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.

Obama Needs to Watch His "Self": Reflections of Class in the President's Language

Two years ago, Joe Biden, then a presidential candidate, stirred up controversy when he referred to Barack Obama as "articulate," among other ostensibly complimentary comments like "clean." As we argued at the time, the comment was reflective of racist beliefs because

[b]lack dialect is considered to be non-standard English – not merely “different” such as a Boston accent or a Minnesota accent, but normatively less desirable.

Even though compared to his immediate predecessor Obama's rhetoric features stellar grammar and mechanics, like most of us, he does not speak perfect English. His errors are reflective of the social class of his upbringing, if not his race.

The non-standard grammar that stands out most prominently is his improper use of pronouns in certain situations. Specifically, he is prone to using "I" when he ought to use "me," as well as placing the reflexive pronoun "myself" in places in a sentence where it is not warranted. These mistakes tend to surface during his extemporaneous remarks rather than in scripted addresses.

Here is an example where he actually makes both mistakes in the span of a few seconds:

Well, President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I to -- to meet with him and First Lady Laura Bush. We are gratified by the invitation. I'm sure that, in addition to taking a tour of the White House, there's going to be a substantive conversation between myself and the president.(Press conference, November 7, 2008, Chicago)

These are very common errors amongst American English speakers, particularly working class Americans. Using "I" in place of "me" is likely a result of the widespread backlash against using "me" in the subject of a sentence (e.g., "Me and my brother are going to the game" or "My brother and me are going to the game."). If one does not understand why it is improper to use "me" in that situation, however, the word "me" in and of itself might be seen as a problem word (alongside "ain't," for instance). But when used in the predicate, the correct first person singular pronoun is, of course, "me."

Similarly, the use of the reflexive first person pronoun "myself" is likely a remnant of the same heuristic; if "me" is bad, it's bad, so it should be avoided. Accordingly, rather than saying "She gave advice to Sally and me," a substitute occurs that, in theory, makes the speaker sound as if he or she is more intelligent: "She gave advice to Sally and myself." But reflexive pronouns are only appropriate when the subject and the object are the same person: "I gave a present to myself"; "They had to second guess themselves."

This does not necessarily fit with characteristics of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), sometimes called "Ebonics," though the close interrelationship between race and class in America is important to keep in mind as we analyze this issue. Working class parents often try to instill in their children characteristics (such as grammatical speech) that will make advancement and acceptance into the middle class more likely. As children, we develop our speech patterns in accordance with our environment, in addition to the formal instruction we get in school. When we carry errors into adulthood, it is the result of not learning to correct the mistakes we are socialized into from childhood.

A common characteristic of folks who have moved up to a higher social class is the fear (conscious or otherwise) of being "found out," of not really belonging. Obama's mistakes are likely remnant subconscious efforts from childhood to sound more intelligent. For folks who aspire to a higher social status (or wish to "pass" as being middle class), the language patterns often take the shape of longer-than-necessary sentences and inappropriately complex verb tenses.

For example, a click through daytime television programs that feature (exploit) the troubles and conflicts of working class Americans will quickly reveal evidence to support this claim. A common error, for instance, is the inappropriate use of the pluperfect tense. In response to a question about why he was carrying on an affair, a guy on the hot seat on one of these programs might start by explaining, "What had happened was, I met her at work. . ." when the simpler "I met her at work" would suffice. "I went to the store" becomes "I had gone to the store." Because we equate short sentences with younger, less proficient speakers, it is sometimes assumed that longer, more complex sentences are signifiers of intelligence.

Since "myself" is both longer than "me" and, well, not "me," it is often used as a substitute anytime "me" would otherwise be used. On the other hand, like most speakers who make this mistake, Obama does not always uses these pronouns incorrectly. Here is an example of his appropriate use of the reflexive:

Right now I want to say hello and introduce myself. (Visit with White House press corps, January 22, 2009, Washington, DC)

That is, the words "me" and "myself" are not interchangeable for speakers who use them improperly; "myself" is substituted for "me," but not the other way around. Further, it is likely that Obama knows when it is appropriate to use which pronoun. In times when he does not have a lot of time to think about his phrasing, though, he is more likely to make the mistake. Similar to the way we can learn about ourselves in those times when we do not have a chance to let our conscious catch up to our subconscious (see the Implicit Associations work for ways in which this is manifested in stereotypes), these slips allow us to have a glimpse into the authentic Obama -- not who he necessarily wants to project to us, but who he really is.

