(Another) Busy Week in Race

It seems as if we have been saying this a lot lately, but it really was a very busy WEEK IN RACE. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court gave us an opportunity to examine some of our most pressing national issues related to race and equality, including affirmative action. Combined with the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, the Young Republicans' national convention, and the appointment of an African American woman, Dr. Regina Benjamin, as U.S. Surgeon General, as well as some other issues scattered throughout the week, there is an awful lot to analyze.

Still, we always seek to provide thorough but relatively brief analysis of the week's events, so we will not take too much of your time. If you would like to have more timely updates of events and analysis, we encourage you to become a fan of the all-new RaceProject Facebook Page. Doing so will allow you to have the most recent news and commentary appear on your Facebook News Feed. If you'd rather not have that much contact from us, simply bookmark the page and visit when you have a chance.

THIS WEEK, Charlton penned an op-ed for Newsday in which he briefly traces the history of racism and explains the ways that it applies in the contemporary context. Specifically, he noted that term has come to embody vastly different connotations as folks strive to use it against anyone who disagrees with them in a way that is racially relevant.

Take the Sotomayor hearings as an example.

As students of racial communication, we focused on the degree to which stereotypes of Latinas surfaced. And did they ever! As expected (and as predicted by conservatives' and Obama opponents' response to Sotomayor in the weeks since the nomination), there was a lot of attention given to the judge's speeches over the past couple of decades, as well as her rulings. Her now-famous "wise Latina" comment was mentioned by most Republican Senators on the Committee, including ranking member Jeff Sessions (over and over and over again) and minority whip Jon Kyle. Senator Lindsey Graham asked Sotomayor if she had a temperament problem (the fiery Latina stereotype and the angry minority stereotype), and Tom Coburn joked with Sotomayor that she'd "have a whole lot of 'splainin' to do," reminding us of that omnipresent one-dimensional caricature of Hispanics, Ricky Ricardo, from the 1050s classic television series I Love Lucy.

Believe it or not, the racial rhetoric actually got worse THIS WEEK. During a House debate on health care reform, Kansas Republican Congressman Todd Tiahrt suggested that having cost-free access to abortions could provide incentive for women to terminate pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to full term. He wondered aloud about the great leaders whose mothers might have aborted them. The only two examples he gave: African Americans Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas.

As the great comedy writer Dave Barry says, we could not make this up.

Progressives weighed in throughout the hearings, attempting to point out where racialized language was being used. We were reminded more than once about the ways that opposition to civil rights has characterized much of Senator Sessions' career. Indeed, Sessions was arguably the most notable Senator to use race in his questioning of Sotomayor. At one point, he suggested that she could have voted differently on a case by noting that another judge of Puerto Rican descent voted with the other side.

On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pointed out the racism during a CNN interview with Senator Sessions in attendance. The exchange is worth watching.

To put things into context, Melissa Harris-Lacewell put forth a thoughtful reflection of what was really happening at the Sotomayor hearings. She argues that since the Republicans do not have the votes to stop the nomination, it was all about public humiliation for Sotomayor, which has been a consistent aspect of American racism.

The comics had a field day over the course of the week, too, by exposing implicit racism. See Jon Stewart's brilliant "White Men Can't Judge" piece below or here, for instance.

On a slightly different note, Elon James White really has blossomed as a politically astute comic over the past two weeks through his This Week in Blackness multimedia website and his tweets @elonjames. His piece ("Why You So Black?") that was reprinted at Huffington Post explores how he came to do racial humor, even though he did not wish to do so.

We definitely understand where he is coming from. While we study race with less reluctance, it has certainly been overwhelming for us to try to distill so much racial communication each week. Take a look at what we have to work with. In addition to all the happenings in the official corridors of power THIS WEEK, Pat Buchanan continued his efforts to defend the rights of the oppressed White man. First, he offered a strategy for the GOP that actually included accelerating the racial attacks on Judge Sotomayor, and then he unleashed a rant on The Rachel Maddow show that would have been almost unbelievable if it had come from anyone other than Buchanan (or perhaps Tucker Carlson). Watch below or here. (Maddow had promised via Twitter to refute the points one-by-one on Friday, but the unfortunate passing of Walter Cronkite understandably altered those plans. Tune in tonight at 9pm EDT to MSNBC to see if she gets to it.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

We focus so much attention in this space on implicit racism because we feel it is important to point out where and when it surfaces to show that none of us is immune to such latent resentments that have been programmed into our subconscious throughout our socialization. But incidents of overt bigotry such as this should not go unnoticed. LIFE magazine released a small but chilling set of pictures THIS WEEK taken at modern gatherings of the Ku Klux Klan that we strongly recommend.

