparently), “I think racism goes in all directions!”

It does not. (sigh)

When she had her chance to question Obama, Hasselbeck said that when she heard him say there was one America at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 that, even as a Republican, she really liked that. He had to (try) to explain to her that the idea was aspirational, not descriptive. That is, by saying that he believed that there was “one America,” he was saying that this is how things should be – that that is what we must aspire to. It is enlightening to note that members of the public heard that as an indication that there was no racism – that we were already one America.

This is comparable to a Rorschach test, where psychologists can learn about clients by virtue of what they “see” in ink blots. Different people “see” different things because of the predispositions they bring to the table. Elisabeth believed that the only racism was people who perhaps use the “n-word” or tell racist jokes, so when she heard Obama say there was one America, she thought he meant “now.” For the same reason, conservative talk show host Michael Medved this week was irate at Obama’s explanation of why he did not leave the church. On The View, Obama was asked if he would have left the church if Rev. Wright had not retired. Obama said that he would have left if Rev. Wright did not retire and did not admit that the things he said (that are of issue currently) were incorrect. Medved was literally screaming that Obama was a liar because Wright never renounced those comments. But Obama never said that he did. Rather, Obama said that if Wright were still the pastor, he would have had to renounce the statements or Obama would have left the church. Wright did retire, so the second point was moot. But Medved brought to the table an assumption that Obama and Wright were of the same mind and that Obama would say anything to make the controversy go away. His (conservative) callers tried to explain to him that he was understanding the comment incorrectly, but after playing it several times, Medved kept screaming, “Show me where Wright has renounced these things!”

It has been an eventful and, to our tastes, useful discussion of race surrounding Wright’s statements and, more importantly, Obama’s speech. The women on The View come from different backgrounds and reach a wide audience daily. The discussions are useful and, as we’ve seen, often quite sophisticated. We hope that the viewers walked away from those programs thinking more deeply about race than before they tuned in. As for Elisabeth Hasselbeck. . . we hope she reads this blog.