How, though, can we explain away Obama's errors as merely endearing reflections of his connection to the working class when we refuse to do so for his predecessor? Isn't this simply a case of "Black privilege" or "Bush bashing" by liberals?

Regular TWIR readers understand that blanket claims of reciprocity are fallacies in logic. Context matters. It is acceptable, for instance, for African Americans to use the n-word even though Whites cannot because African Americans do not have a history of using it to oppress, and Whites do. Gay men can refer to each other with a derogatory word, but straight men should not call each other such a name (as an insult) or refer to gay men that way because of the heterosexist power dynamic that is inherent in our culture. On and on. It is not hypocritical to criticize one group for doing something while allowing another to do it if context is taken into consideration. Fairness (justice) is not predicated on equality when there is not equality of power (or opportunity) at work.

President Bush's speaking mistakes are not a reflection of his environment during socialization. He grew up with tremendous privilege in an environment of wealth. There is no question that some of his language choices are a function of the Southern influence (which is unfairly evaluated as unintelligent), but his mispronunciations and confused syntax are not characteristics of the language of his youth. Further, President Bush exhibited no other characteristics that would alert us that he was a working class guy at heart. His public policies and behavior aided the wealthiest Americans (tax cuts) and ignored the suffering of the most vulnerable (Katrina). In short, the only characteristic he exhibits of a working class person is fractured speech.

Obama, on the other hand, is the inverse of Bush: he is working class at his core, but has had to learn to assimilate into the upper class. Ivy League education certainly helps, but old habits are hard to break, particularly at times when there is no opportunity to think through the rules.

As far as we are aware, there is no widespread criticism of Obama on these characteristics -- no attempts to make the errors about his race. Obama's few critics in the first week are more focused on their concern that his policies will be successful and the status quo will be unsettled (which is precisely what Obama has promised). For instance, Rush Limbaugh made news THIS WEEK when he openly wished for Obama to "fail." Lost in some of that discussion with Sean Hannity is a continuation of the "racism is a myth" language from the campaign.

I'll tell you, you know, a lot of people right now just — they're absorbed in the historical nature of this, first black president and so forth. Well, that is wonderful. That's great. But I got over that months ago after he won the election.

I mean, Sean, he is our president now. And he's not black, he's not from Mars, he's not — he's our president, he's a human being. We're a country comprised of human beings that the Democrat Party and the left have attempted to arrange into groups of victims, and that's who he appeals to, and the victims are the people waiting around for some grievance to be resolved.

They're waiting around for something to happen for them, and he is parlaying that. I think the fact that he's African-American, his father was black, to me it's irrelevant. This is the greatest country on earth. We want to keep it that way. It is that way for specific reasons.

We want to make three quick points about this before we wrap up.

1. How did Limbaugh "get over" the fact that Obama is the first Black president? That suggests that he was happy about it for some period of time. It is certainly the case that many Republicans and McCain supporters were happy that the color line of the White House was broken, but those folks are all sophisticated enough to understand that it was a significant accomplishment. For Limbaugh and Hannity (who have not displayed such sophistication), race never matters at all. Racism is a myth, slavery ended generations ago, and everyone has an equal chance at success in America. If Limbaugh spent any time at all appreciating the achievement, it would indicate that he recognizes that race is still a barrier to success in America.

2. The equation of being Black with being from Mars typically undervalues the importance of racial barriers to equal participation in American politics. It is a version of "I don't care if they are black, purple or green, I don't see color." There are not purple or green people, and to make such a statement reflects a fundamental insensitivity to the struggle of people of color.

3. Limbaugh blames progressives for attempting to categorize people. Slaveholders characterized people. Segregationists characterized people. As a result, we now all characterize people. If we ignore those characterizations, we cannot do the work that is necessary to reverse the legacy of those powerful Whites who created systems that continue to oppress. Progressives do not make victims (though they may contribute to a mentality of victimization if the focus is on individuals rather than systems); they work to unmake victims.
   