Of course, one does not have to be as crass as Buchanan or as sickening as a KKK member to embrace racial resentments or to allow such resentments to continue to affect our public policy. President Obama's speech to the NAACP on the occasion of the organization's 100th anniversary contained a great deal of thoughtful rhetoric about how systemic racism continues to operate. We had to shake our heads when, seconds after the speech ended, CNN's Lou Dobbs complained that the speech "could have been given 4o years ago." A more sophisticated view of the speech reveals that Obama spent a great deal of time talking about the progress that has been made and (to some criticism) about how personal responsibility has to be part of the equation (Jesse Jackson was not heard anywhere threatening to castrate the president this time, however). But he was very clear (in the speech and with the Black press beforehand) about how much work is left to be done -- apparently this is work with which Dobbs is no more willing than Pat Buchanan to help.

Finally, we want to update our discussion of the controversy in the election for president of the national Young Republicans. Audra Shay, who was accused of bigotry (and who some conservatives and many progressives urged should be defeated), won the election. At the convention, Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele was asked about how he was going to increase diversity in the party. Steele's answer got a lot of attention, and we wanted to take just a moment to provide our analysis.

Steele started to answer the question by saying that everyone is invited into the Party: "My plan is to say 'Ya'll come.'" That got some laughs (presumably because of the direct nature of the answer), and Steele continued "cuz a lot of you are already here." At that point, someone is heard to say "I'll bring the collard greens." It's impossible to tell for sure if it is the person who asked the question (who appeared to be African American) or someone else, but Steele responds lightheartedly (and laughing) by saying, "There you go. I got the fried chicken and potato salad."



There are a number of ways to read this. First, if Steele was not Black, we would predictably be all over the comment as an improper play on a stereotype of African American culture. But he is, which means that he has license to invoke such messages for effect because he cannot personally benefit from the resentment among Whites that such stereotypes activate (though his Party might benefit by perceptions of Steele being self-loathing or not "really Black."). It's possible that Steele was making fun of the question, suggesting that because he is Black he is presumed to spend all his time figuring out ways to get "people like him" into the Party. More likely, though, he was at once dismissing the comment as presumptuous but also playing along to be polite and affable. This is particularly likely if, in fact, the person who made the comment was African American. In that case, Steele is making an attempt at demonstrating solidarity with the presumably like minded conservative with whom he shares an ethnic heritage.

But Steele's remarks (and the response to it) cannot be examined in isolation. In the greater context of all that has happened in the past two weeks with respect to explicit racism (i.e., the suburban Philadelphia pool situation has continued to remain in the news) and implicit racism, Steele certainly understands that Republicans are not on track to be picking up support from racial minorities. The degree of insensitivity that was on display during the Sotomayor hearings and the flat-out resentment that was visible in conservative commentators' critiques of Sotomayor specifically and affirmative action generally only makes that part of Steele's job more difficult.

If, in fact, Steele was chosen at least in part as a symbolic gesture that the GOP does not embrace bigotry, he is going to need a little help from his friends -- no matter what sort of picnic food he decides to serve.

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.

Deconstructing Pat Buchanan

It is relatively easy for progressive-minded people to dismiss Patrick J. Buchanan as a nut. The political pundit and two-time presidential candidate has made various statements over the years that are dismissed as bigoted, narrow-minded, or reactionary. We believe that, particularly at this point in our history, it is important to understand Buchanan’s assertions in a way that might help to shed light on the problems with racism in contemporary America.

Lately, Buchanan has gotten attention for his on-air comments and blog postings about race. Rather than exploiting snippets of his most controversial statements, we chose just one example for This Week so that we can dig deeper into the way this influential commentator (and those who agree with him) processes American history and culture.

Buchanan has gotten the most attention from two of his recent blogs (March 21 and 28, 2008) that squarely address race, responding to Barack Obama’s March 18, 2008 address from Philadelphia. The March 21 entry is a bizarre commentary on how well white America has treated African Americans throughout history (we’re not kidding, see below – see also his exchange on the matter with Tucker Carlson, which we noted in an earlier TWIR). In the March 28 blog, Buchanan cites Obama’s argument about both races feeling resentment and agrees with Obama’s description of white resentment, but then notes:

But then [Obama] revealed the distorting lens through which he and his fellow liberals see the world. To them, black rage is grounded in real grievances, while white resentments are exaggerated and exploited.

