Don't Talk to Strangers: Obama as Other

It is wise advice for parents to tell their children not to talk to strangers. It was not until THIS WEEK, however, that such an admonishment was applied to listening to a speech by the president of the United States.

Barack Obama plans to give a "back to school" address on Tuesday "about the need to work hard and stay in school." In such a polarized political context, it is refreshing to have a visible leader speak about something on which folks from every political persuasion can agree. Except that with this president, in this context, conservatives are suspicious about the content, demanding to see the text of the address in advance.

One-time Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer called the speech an "unprecedented" use of power." He was not making a cheeky reference to President George W. Bush's surveillance of U.S. citizens, Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus or any of the invasions of sovereign nations that the U.S. has undertaken over the years. He was being completely sincere, and so was the chairman of the Florida Republican Party in a memo that accused the president of using "taxpayer dollars . . . to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." A Republican state lawmaker from Oklahoma is quoted as saying, "As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality. This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Of course, such an argument is wholly without merit. There is certainly a "cult of personality" around the U.S. president for school children, and there always has been. Fred Greenstein's groundbreaking work with children in the 1960s revealed that presidents are perceived as "benevolent leaders" to children, irrespective of their parents' political beliefs. There have always been portraits of the current president hanging in schools, courthouses, post offices and other public spaces. Portraits do not invite "a critical approach" to presidents, as the Arizona state schools superintendent said should happen; indeed, they invite "worship" of our nation's top leader in the name of patriotism.

Is this paranoia racially driven? A solid case could probably be made for that, but we are not going to make it. What we will do, however, is explain how these accusations work to erode Obama's image as part of a larger push to portray him as "other." As we always do, we will take the social science approach and focus on the effects of this communication rather than the intent of the folks who are crafting and delivering the message.

Social science research reveals that racist messages in political campaign communication almost never occur as a result of a candidate using direct ("explicit") racist language. Rather, there is a combination of images and code words that are effective because they activate deeply-held racist predispositions in the minds of voters (not just White voters). Again, this work speaks to the way that such messages have the potential to affect voters; it makes no claims as to whether such appeals were intended by the candidates or their campaign teams. In some case (like the infamous Willie Horton ad from 1988), we can know intent because the architect (in that case, Lee Atwater), admitted as much (in that case, after he knew that he was dying -- far too young -- of cancer), but for the most part, we cannot, as President George W. Bush used to say, know what is in their hearts.

In our most recent work, we found that there is a tendency to use in-group/out-group language to indicate "otherness," a tactic which has the potential to be greatly exacerbated when the "other" is a member of a racial or ethnic minority group. Such language often comes by way of the choice of first person pronouns in combination with images that suggest the race of the in group. For instance, if a White candidate is running against a Black candidate in a district that is majority-White, he or she might run an ad that includes only White citizens, with language about "our values" or "our priorities," signaling that those priorities are different than those of a candidate of color. There is nothing inherently racist about candidates trying to convince voters that they are more "relatable" than their opponents; as a result of the way race has worked in America, however, the priming of group identity with images in combination with such language can work to the advantage of a candidate who employs such a strategy.

We can see this very clearly in Barack Obama's opponents over the past two and a half years. From the Democratic primaries through the election through the first six months of his presidency, detractors from all political persuasions have used language that pushes Obama into the category of "other." The specific elements on which Obama is accused of being different change (quite frequently, in fact): He has been labeled as un-American in at least these ways by political elites: communist/socialist/Marxist, elitist, corrupt, terrorist sympathizer, foreign-born, a thug, fascist and racist (ironically, this is considered to be un-American). None of these labels are racist in and of themselves (even "racist"), but when leveled against a person of color, the dynamic is inherently different.

Does that mean that any attack against a person of color is racist? Certainly not (though Obama's opponents have used that argument, as well). First, even if the messages are racist by these scholarly definitions, that does not mean that those who crafted the message did so intentionally (did we mention this already?). Second, there are all sorts of ways that a person of color can be criticized on political grounds without playing into preexisting negative stereotypes about that person's race or ethnicity. Suggesting that Barack Obama is trying to deceive people has a racist effect because African Americans are presumed to be shifty, dishonest and criminal. To argue that Barack Obama's health care proposal is bad for America because small businesses would have a difficult time with the provisions, for instance, is wholly non-racial. Some progressives have argued that all of Obama's opponents are playing on race because the overwhelming visible criticism of him has been based on fear appeals related to negative stereotypes about African Americans.

This latest criticism over the education speech is no different. The argument is that Obama is trying to play a shell game with the American people, to "get at" our children, and to be dishonest about his true intentions. Such a criticism aimed at a White president (or official or candidate) carries no racist associations, as Whites are not, as a group, commonly assumed to have such characteristics. Since such stereotypes do exist about Blacks, however, the effect of this charge is different.

Former Republican Speaker of the House (and likely 2012 presidential hopeful) Newt Gingrich came out in support of the president's speech on Sunday, but implied that his support was related to the fact that he believed that the text of the speech would be made available so that parents could choose whether to allow their children to be exposed to the message. This is consistent with the calls from many of those who have criticized the speech, suggesting that Obama is trying to hide the content from parents. We do not know how common it is for presidents to release the text of their speeches weeks or days ahead of time (though it is quite common for text to be released to the press hours ahead of time for publication assistance), but in the larger context of conservative attacks on Obama over the past year or so, the request is troubling, as it signals that Black folks -- even the president -- cannot be trusted to talk directly to our students without parents having the chance to censor.

