This Just In: White Guys are #1, Black Men Belong in Back of Bus

In what seems to be a stranger and stranger season of open racial bigotry, this week’s events involving race and language almost write themselves. Three very visible conservative pundits expressed openly bigoted comments that demonstrate less that they are hostile, hate-filled reactionaries and more that they just do not get it.

Reacting to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s comments that the Democratic presidential candidates resembled America while the Republican side “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s,” Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan engaged in a televised gripe session about how white men have been getting the short end of the stick. Said Carlson: “I must say, I'm not going to sit by a single more time and listen to someone slag on, quote, ‘white men.’” Atta boy, Tucker! Wherever there are those with no voice, there Tucker Carlson shall be. It’s about time someone stood up for the oppressed white man in America. (On a side note, Dean made essentially the same comments last September at National Baptists Convention and no one seemed to notice.)



But as angry as Tucker was, Buchanan’s comments were even more amazing. First, he noted that he was offended. Fair enough. We do not find it acceptable for anyone to tell anyone else what he or she should or should not find offensive. But Buchanan continues by attempting to make a logical argument about why white men should not be attacked (the following is absolutely true, we promise – watch for yourself above):

“. . .what did white males do? OK, they were the only guys signing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all the dead at Gettysburg, all the dead at Normandy.”

Media Matters has posted an historical assessment of his statement’s inaccuracies, but more interesting to us is the fact that his language – the matter-of-fact tone in particular – suggests that he really believes that white men have been successful because they simply worked harder than everyone else. Right, Pat: when it was time for the Constitutional Convention, the American Indians, slaves and white women were too lazy to show up. Sure, they were invited and urged to attend, but instead, they hung out on their plantations, made doilies and smoked peyote. If they would have just had a culture of excellence and pushed themselves, it all would have worked out fine.

As Bill Press tried to explain institutionalized racism and sexism in between quips, Buchanan added a very revealing statement: “I think you guys are self-hating white folks.” Predictably, Buchanan individualizes a systemic issue. If he conceptualizes the fight for racial and gender equality as being about each of us fighting for our own interests, then he surely believes that inequality (assuming he believes it even exists) is solely a result of individuals’ behaviors. That’s comforting to those who wish to believe in (or justify) the inherent good of a system because any evidence of injustice will be placed on the victims rather than the system that was built on, has led to, and perpetuates that injustice. In short, Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson cannot tolerate white men or anyone else advocating for equal rights for white women and people of color because they believe that the playing field is equal and whomever rises to the top deserves to be there.

Carlson was even so arrogant as to proclaim his own objectivity on the matter:

Let me just say this. I think -- and I'm not just -- you know, people say, "Oh, you're a white man. That's why you're defending white men." Actually, I'm being sincere. I'm defending this purely on principle. I don't think that you ought to cavalierly attack people based on their race or gender. And consider if that was any other group. "Well, this group is so-and-so or such-and-such." There would be an uproar. I think when you allow this kind of gar -- I mean, Howard Dean's an -- not very smart, so he gets kind of a pass, but a lot of smart people say this sort of thing.

Ok, let’s unpack this in four parts:

1. Does he really believe that he can simply detach his bias from his analysis? None of us can. The point of scientific research is to follow standard procedure so that we can get as close to objectivity as possible, but none of us can detach from our own reality. It’s a remarkably naïve statement.

2. Very few serious social critics “cavalierly” do anything, but even fewer “attack people based on their race and gender.” Like Buchanan, Carlson believes the struggle for equality is about people not liking one another. Feminists are man-haters. Black people hate “crackers,” etc. As long as I don’t say the n-word or I have a black friend, racism isn’t my problem. In other words, it’s less the bigotry that these folks put forth but their fundamental lack of understanding of systemic oppression that is most dangerous and has allowed inequality to continue.