We wonder if Buchanan believes that he sees the world through a lens. In point of fact, we all see the world through the “lens” of our lived experiences, which include culture. To believe that only non-whites or those of opposing political ideologies have a filter is parallel to believing that only those who speak differently than us have “an accent.” What Buchanan fails to acknowledge is his own ethnocentrism, which, like all white, heterosexual males, is the reference point of power. When one comes from the group that exists as the reference point (the “norm”), any other perspective is “different,” even if one does not view it as “wrong” (though Buchanan clearly does, by claiming that it is “distorted”). Whites have a race. Males have a gender. Heterosexuals have a sexual orientation. Our common discourse, however, is rooted in a tradition that sees whites, males and heterosexuals as unspoken reference points, so that if we discuss race, gender or sexual orientation, we assume that we are talking about the “other” (non-privileged) groups; if we were talking about the “norm,” we wouldn’t have to mention a group at all.

Consider this: if one is describing another to a third person whom both know, the describer is likely not to mention race if the person being described is white, particularly if the describer and the receiver of the information are both white. The describer is likely not to mention gender if the person being described is male (though gendered pronouns render this example less powerful). While sexual orientation is not an observable characteristic, we might consider that the describer would not mention that the person is able-bodied or of average height or weight. If the person being described were in a wheelchair, taller or shorter than average, or particularly thin or heavy, the describer is much more likely to mention those characteristics.

This is logical given our need to communicate not just effectively but efficiently. In other words, if I know that the person to whom I am speaking will know that I mean “white” if I don’t mention the race of the person whom I am describing, it would be inefficient for me to mention it. The problem, however, is when we do not recognize that unstated reference points lead to assumptions of a “norm” that carry power and, thus, place those in “other” categories in a position that translates into very real disadvantage, even if such disadvantage is not intended by those in privileged groups. (See Martha Minow’s work for a more eloquent and thorough elaboration on this concept.)

So by Buchanan claiming that Obama’s lens is distorted, he is claiming that the world without such a lens (if possible) would be the “real” world. Since Buchanan does not acknowledge that he has a lens at all, the presumption is that he sees the world clearly (with no distortions). As a white male, he is correct: he sees the world in a way that those in power see the world. That doesn’t make it “right,” but it makes it consistent with others in privileged groups, which means that by those who get to define what is real and what is distorted, Buchanan is squarely aligned with the former.

And this is where Buchanan, Sean Hannity and others who have responded to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy by rejecting any claims that there is racism involved go wrong. They rely on the American myth of individualism, which is predicated, in part, on the false premise that we are in total control of our own minds. Failure to understand the subconscious and how it is shaped by our culture leads to a failure to understand how the subconscious in turn shapes our conscious attitudes. So when Hannity claims that he is “colorblind” and is not racist because he worked at a radio station that fought the KKK in Alabama (as he did on his radio program last night), he does so with a presumption that he can control all of his thoughts.

It’s the classic mistake of thinking that racism is bigotry – if Buchanan or Hannity were asked to define each, they would not be able to do so. To them, the KKK is what racism is. So long as we’re against that sort of stuff, we’re not racist. Similarly, since racism is bigotry, blacks can be “racist” if they speak out against white power. Leave alone that so-called black rage is against a white power structure rather than against white people, ignoring that African Americans have no systemic access to power to disadvantage whites as a group means that “racism” is not an appropriate term (though bigotry does apply if a person of color hates whites).

After calling Obama a bad father for not taking his children and wife out of a church “where hate had a home in the pulpit,” Buchanan explains in his March 28 blog why American white privilege is a myth. (The patriarchy in Buchanan’s statement is at least as disturbing as the racism: to suggest that a man can “take” his wife out of a church is a disturbing notion. If we were writing This Week in Gender, we’d be all over this one!)

Longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once wrote that all great movements eventually become a business, then degenerate into a racket.

That is certainly true of the civil rights movement. Begun with just demands for an end to state-mandated discrimination based on race, it ends with unjust demands for state-mandated preferences, based on race.

Under affirmative action, white men are passed over for jobs and promotions in business and government, and denied admission to colleges and universities to which their grades and merits entitle them, because of their gender and race.