This sort of Orwellian double speak is what Americans rejected as they propelled the plain spoken yet eloquent Obama into the White House. Conservatives like John McCain and Lindsey Graham recognize this and have acted accordingly over the past five days. John McCain chastised his Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate for holding up the confirmation of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State saying, "I remind all my colleagues: We had an election. I think the message the American people are sending us now is they want us to work together, and get to work.

To which Rush Limbaugh replied, "Well, what had happened was . . ."

Inside the “Echo Chamber” of Conservatives and Civil Rights

THIS WEEK, we seek to situate Professor William Voegeli’s excellent article (“Civil Rights and the Conservative Movement”) from The Wall Street Journal’s website in the context of Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella’s new book Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment (Oxford University Press).

Echo Chamber provides a thorough, theoretically-grounded and empirically supported (with a variety of social science methods and data) look into the interaction and effects of conservative media. Jamieson and Cappella specifically examine The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, conservative talk radio (Rush Limbaugh) and Fox News to reveal a pattern of (seemingly) organized messages that seek to undermine “mainstream” media and further conservative policy and electoral agendas. We strongly recommend the book (it’s on sale in hardback for $17 at Amazon.com!), which doe not focus solely or even primarily on race. But given the relevance of Voegeli’s article (which was published the same week as Echo Chamber) to race relations in America, we could not resist to discuss them together.

Voegeli presents a thoughtful, well-constructed article (that we also recommend highly) that was apparently stimulated by the death of William F. Buckley (and the subsequent commentary on his work) earlier in the year. The author puts forth a host of claims about how the conservative movement has made mistakes with respect to its positions and strategies with respect to civil rights in America. It’s difficult to disagree with many of the points, but we feel that he, like many others, misses a crucial aspect of the struggle for equal rights in America: the system is fundamentally stacked against people of color and those who are impoverished.

Central to conservatism in America has been two interrelated elements: states’ rights and keeping government out of individuals’ lives. The focus on states’ rights was, of course, a primary point of contention in both the Civil War (which revolved in a large part around the issue of slavery) and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s (which largely revolved around state-based Jim Crow segregation laws). Likewise, as Voegeli points out, non-bigoted conservatives opposed much of the civil rights platforms of the mid-20th century because of their reliance on governmental (often federal-level) involvement. As Voegeli notes,
integration and black progress were welcomed [in the pages of Buckley’s National Review] when they were the result of private actions like the boycotts of segregated buses or lunch counters. . .
But the conservative movement “opposed the civil rights agenda when it called for or depended on ‘Big Government.’” Voegeli notes that the National Review spoke out in strong opposition to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) because it was an act of judicial activism (which offended their view of what the Framers intended for what Alexander Hamilton referred to as the “least dangerous branch” of government). Voegeli argues that conservatives in the early years of the Movement were not the only ones who did not jump whole-heartedly aboard the struggle:

One difference between Eisenhower-era liberals and conservatives is that the former kept their distance from the civil rights movement for practical reasons while the latter did so for principled ones. Democrats would imperil their chances for a majority in the Electoral College and Congress without the Solid South, a reality that constrained both FDR and JFK.

The accuracy of the electoral reality cannot be questioned, but trying to rehabilitate the image of some no-shows and not others is dubious and unwarranted. But it gets worse. Voegeli continues to explain that well-meaning conservatives’ hands were tied by their own commitment to ideological purism:

Conservatives opposed to racial discrimination, however, had few obvious ways to act on that belief without abandoning their long, twilight struggle to reconfine the federal government within its historically defined riverbanks after the New Deal had demolished the levees.

Besides the insensitivity of using a “broken levee” reference in an argument defending (in some aspects) those who sought to maintain a system that contributed to Hurrican Katrina’s wrath being centered heavily in poor, black neighborhoods in New Orleans, Voegeli tacitly accepts (but does not advocate) the privileging of 18th century decisions over 20th century values of equal rights. Political scientist John Zaller and colleagues have written about “ambivalence” in American citizens’ attitudes that occurs when core socialized values come into conflict with one another. When that happens, individuals need to resolve their cognitive dissonance in some way, privileging one value over the other (at least temporarily). We have argued in this space that conservatives have become comfortable privileging the values of individualism and states’ rights over values of equality and (social) justice by buying into myths and stereotypes about people of color. We do not argue, of course, that this process takes place consciously – in most cases, it does not.