3. Here we go again with the faulty reciprocity argument. For instance, by this reasoning, historically black colleges are examples of black racism because “if whites had colleges targeted toward them, there’d be riots!” The reciprocity argument relies upon the false presupposition that people of all races are treated equally and have equal opportunities. It ignores the important element of power in race and gender relations. It’s like saying that labor unions should not be able to strike because employers are not allowed to simply stop working. If there were equal power between employers and employees, it would be a fine argument. As it is, though, businesses downsize, layoff, fire and otherwise wield power over employees. The threat of a strike is an attempt at equalizing the power difference. So it’s simply not credible to argue that Dean’s comments are inappropriate because if a minority group argued that a privileged group was “so-and-so and such-and-such” it would not have behind it the historic power of dominance that the reciprocal has.

4. Finally, acknowledging that “a lot of smart people” acknowledge systemic racism and sexism should be a tip-off that there is something to it. Rather than dismiss it out of hand because considering it is psychologically uncomfortable, why not wrestle with it a bit and try to understand the nuance instead of dumbing it down and oversimplifying it to pacify others who wish to ignore systemic inequality? Jon Stewart tried to explain this to Carlson and Crossfire co-host Paul Begala years ago when he went to the now-canceled program to explain to them why they are “hurting America.” If you have never seen it, be sure to check it out here.

We generally focus on effects and do not venture into the land of speculating on individual beliefs, but if you need more evidence of Buchanan’s commitment to the theory of the appropriateness of white supremacy, here you go: “. . . every president has been a white male, Bill, every one.”

Yep. You read that correctly. And because the other two ignored or failed to hear the statement the first time, he got it in again a few seconds later: “I would remind you, every single president has been a white male. Is that something wrong with America?” And then a few seconds later, on the same point: “Is that wrong with America?”

Yes! That’s right, Pat. That IS wrong with America. In a supposedly free society that values equality it is neither coincidence or biologically determined that the head of our nation for 220 years has been only white males. Just like in 1776 and 1787, women and people of color are just not interested in becoming president. They are too busy with other things. Or perhaps they are just not good enough genetically. For those who refuse to acknowledge systemic racism and sexism (lest something be “wrong with America”), this is the thought process. While we disagree with this perspective strongly and find it baseless to argue, we would respect the argument if those making it would simply be up front about their beliefs. If white men get most of the breaks, it has got to be one of three reasons: they work harder and deserve it more; they are genetically superior; or there are external constraints that give them an advantage. Those who deny the third must take up one of the other two, but they almost never do. Acknowledging that America is not perfect is not the same as “hating” America. That “love it or leave it” mentality is further evidence of the false dichotomy that only serves to reinforce existing inequality and perpetuate stereotypes and myths about people of color.

Enter Kellyanne Conway’s Friday night appearance on Larry King Live. Conway suggested that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were arguing about whether she should let him sit “on the back of the bus” on her presidential ticket.



Ok, so picture this: we are sharing a hotel room in Norman, Oklahoma this weekend because we are at the Political Communication Center archive viewing and coding some 1,200 ads. As we are relaxing and catching up on some news that evening, Conway makes the comment and we look at one another, both thinking that we must have heard her wrong. Neither of us said a word. Turning back to the TV, we see Obama supporter Jamal Simmons with a similar look on his face. Confronting Conway, he noted that her comments were “beyond the pale” but agreed to drop it as she stumbled around trying to explain how there was nothing racial about her comments (all while avoiding mentioning anything about race, by the way).

Some of you will choose to believe she was intentionally making a bigoted statement by using implicitly racial language, but she got caught. It is possible, of course. But watch her as she tries to explain herself. She actually looks like she doesn’t get it at all first, then it seems to strike her that she used lanhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifguage she wishes she hadn’t, and then she spends the rest of the time pretending that she hadn’t come to that realization. All of this happens in the span of about 20 seconds.

Whether she meant it or not, it is inexcusable level of insensitivity, particularly as we are witnessing the fruits of the legacy of the struggles that bus segregation represents in the Civil Rights Movement. Along side O’Reilly’s “lynching party” statement late last month, we are seeing an amazing level of ignorance and/or bigotry in our public discourse. If this is a sign of things to come if Obama gets the nomination, we may have to change this space to “Today in Race.”