Adults talk to our children everyday without our input: teachers, firefighters, police officers, other children's parents on "career days," etc. Presumably there is no opposition to such speakers because those folks are not "strangers" -- they are members of our community. In the past, presidents of the United States were very much considered to be members of our community -- even largely in communities of color.

But this president will never be accepted as "family" or even as legitimate to many Whites. Once that is understood, it is not surprising that parents would not want their children to hear what he has to say unless and until they approve the content ahead of time. If you are not "one of us," you do not get to talk to our children.

Update (9/7/09, 12:39pm CDT): The text of the president's speech to children can be found here.

Rejection, Reflection and (Ultimately) Reception: The Uighur Situation in Palau

As promised, Stephen blogs THIS WEEK from The Republic of Palau.

I arrived here Monday night (local time) amidst a rare flurry of international media attention. The media attention was not over my arrival, but over the recent decision of Palau’s president to allow thirteen soon-to-be-former detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to relocate here. My interest was to get as much reaction as I could, from as many folks as I could, as often as I could. The short story is this: while initial reaction here was quite cool to the idea of the Chinese Muslim Uighurs (pronounced: WEE gurs; also spelled "Uygurs") settling here after their forthcoming release, folks have turned the corner swiftly as the narrative has shifted from “taking America’s terrorists” to “welcoming marginalized people.”

I spent a half hour this morning talking with Patrick Tellei, who is president of the local college. Dr. Tellei was part of a delegation of four Palauans who visited with the detainees earlier in the week in Cuba, so I wanted to get his impression of them, of the local response to the idea of them moving to Palau, and of the shift in sentiment that I observed over the course of the week. While there were things that he was not able to share with me (for obvious reasons – they’re still being detained even though they have been cleared of charges, so there are lawyers involved), he was able to say that the eight men with whom they had a chance to speak (first in a group and then individually) were being fairly treated, were speaking English pretty well (though translators were around to help), and seemed genuinely appreciative of the opportunity to re-start their lives in Palau.

Dr. Tellei is in the majority position at this point in the week: supportive of President Johnson Toribiong’s decision to tell President Obama that the men were welcome in Palau. This is consistent with what I have heard from nearly everyone I have spoken to about this over the past 24 hours, but quite different from the reaction on Tuesday.

When I first arrived, I heard things like, “They’re terrorists,” and “why should we take them if the U.S. doesn’t want them?” The local papers on Tuesday (they are printed Tuesdays and Fridays) had headlines such as “Toribiong Defends Decision” (Island Times) and “[Senator and former President Tommy] Remengesau Says People Not Fully Informed on the Detainees” (Palau Horizon), which reflected a defensive position on the part of officials supportive of the relocation.

But there was an interesting contrast with a page 10 AP story about eleven asylum seekers from Myanmar who moved here back in February. The only member of the group who speaks English gushed about the reception from Palauans, who have treated them “as their own siblings.” When their money ran out, the Roman Catholic Church housed and fed them. This week, the president’s younger brother, who is also a Senator, decided to move them all into his farmhouse while they are waiting to hear if they are granted asylum.

Further, an op-ed on page 4 of the Horizon that day by Philip Haruo blasted what he saw as unwarranted hostility toward the Uighurs by sarcastically charging that folks who are outspoken about the plan “know more than the CIA and Interpol.” He noted that while he didn’t know much about the men that it wasn’t necessary for him to know: “I do know that they are human beings in need of help and no one seems to notice.” In word, Haruo was calling for (swallow hard here) empathy.

In contrast, we must consider the narratives that are available to Americans. The United States Congress has been clear that detainees are not welcome in the U.S., even if they are cleared of charges. Why? Because as much as we like to think that we value “due process” and the “best system on Earth,” we generally believe, deep down, that if someone is accused of something that they must have done it – or something else. Add to this the anti-Muslim sentiment that is rampant in the U.S. (and in much of the West), and we are left with a group of radicals (they want their own nation – sound familiar?) who are not Christian and, even though the Chinese government detests them and vice versa, are Chinese nationals (read: “communist”). Check out Newt Gingrich’s column in The Washington Examiner from last month where he tries and convicts the Uighurs right there in the Opinions section (and then be sure to read hilzoy’s point-by-point rebuke).

Similarly, the self-described conservative blog Hot Air was quite crass about invoking a common narrative, which has been that Palau is taking the men in exchange for money. (The U.S. has funded Palau since World War II and will likely continue to do so because it is in its strategic interest – there is no need for additional carrots or sticks.) Read through the comments of the folks who make up the private discussion board (comments can only be left by members, and membership is closed) if you want to experience severe insensitivity, hasty generalizations and arrogant mockery of Palauans.

Glenn Beck recommended that suspects be shot in the field rather than having formal charges brought against them. (Think I’m making this up? Watch here or below.)



For his part, Jon Stewart (see below or here) got a good laugh with the inevitable turn of phrase: Uighur, please!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Guantanamo Baywatch - Uighur, Please
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

In the three days since Haruo felt the need to remind Palauans of their duty to humankind and their culture of hospitality, the drastic change in public opinion can be seen by way of an unscientific measure of Palauans’ attitudes. Here are some excepts from letters to the editor in this morning’s (June 19, 2009) Island Times:

[From an American] I cannot imagine the deprivations these men have endured and a warm welcome to your island nation would probably do wonders. I appreciate [President Toribiong’s] compassion and willingness to give these men a chance, and I hope the people of your country appreciate what kind of president they elected.