In Echo Chamber, Jamieson and Cappella tackle this very issue. Using Trent Lott’s remarks at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party (Lott told Thurmond that the country would be better off if Thurmond, with his segregationist platform, would have been elected president in 1948), the authors explain how conservative media defend conservatism. First, they distanced themselves and the GOP from Lott’s comments. (24). After Lott apologized, the conservative media commented that the comments were indefensible (25). But after dismissing Lott as not indicative of conservative sentiment, Rush Limbaugh turned the tables to criticize the mainstream media who were criticizing Lott. Then, Fox News commentators began alleging that liberal leaders were hypocrites for not chastising their own when insensitive remarks were made. This led into an assault on the Democratic Party historically, and the championing of Republicans who advocated for civil rights.

As we see it, this is an example of conservatives wanting to have it both ways. Segregation WAS the conservative position in 1948. Conservatives HAVE perceived “all these problems” (Lott’s words) as being related to progressive programs designed to address racial inequality. Lott WAS a leader in the conservative movement, and therefore presumably was an authentic conservative. But when he spoke from his heart and violated the “norm of equality” (Mendelberg 2001), conservatives were unwilling to take the heat and stand by their man. If that’s not political opportunism, we’re not sure what is. So much for principled opposition.

Voegeli also directly addresses the Lott issue in his article. After noting that 99% of conservatives in the 21st century “would never praise segregation” and, in fact, largely would not “even realize that there is another 1% (emphasis in original),” Voegeli noted that the vast majority of modern conservatives “quietly abandoned the old complacency about racial discrimination, but never really repudiated it.” He notes that Buckley joined liberals in criticizing Lott’s attitudes of “nostalgia,” not just his comments. But Voegeli goes on to cite other conservatives and Buckley as they argued that Jim Crow was about states’ rights, not segregation:

The troubling incongruity [between conservatism and the triumph of the civil rights movement] is not conservatives’ initial tolerance of segregation for the sake of limited government, but the later, tacit admission that America did well to expand the purview of the federal government in order to end Jim Crow. Trent Lott had only to suggest lightly that relying on those means to secure that end was still regrettable to set off a stampede of conservatives to denounce him.

And so Voegeli puts his finger on the very problem with conservatism and racial equality: advocating a system that is inherently biased against some Americans while advantaging others can only result in sustained inequality, no matter how much lip service or sincere intent to end it is offered. As much as conservatives rail against “judicial activism” in the cases of gay marriage, few if any are open enough (or consistent enough) to denounce the Brown decision, for example. That decision, as we’ve noted recently, has not brought about equality in schools or elsewhere on the whole, but it did serve as a symbolic spark to a movement that needed access to power to achieve its goals.

On the contrary, however, Voegeli argues that

[t]he soundest reading of Buckley’s insistence on “organic” progress was that the only safe and legitimate path to those markedly difference sentiments was through incremental changes in attitudes in response to social rather than political pressures.

Voegeli notes that Buckley himself admitted that he was wrong about this when asked about it in 2004. Buckley said, “federal intervention was necessary.” Buckley’s original sentiments were in line with Justice Brown in the original Plessy decision that condoned “separate but equal,” as well as Booker T. Washington’s conciliatory strategy in the earliest years of the 20th century.

Finally, Voegeli takes a swipe at the social science that was an important part of the decision in the original Brown case. Specifically, he calls Kenneth Clark’s black and white dolls experiment (recently replicated) “problematic.” There is legitimate criticism about whether black children preferring white dolls was a result of segregation. In a very interesting exchange in the Harvard Law Review in 1987 (volume 100, No. 8), Philip Elman and Randall Kennedy spar over the history of the NAACP and school segregation cases. Addressing Professor Clark’s work in his reply to Kennedy, Elman reminds careful readers of footnote 11 in the Brown decision, which referenced social science research (including that of Clark). That note later became the topic of much discussion, as it was added by a clerk and not paid much attention to by the justices (including Earl Warren, who authored the decision).