The last claim is patently false. We do not wish to debate the merits of affirmative action (or its drawbacks, to be fair) in this space, but Buchanan either intentionally lies here to bolster his argument, or he does not understand how affirmative action works, in which case, he is not qualified to talk about it. The real concern, however, is that he’s not alone here. Tune your AM dial to any station with a talk radio host, and you’re likely to hear a similar mischaracterization of affirmative action.

What Buchanan implies is a quota, though he uses that more accurate term “preferences” just before that. Having defeated the KKK (though the number of hate groups in the U.S. has risen since 2000, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center), these arguments assume that America is now “equal,” so proceeding to make employment and higher education admission decisions based on “merit” would be fair to both races. There are two reasons why this assumption is flawed.

1. Racial quotas are and have been illegal in the U.S. for decades. Creating a racial quota (where a certain number of positions are reserved for persons of a certain race) violates the 14th Amendment (equal protection) rights of those who are excluded from those positions (usually whites). If they are used, they are used illegally, but the perception of their use greatly outweighs their actual use. Because of historic discrimination, people of color face hurdles that similarly situated whites do not. While we may be 150 years from legalized slavery, we are only 50 years from Jim Crow. During that time, African Americans in particular were denied equal access to education and employment. This resulted, of course, in disproportionate poverty in the black community, as well as disproportionate rates of incarceration (which is closely associated with poverty). In the 1960s, black families did not have the means to save money for their children’s education or to move into neighborhoods with stronger schools than those that were and continue to be under-funded and neglected in working-class communities. The result is that products of those schools are disproportionately less prepared for college (which was increasingly necessary to make a good living). Without a college education, the next generation of poor Americans (many of whom are of color) faced the same cycle – a cycle that affirmative action programs attempt to interrupt (by mathematically weighting otherwise “objective” scores of applicants to take this disadvantage into account, reflecting on and adjusting recruitment practices, etc.). So when Buchanan notes that whites are denied seats in colleges “to which their grades and merit entitle them,” he ignores the inherent disadvantage with which people of color often begin with respect to whites. Whether we look at wealth or income, whites are far ahead of African Americans and Latinos in economic security. According to the 2000 census, the median net wealth for all Americans combined was $46,506. For non-Hispanic whites, it was $58,716; for blacks, it was $6,166; for Hispanics, it is $6,766. With respect to household income, the median for non-Hispanic whites in 2004 (updated census figures) was $48,977; for blacks, it was $30,134; for Hispanics, it was $34,241. How do we explain this discrepancy if a) everyone starts out with an equal chance, and b) whites are being disadvantaged by affirmative action programs?

2. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not end racism. They didn’t even end bigotry, but they did signal a change in acceptable norms in America with respect to open and willful discrimination and prejudice. As we regularly explain here, there are important elements to the way racism works. One of Stephen’s alert students, Shannon Lausch, brought this excellent article from this week’s Scientific American to his attention. The author, Siri Carpenter, does a wonderful job of explaining explicit bias v. implicit bias. We know that explicit bias is wrong, so we avoid it and try to treat everyone equally. When we hear claims of unequal treatment, we react against it, but we usually do not take inherent group power into account. So affirmative action programs appear unfair, black anger seems irrational, and white resentment seems to be justified because attempts to stem inequality are actually examples of reverse discrimination. This is where Buchanan’s arguments find a home.

Over the weekend, Frank Rich had a very thoughtful column in the New York Times in which he analyzes the paucity of attention to conservative white ministers who have close associations with prominent white politicians. (Thanks to Stephen’s alert student Tiffani Stevens for bringing this to our attention.) It’s definitely worth a read.

This is entry is already longer than we like to offer (if you are still reading, we love you!). But we promised above to fill you in on Buchanan’s March 21, 2008 blog. We encourage you to read it, but below is reprinted the last half of the column, followed by a link to an excellent discussion on its contents (and Buchanan in general) from Real Time with Bill Maher. At the end, Tavis Smiley notes what we noted in the first sentence of this entry: dismissing Buchanan as a nut is dangerous. Beyond that, it’s patently unfair that “nuts” like Buchanan are dismissed while “nuts” like Jeremiah Wright are dissected ad infinitum in the mainstream media. As we like to say: it’s a good thing there’s no more racism.


From Buchanan’s March 21, 2008 blog:

* * *

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.