If we Palauans are proud of our Christian heritage and boast so much about our faith in Jesus, where is the proof? This is the time when we will show the world, if no one cares about these Muslims our arms are wide open to take them in.

The Uighurs are being branded by terrorists by some people. To their countrymen, they are nationalists. Is it wrong of any group of people to aspire to create their own nationhood? If these Uighurs are terrorists to say X country, then obviously they have grudges and political differences against that X country. If they come to Palau, do they have political movement against us? Do you think they want to take over our national government and change us to become Uighurs and not Palauans? I doubt it.

I didn’t cherry pick these responses. There were five letters on this topic in the Times (no letters at all in the Horizon), and all were strongly supportive of receiving the Uighurs with open arms.

These hardly sound like sentiments from uneducated bumpkins who will do anything for money, as much of the Western media has portrayed them. And if they were Americans, we'd say that they "flip flopped" and ridicule them mercilessly for changing their minds and not standing their ground. In societies with more sophisticated discourse, however, it is considered to be growth, stimulated by a recognition that things are not always as they appear and that the complexities in life require us to be attentive, flexible, and reflective of our core values (and the degree to which our attitudes and behaviors are congruent with those core values).

On the other hand, we cannot pretend that the initial response was not at least partially rooted in ethnic and racial resentment. Palauans are quite concerned about holding onto their heritage, and the influx of foreign (mostly Filipino) domestic workers and (largely Bangladeshi) manual laborers is the topic of much conversation here. Xenophobia is not an American invention. There are about 400 or so Muslims in this nation of approximately 20,000, so there are lingering questions about where these men would live, if they have families to bring with them, where they will work, where they will worship, and how long they might stay. These are real (and legitimate) concerns, but the sense here today is that while those questions are important, the welcoming of these thirteen men is not dependent on the answers.

Four other Uighurs were sent to Bermuda last week (left), where reaction has been mixed, where U.S. legislators will have to go to hear their story, and where the men have refrained from car bombing anyone for seven entire days. I communicated with a woman there (a former student) who reports that

[t]he big deal here was not really so much about the men themselves, but in the way our premier handled the situation. . . . It was announced on CNN that the men were here and living in Bermuda and that is the first that anyone heard of it. The governor was told the night before the story broke on CNN. Many people were upset; a lot of people were worrying about them being terrorists, others were worried about a possible Muslim increase on the island. The men did a live interview with our one local news programs for 90 minutes were the public could call in and ask questions, and they were given the chance to tell there story, which is very compelling.

You can read more about the reaction in Bermuda in The Royal Gazette. (While I’d love to make that my next island destination, it’s unfortunately not in the cards.)

There is no question that this is a difficult situation all around. The Bush Administration was certainly overzealous in making arrests and accusations and in labeling people "terrorists," which resulted in the detention of people who are not and were not a threat to the U.S. But once that happened, the bell could not be un-rung. President Obama is moving to close Guantanamo Bay’s detention center, and Congress, responding to fears of Americans, refuses to allow any of the detainees that we took from around the world to stay. Fair enough, especially if they have a home to go back to, but in this case, they do not. This leads to a very complicated and unique situation that is undergirded by ethnic stereotypes and resentment.

For hard-line U.S. conservatives and other Obama Administration critics, there is a triple bind. First, they want Obama to fail (and are refreshingly forthcoming about it), so anything he does needs to be criticized to try to drive his approval numbers down. Second, they hate communism, so they have a tendency to be sympathetic to critics of (“Red”) China, particularly those who have been oppressed by the authoritarian regime there. But all Muslims are (at least potentially) U.S.-hating terrorists, so they find it difficult to rally around these men.

For Palauans, it is clear that they will do what the U.S. will not: honor the rights and dignity of men who have no charges against them, who have no home, and whose lives have been disrupted inappropriately by one imperial power as they struggled against another. We do not need to romanticize their struggle or turn them into saints to have empathy for their position. They are guerilla fighters who wish to have an independent Muslim state in Northwestern China. Maybe they’re even mean. Maybe they’re tough guys who are willing to kill for what they believe. If they were our Founding Fathers or otherwise on our side, we would champion their cause.

The point is this: Palauans are digging deep into traditions rooted in their Christian faith to make space for those who need it. For all the talk of Christian values from the left and the right in the U.S. and among its European friends, none (save, to some extent, British-ruled Bermuda) of us was willing to do as the holy books mandate in this situation. Far from mocking Palauans as money-hungry savages, we should think about what we might learn from our allies in Micronesia.

Perhaps this is a good time for us to take a hard, honest look at who we are and who we want to be.

Update: There are some diverse opinions about Uighur resettlement in Palau on the Palauan blog "Okedyulabeluu." Some of this information is rumor and directly conflicts what what I have learned from officials while I have been here, but in any case, it is worth exploring.

Creating Space for Progress

The Race Project has a number of volunteer research assistant positions available for the summer. Scroll to the bottom of this blog entry for more information.

There are some Americans who honestly believe that racial minorities have an unfair advantage over Whites (see Pat Buchanan) and others who are simply uninterested in seeing any power whatsoever shifted out of the hands of White men (see the Ku Klux Klan). The vast majority of us, however, understand that the legacy of inequality, manifested in (mostly latent) psychological predispositions about members of different groups, has left us with a system that undermines our espoused shared core values of justice, equality of opportunity and even individualism. While it often feels good (and always gets ratings) to call names, point fingers, belittle, ridicule, mock and otherwise humiliate our political opponents, doing so leaves no space for progress.

THIS WEEK, we consider what it means to leave space for change. In this month's Esquire, political statistics whiz kid Nate Silver argues that there may be a trend toward increased geographical polarization in America, as the poor job market makes it more likely that folks will relocate on the basis of ideology. It's the physical manifestation of the "selective exposure" hypothesis in media effects research: people will seek out that which affirms their existing beliefs to avoid experiencing (and, thus, having to relieve) cognitive dissonance. Last year, we reviewed Cappella and Jamieson's book Echo Chamber, which traces the interconnectedness of the conservative media establishment (Fox News, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show). We may be seeing an emergence of a progressive echo chamber, as MSNBC has attempted to become the Fox of the Left, exchanging information over the airwaves and Internet with progressive websites such as Huffington Post, Daily Kos and Media Matters. The other networks -- which conservatives claim are liberal and progressives claim are conservative -- attempt some middle ground by having hosts or guests from the left and the right screaming at one another and hurling insults at or about anyone who has a different perspective.

This is horribly dangerous for our political discourse because it reinforces the notion that one must hold firm to one's ideas, even in the face of clear, contrasting evidence. Five years ago, Jon Stewart intellectually ambushed Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson on an episode of CNN's Crossfire (below), telling them that their sort of discourse was "hurting America."



This moment was situated in the context of a brilliant political strategy on the part of President Bush's campaign team to label Democratic nominee John Kerry as "a flip flopper," a moniker that will likely define Kerry's legacy. Whether Kerry would have made a good president or not is beside the point; whether his changing of positions (to the extent that the claim was even valid) would have been an indication of his abilities is another issue altogether. Our bias, as college professors, is to constantly push for a more complicated understanding of the world, which necessitates leaving space for intellectual growth. The chasm between what we encourage on college campuses and what we champion in our political discourse is wide and seems to be expanding.

In his "Cairo speech" (formally titled "A New Beginning") THIS WEEK, President Obama called for increased understanding between warring factions in global politics (read the transcript here):

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Obama was praised throughout the world for this fresh take, but the position is not without controversy. Conservative pundits accused Obama of pandering and being "soft" because he refused to use the word "terror," a word that Obama realizes is so laden with emotion and perspective that it is virtually meaningless. To accuse someone of being "a terrorist" is to engage in name calling that does not leave space to move us closer to peace.

Similarly, as we argue regularly in this space, calling people "racists" (as contrasted with pointing out racist assumptions) is counterproductive to clearing space for progress toward racial equality.

Perhaps a parallel example would be New Hampshire governor John Lynch's speedy signing of the gay marriage law passed by the NH legislature THIS WEEK. Lynch, who has stated repeatedly that he believes that marriage is "between one man and one woman" gave a speech last month wherein he acknowledged his own limitations:

My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.

[. . .]

Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections. That is what I believe we must do today.

This speech is important in at least two respects. First, of course, it paved the way for NH to be the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. Second -- more broadly -- it serves as an example of what can happen when we give public officials the space to grow without punishing them for that growth (though, of course, it remains to be seen how Lynch might be ultimately punished).

Another public shift in position THIS WEEK came when Newt Gingrich retracted his statement (which we discussed last week) that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is "a racist." Said Gingrich:

My initial reaction [to Sotomayor's 2001 speech] was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable. . .

Of course, Sotomayor's words are not unacceptable -- even if President Obama thinks they are -- to those who understand how important life experience is to one's outlook and how important that outlook is to providing meaningful (and yes, empathetic) representation and leadership. In terms of overall effect, Gingrich's "apology" is not particularly important. He still opposes her nomination, in part because he is offended by her unwillingness to pretend that she is without perspective, and the clarification may have more to do with trying to soften his image on the eve of a presidential run.

But, while we can only speak for ourselves, we absolutely do "want to have an honest conversation." Further, we wish to assert that it is important that progressives allow folks to revise their remarks to the extent that they are being intellectually honest about beliefs that initial reactions or prior positions were improper. We need to acknowledge and not punish public figures when they show signs of growth. Labeling Gingrich a "flip flopper" or otherwise trying to define him by his initial statement only serves to contribute to a culture of rigidity that rewards stubbornness and discourages change where change is appropriate.

It became more clear THIS WEEK that Congressman Artur Davis will seek the governorship of Alabama. If he is to become the first Black governor of a deep South state since Reconstruction (and only the third Black governor elected anywhere), he will have to count on the (private) votes of Whites who have historically not been supportive of civil rights. Those folks will be more inclined to vote for a Black candidate if they get cues from leaders that, to paraphrase John Lynch, our society's views of civil rights are evolving.

It is important to create and maintain space for that discourse to occur, not because Artur Davis should or should not be elected governor of Alabama, but because there should be a context within which his candidacy would not be defined by his race.

We will get there by way of honest, thoughtful, meaningful discourse, not by shouting, name calling and ridicule. Our success or failure will be largely the result of the space we create.

Update: In clarifying his statement about Sotomayor on today's Face the Nation, Newt Gingrich called Sotomayor "a racialist," which is a term that has no distinct meaning as of yet, but that we are starting to encounter more and more frequently. We will address this language in a later post.

Research Assistant Opportunities

The Project on Race in Political Communication (http://RaceProject.org) has a number of volunteer research opportunities for anyone who would like to be involved with the Race Project. While students are a natural constituency in this regard, anyone is welcome to help. We are entering the most labor-intensive phase of a very exciting element of the Project -- one that we have be planning for nearly eight years -- that will have implications far more widespread than the study of race and political communication.

We are compiling data and constructing a database that will be made available to researchers (in the form of a spreadsheet appropriate for quantitative analysis) and the public (in the form of a Web-interfaced search engine) that contains information about candidates for federal office (U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and U.S. president) since 1970, including the candidate's race, gender, party affiliation, number of votes received, amount of money raised and spent, and other variables of interest. Computer programmers are busy at work on the Web-interface, and two Race Project senior research assistants students, Sidra Hamidi and Priscilla Martinez, are prepared to oversee the collection and entering of data over the summer months. Research assistants will be responsible for collecting information from a variety of sources (most of which are online) to compete the dataset. This is an important contribution that has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of elections, as this information is not currently available in one place.

This work requires no prior research experience and can be done from any location and at any time of the day (we can work around work schedules). For students, working as a Race Project research assistant affords the opportunity to gain experience with social science research for the purposes of CV building, instigating an original research project, and/or working toward a better understanding of racial inequality and injustice. Research practicum credit through North Central College (which may transfer to other institutions) can be arranged.

If you are interested, please Facebook message Stephen or Charlton, or send an email to SMCaliendo@RaceProject.org. If you know someone who might be interested (or if you are a faculty member who has students who might be interested), please do not hesitate to pass this information along.

Republicans Battle Over and About Sonia Sotomayor's "Racism"

It's been one of those weeks.

First of all, there are a number of important issues that deserve our attention. The only African American U.S. Senator, Roland Burris, finds himself in trouble. (BTW: We believe he should step aside; we called for him not to be seated in the first place amidst dubious charges of racism in the face of which Senate Democratic leaders caved). A White woman in Pennsylvania took off with her kids and used the familiar claim, "a Black guy abducted us." And Ursula Burns (left) became the first ever Black woman to head up a Fortune 500 company (Xerox).

But, of course, the story that captured most of our attention this week was the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.


As has been widely reported, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic American to sit on the high court, and she has not been particularly skillful in hiding the fact that 1) she is, in fact, Latina, 2) is aware of her own gender and ethnicity, and 3) has a sophisticated understanding of the way group identity matters in the lives of Americans. Unfortunately, some on the right either sincerely believe that people can be neutral (as opposed to objective) or are acting as if they believe it to try to convince less thoughtful folks that this is an accurate depiction of the human psyche.

The immediate controversy stems from a lecture Sotomayor gave in California in 2001, where she was talking about how her "story" affected her worldview. In the context of this, she said:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

It is this last sentence (hereafter "the sentence") that has attracted the ire of the usual cast of angry Whites (mostly male + Ann Coulter) who populate the airwaves of overtly conservative media outlets. The refrain is similar and predictable: minorities are stealing their America from them, and someone needs to stand up and say something about it. (For his part, President Obama has unfortunately claimed that "the sentence" constitutes a poor choice of words. Whatever.)

So here is just a partial list of what we saw unfold over the course of the week (for a more comprehensive look, see here and/or see the video that follows):

• Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter called "the sentence" "a racist statement." Carlson added that it was racist "by any calculation." (Hmm. Not by ours.)
  
• Glenn Beck called "the sentence" "one of the most outrageous racist remarks he has heard." (Really? One of the most outrageous he has heard? Maybe he should take a look at some of these reactions to a Drudge Report posting about Sotomayor.)
  
• Pat Buchanan called her "an affirmative action pick" and said that it "appears" that she "believes in reverse discrimination against White males."
• Rush Limbaugh called her, at various points during his five broadcasts this week, "a racist," a "bigot," and a "reverse racist."

Limbaugh, ever the thoughtful contributor to meaningful dialogue about the hegemonic order, was more accurate in his reflection of what is bubbling under the surface. At its root, this is not about Sonia Sotomayor. Some on the left are very concerned with her record on issues like abortion, so it's not like she is an ideological extremist (a leftist Robert Bork, for instance), and it's not like she's not going to be confirmed. It seems clear that more than 60 senators will be willing to vote for cloture if a filibuster is attempted, and clear-headed Republicans understand that not only is opposing the first Hispanic Supreme Court appointment political suicide, but it will not result in Obama naming someone more to their liking anyway (see Senator Mel Martinez's carefully worded press release on the nomination). There is a strong undercurrent of White resentment and the ongoing fear that Obama is out to oppress White people.

Think we're exaggerating? Limbaugh said THIS WEEK that Obama "is the greatest living example of a reverse racist," and Lou Dobbs said that the appointment was "pandering to the Hispanics."

Former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (never afraid to criticize racial minorities) told Ed Schultz that Sotomayor "appears to be a racist," and, when asked if he subscribed to Limbaugh's assertion that the way to "get appointed to the Obama Administration" is by "hatin' White people," Tancredo told David Shuster "I don't know. . . I have no idea if they hate White people or not."

See the exchange here. Limbaugh's rant (which is shown in the video) is so ridiculous that it almost doesn't deserve our attention. He claims that Obama wants to make Whites "the new oppressed minority" and that Republicans are going along with it by "moving to the back of the bus" and obliging by drinking only out of designated water fountains. The metaphor is silly and offensive, and making such a parallel reveals his utter lack of understanding of the suffering of generations of people of color. Tancredo goes on to express his frustration of "the suggestion" that because he is White, he cannot comment on the situation. (Recall the similar outrage by Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson that we blogged about last year.)

So here is where we are. The truth is that very little of this matters right now because such discourse is firmly on the margins of mainstream political thought, even though the voices espousing the claims are loud and popular in the narrow universe they serve. We still have members of the Ku Klux Klan and there are still neo-Nazi skinheads. Those are the most hateful, bigoted members of our society. There are bigoted people of color who are hateful and resentful of Whites in a way that is similar to the White supremacists in some ways. Just to this side of empathy from these folks are the so-called "wing nuts," who either legitimately do not understand the way power works because they are too blinded by their own racism to wrestle with the difficult questions, or are being intentionally dishonest to stir resentment among Whites in an attempt to gain political advantage. This is most often manifested in the "if the shoe were on the other foot" comparisons that fall apart in the face of historical context.

If everyone started out equally, then it would always be inappropriate to take race, gender, class or sexual orientation into account. Those pining for the "objective," non-activist jurist who "does not see" categories of humanity either honestly believe that all Americans start life equally and are subsequently judged by the content of their character rather than social groupings or understand that making such claims will contribute to the ongoing oppression of minorities. Newt Gingrich invoked the reciprocity fallacy when he stated (immediately after the nomination was made), "Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘[M]y experience as a white man makes me better than a [L]atina woman.’ [N]ew racism is no better than old racism.”

Of course, there is no such thing as "new racism." Such a phrase suggests that racism is an historical artifact -- something that ended with the Civil War or perhaps the dismantling of Jim Crow.

Perhaps Gingrich is referring to prejudice, bigotry, or maybe, as Limbaugh put it, "reverse racism." On those grounds, we agree: it is improper for people to be judged on such characteristics. However, pretending that we are not judged by our race, gender and sexual orientation is foolish at best and malicious at worst. We may strive for such a day, but it is not upon us (sorry, electing a Black president did not end racism either), and arguing that those who are attentive to the way difference matters in America are somehow getting the upper hand in our society is reflective of either intellectual dishonesty or flat out ignorance.

Mainstream Republicans worked to distance themselves from these sorts of statements THIS WEEK, though few that we have heard directly criticized Limbaugh or the other de facto leaders of the conservative movement (if not the Party itself). Consider, for example, Jon Kyle's language from CBS's Face the Nation.

Senator John Cornyn came the closest to a full-on rebuke on ABC's This Week, but fed host George Stephanopoulos the "justice is blind" line, as well:

Well, of course, George, the concern is that above the Supreme Court it says "Equal justice under law." And it's doesn't -- shouldn't make any difference what your ethnicity is, what your sex is, or the like.

We would also hope that judges would be, you know, umpires, impartial umpires. And, you know, the focus shouldn't be on the umpire and what their sex or gender is, or their ethnicity.

Maybe it shouldn't, Senator Cornyn, but it does. It matters a lot. It is wonderful for the good senator to wish that it did not (that means he is not a bigot). Martin Luther King wished that (dreamed that), as well.

But wishing something doesn't magically make it come true. This is particularly hard for Whites (and more so for White males) to understand because they have been socialized to believe that the American values of fairness, justice and equality are rooted in empirical reality -- after all, Whites have been successful in every element of society, a fact that is readily apparent to even the most casual observer. If the disproportionate levels of success in the White community are not rooted in hard work and merit, then what could possibly account for the discrepancy? The answer, of course, is systemic imbalance and a fundamental lack of justice, which, naturally, is difficult for Whites to embrace, since it calls into question their privilege.

So calling attention to difference is uncomfortable for anyone who is not attentive to the way power structures a society. In that same broadcast of This Week, George Will noted that Sotomayor:

. . . seems to have affirmed what's called identity politics, which is a main proposition and a subproposition. The main proposition is, that an American is or should be thought of as his or her race, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, that that should define their political identity. And the subproposition is, called categorical representation. You can only be represented by someone of the same sexual, ethnic, racial group as you are, because only they can understand or empathize with you. That is of no relevance whatever to the court, however, because it's not a representative institution.

Will's use of "should" here, is instructive. He uses it to mean that, in the abstract, those of us who subscribe to identity politics believe it to be preferable. That is simply incorrect. It is necessary in this context to take such characteristics into account because they are were consciously taken into account by those who built the system and are subconsciously taken into account by all who are socialized within it.

The subproposition argument is interesting, as well, but Will fails to factor in a fundamental principle of American democracy, articulated most clearly by James Madison in Federalist #10: Democracy is about respecting minority will while also protecting minority rights. The Framers understood that the branches closest to the people will be more likely to support the majority (since they rely on their support for election) and constructed a judiciary that was insulated from direct public pressure so that it could be attentive to minority rights without being punished for it. In fact, that is precisely what has happened. The courts have often been out in front of public opinion and electd officials (ending segregation, gay marriage) in advocating for the rights of those who are in the numerical and power minority.

So while Will is correct that the notion of identity representation is most applicable in the so-called "political" branches, he is mistaken that there is no place for such representation in the judiciary. Further, his suggestion that categorical representation is improper rests on the premise that those who do not possess certain categories can be representative of those who do. We agree with that, but guess what? To do so requires something that conservatives have argued is improper in this very situation: empathy.

Gwen Ifill responded to Will's assertion:

I guess I see it differently. I mean, I've spent the past year talking to a lot of people, who got elected, elected -- black elected officials for a book, and all of them talked about identity politics and defined it differently. They defined it as being -- that being part of what you are, but not all of what you are. And I think that's what the defenders of Sonia Sotomayor are trying to say, which is that her point was, yes, what she is and what we all are shapes us, but it's not all that shapes you.

I always take arguments like this and try to turn them on their heads. And I never hear people say that for a white male, that it's identity politics if he is shaped by his white maleness and by the things that affected his life, and whether privilege affected his life. That's never considered to be a negative. It's only considered to be a negative when ethnicity is involved or race is involved or gender is involved.

This is an interesting idea, and one readers might suspect we oppose given our refusal to allow Whites to use the reciprocity fallacy. But this is a very different proposition because of the unidirectional nature of power (pro-White, pro-male, pro-heterosexual) in our culture. In other words, while it is inappropriate to criticize taking minority interest into account on the grounds that it wouldn't be tolerated the other way around, it is essential to do what Ifill suggests because it is revealing of the belief that Whites often have that they are "without race" or "racially objective." Her assertion is illustrated by Senator Inhoffe's comments THIS WEEK that there needs to be evidence that Sotomayor can "rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences." Since we do not recall similar calls made about previous justices, the implication is that there needs not be a similar test for White males in this regard -- it's understood that they would act "properly." As the folks at Media Matters and Huffington Post point out, there has been hypocrisy on this point, as no one questioned Justice Alito on his similar statements.

Finally, Ed Gillespie followed Ifill by noting that:

We are all shaped by who we are. We all bring that to the table. I do think, though, the -- you know, the conscious injection that you see, in a lot of her comments, of gender and race is what is causing for concern. And not only -- a little different with politicians, I think, our identity, than with a judge, and with a Supreme Court justice for a lifetime appointment.

Conscious injection? Is that the problem? So long as we inject our biases without knowing that we're doing that, it's fine? Consciousness is what is objectionable? Again, it reminds us of the inability of folks to distinguish racism (which resides largely in the subconscious) and bigotry (which is, by definition, conscious). And that, dear friends, is the crux of the problem.

We fear that we have missed yet another opportunity to talk meaningfully about the role of race (and, in this case, gender) in America. As is typical, we have allowed the debate to be reduced to individuals, personalities, and political posturing, when there was an opportunity for real work to be done.

For now, we can simply sit by and watch while some conservatives play on racial resentments as others try to get them to stop without offending these leaders of "the base" (i.e., Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Gingrich). When presented with an opportunity to distance himself clearly from Limbaugh's statements on Meet the Press, Senator Jeff Sessions was very careful:

SESSIONS: I don't think I'm going to use any such words as that. I read her speech. I'm troubled by her speech. I think she has an opportunity to explain that. And I don't think we--that I'm going to use such loaded words. People on the outside can say what they choose to say.

MR. [David] GREGORY: But wait, but do you make a judgment about that? Do you think they're appropriate?

SEN. SESSIONS: I don't think those are words...

MR. GREGORY: You think that's fair?

SEN. SESSIONS: ...that I would use. And I don't think--I don't--they would not be words that I would use.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEN. SESSIONS: But we need to focus on what...

MR. GREGORY: Do you think she's a racist?

SEN. SESSIONS: ...she would say.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think she's a racist?

SEN. SESSIONS: I think that she is a person who believes that her background can influence her decision. That's what troubles me.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Right.

SEN. SESSIONS: I would not use those words.

MR. GREGORY: You would not use those words because you don't believe them?

SEN. SESSIONS: I don't think that's an appropriate description of her.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Do you think that conservatives should stop using those words to describe her?

SEN. SESSIONS: I would prefer that they not, but people have a free right to speak and say what they want and make the analogies that they want. This is an important thing. We should not demagogue race. It's an important issue in our culture and our country. We need to handle it with respect that it deserves and the care that it deserves.

Wow. That's some nifty tightrope walking. He acknowledges that "we" need to handle race carefully in our culture, but is anxious that Sotomayor will do so on the bench. Why? Why is it possible (advisable) for "us" to be thoughtful about race but a Latina woman cannot? The implicit fairness of Whites makes the point (for anyone attentive enough to notice): There are (often unstated) assumptions about race in America that serve to advantage Whites. If we are uncomfortable with that, we need to fix it -- not by pretending that it is not happening, but by addressing it head on, honestly, with energy, empathy and thoughtfulness.

Unfortunately, we may be missing yet another opportunity to do so. Here's hoping that the confirmation hearings spark a more honest discussion about race in America than what we witnessed this week.

The Future of the GOP: Are the Smart Guys Poised to Take Over?

Conservatives and Republicans have not demonstrated a genuine commitment to understanding (let alone bettering) the lives of racial minorities since the days of Jack Kemp's creative, if controversial, "enterprise zones" idea (though see our exchanges with Dr. William Voegeli). This doesn't mean that conservatives do not care about racial minorities; they very well might. It's just that it's difficult to tell because the underlying philosophy is that individuals are responsible for their own success (irrespective of where the individual begins or the systemic barriers that are in place). Just as meaningful racial progress requires the support of Whites and minorities, it requires the support, in America's two-party system, of Republicans and Democrats. Sure, Democrats can get laws passed and enact policies without the help of GOP lawmakers, but the sort of change we envision is bigger than individual policies and government programs. To really turn the corner, Republicans and conservatives need to be involved.

That's why we are cautiously optimistic about the future of the Republican Party. THIS WEEK presented conflicting evidence, however, as the GOP continued it's "look, ma, no White guys" show with Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal reciting a curious response to Obama's "not-State-of-the-Union Address." To be fair, speaking after Barack Obama is like batting behind Barry Bonds. The speech was solid, but that's about the most kind analysis we can offer. He delivered very stale (and overwhelmingly rejected) distortions about tax-and-spend liberals and how much we all love America and need to work together behind a nervous grin that was curious given the dire state of an economy that is suffering from years of the very ideas he espoused. In short, while he is still a rising star in the Party, he didn't gain too many new supporters, and he certainly didn't help to cut into the Obama Administration's strong support amongst the public.

But something is bubbling in GOP circles. While the annual CPAC meeting featured such speakers as Rush Limbaugh (who Tom Schaller argued THIS WEEK in Slate.com is the current leader of the GOP) and Joe the Plumber (seriously), the New York Times ran a feature on the last intellectual to head up the party: Newt Gingrich.

It is important to differentiate between being "intelligent" and being "an intellectual." If we can remove the bias of perspective, most of our national leaders are and have been quite intelligent. Not all of them have been intellectuals, though. An intellectual is a person for whom the world is complicated and who has the curiousity to continually work to make sense of that complexity. There is no inherent claim to the value of such persons, but as professors ourselves, we see it this way: We want the person who is best able to work with car engines to fix our cars, we want the person who is most adept at legal proceedings to represent us in court, and we want the folks who are best equipped to deal with ideas to be running the country.

Newt Gingrich is an idea man. We disagree with him on almost everything, and we think that he would be well served to be more reflective of his ethnocentrism (as we all would), but he's bright, articulate, creative and is committed to ideas.

Karl Rove is a partisan hack. So was George W. Bush. So is Rahm Emanual, who, is tacticly trying to paint Limbaugh as the "intellectual" voice of the Party). So is John Kerry. The lists (in both parties) goes on. All these folks are smart -- some say that Rove is a genius. If so, he is a genius at strategy, not at ideas. That's not an insult; most of us are not geniuses in anything. But with an increasingly educated public and a dying off of the segregationist-era generations, the slash-and-burn politics of divisiveness is much harder to sell in America. Gingrich understands this. He believes that his ideas will win out. We hope he is wrong because we see no plans for addressing social injustice in them, but the message here is that at least we can get back to discussing ideas again.

As the GOP licks its wounds after two crushing defeats in national elections, they will have a choice to make. They can turn inward, toward the bigoted right, toward the sensationalist, flag-waving, "remember the old days" crowd of Sean Hannity, or they can look forward to a multicultural world in which their ideas have a fair chance of gaining hold. It is not clear yet whether their candidates will reflect such a clear choice. Those that are in the forefront are not easy to categorize.

Take Jindal, for instance. He appears to be reasonably bright. He has certainly built a nice coalition of supporters in Louisiana. But if he's hoping to win progressives and moderates with a continued revisionist history that does not acknowledge that record national deficits were tallied under Reagan and W. Bush and that ignores the systemic imbalance of our social, political and ecnomic systems, he will take his place alongside those with the dunce caps (see Sarah Palin). If he embraces ideas, rather than politics -- see George Will, for instance -- he has a legitimate chance of posing a real challenge to Barack Obama in 2012.

And why, we ask, are all the Republican "smart guys" just that: guys? Pragmatism and intellectualism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ideology is not always as complicated as it might appear. John Boehner is an ideologue, but has not demonstrated much intellectualism. Ideologues can use heuristics (intellectual shortcuts) to seem as if they are understanding the complexities of the world. Rachel Maddow may be a good example from the left. She's very smart, and clearly consistently progressive, but that does not mean that she is an intellectual. Senator Susan Collins very well may be an intellectual, but in a system that rewards loyalty (rather than smarts) with high-profile positions and opportunities, it's not likely that she'll get a chance to lead. Where is Susan Molinari?

And while we're on the topic of dunce caps, we offer a big one to Senator Roland Burris and the small group of supporters who are trying to tie race to the pressures that the senator is facing to resign. We called Congressman Bobby Rush and others out on this pitiful attempt at generating support back when Burris was first nominated to fill Obama's seat by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Spineless D.C. Democrats like Harry Reid, who intially said that any nominee by Blagojevich would not be seated, relented when the race card was inappropriately played.

THIS WEEK, the senior senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, acknowledged that race was a factor in seating Burris. It shouldn't have been -- at least not in this way. We believe that the appointment should have gone to an African American given the way that the seat was vacated and the tremendous number of qualified Black lawmakers available. But no one nominated by Blagojevich should have been seated, and arguing that Burris deserved it because he is Black feeds into the stereotypes that conservatives have about racial progressives. So not only was the tactic inappropriate, it has been counterproductive to genuine moves toward racial justice.

When Barack Obama moved into the White House, we breathed a collective sigh of relief because even when we disagree with him (like when he invited an openly homophobic preacher to pray at his inauguration), we know that ideas are at the center of his thought process. Obama will be pragmatic (which involves making progressives angry at times), which is consistent with intellectualism. He understands that the world is complex, and he has a vision for a better America. There are Republicans who feel the same way and who have their own visions. We look forward to future battles of ideas by the smart kids.