But this is precisely the point we are making here. One can always find weaknesses in social science research. By its nature (involving humans), it will never be as definitive (even in the positivist tradition) as natural science research is widely (but not exclusively) perceived to be. Looking for airtight social science research on which to base results is yet another rationalization for not moving forward with policies to rectify social inequality. We are anxiously awaiting conservative criticism of Echo Chamber. Two of the most prominent and gifted social scientists of a generation will not escape the hole-poking criticism of those who are concerned that a systematic study documents the effects of a conservative media cartel.

The point, however, is that it should not even have had to take social science research to convince political actors in the 20th century (let alone today!) that something needed to be done to rectify racial injustice. The humanity is more important than the social science (or should be). Study after study has documented racial inequality in income, wealth, hiring, arrests and incarceration, capital punishment and education. How much more “evidence” is needed?

Voegeli implicitly criticizes black voters by citing an Atlantic Monthly piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who charged that

a sizable portion of the black electorate consists of latent conservatives “who favor hard work and moral reform over protests and government intervention.” Invariably, however, the black American who feels this way “votes Democratic, not out of any love for abortion rights or progressive taxation, but because he [sic] feels—in fact, he knows—that the modern-day GOP draws on the support of people who hate him [sic].”

And herein lies the problem – reminiscent of Ralph Nader and Geraldine Ferraro – with arguments from Barack Obama’s detractors. The above quote (as Voegeli uses it – Coates was using it in a descriptive sense to discuss supporters of Bill Cosby's social commentary) suggests that 1) progressives prefer complaining (protesting) to “hard work” (presumably because they favor government handouts to the laziest of citizens), and 2) black voters are so unsophisticated that they vote against their interests because they don’t want to vote alongside bigots. TWIR readers will have no trouble identifying the inherent racism in such an assertion. African Americans may not vote Democrat out of “any love for abortion rights,” but rather out of the understanding that Democrats on the whole appear to be more attuned to rectifying racial and economic injustice than Republicans.

But the fact of the matter is that neither party in our two-party system is in a position to advocate for the sort of change that will bring about social justice quickly. Voegeli points out that Martin Luther King was a radical and not so ideologically different from Malcolm X as we tend to think. He’s right, of course (though some of us don’t feel as if this is a problem). He points out that affirmative action is an offshoot of a “by any means necessary” strategy that stems back to Malcolm and King. He correctly notes that affirmative action has given conservatives fodder for criticism by allowing them to position themselves as champions of “equality”:

Conservatives have been delighted by the chance, finally, to present themselves as the ones articulating a principled egalitarian argument on behalf of innocent people whose prospects in life were diminished when they were judged according to the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

This, of course, typically ignores the inherent systemic privilege of whites vis-à-vis people of color in America. And coming from a group that did not advocate such equality when it was legally occurring during Jim Crow – and that refuses to do so today, even as it stands up for “innocent” whites – leaves cries of principled adherent to core values ringing rather hollow. Voegeli notes the problem with affirmative action is that it fails to consider that “one employer’s. . . covert discrimination is another’s good-faith effort to hire and retain the best available workforce at market wages.”

This sounds wonderful, but the fact is that a system built on slavery and slowly altered to incorporate black Americans into that flawed system (avoiding systemic changes along the way) is bound to result in the hiring of a disproportionate amount of whites if left to “objective” measures of “the best available workforce.” What’s defines "the best?"

The most educated? Blacks lack access to a quality education in many areas as a result of a system that privileges schools in wealthier areas.

Experience? People of color are disproportionately denied access to experience because of inherent employer bias, as well as lack of educational training in most modern occupations.

Defining the meaning of key terms is what Jamieson and Cappella argue is most effective about conservative media. This occurs largely through the concept of “framing,” which is providing a context for information. Rather than relying on outright lies, framing allows the communicator to help the audience think about information in a particular way. According to Jamieson and Cappella:

In a world in which the public sphere is full of competing frames, the consistent redundant framing the conservative opinion media use gives their audiences a way to navigate politics, even when the conservative opinion media are silent or distracted. (142)

Ultimately, Jamieson and Cappella neither vilify nor champion conservative media. Rather, they put forth a complex picture of a seemingly organized effort to inoculate an audience against information by mainstream media. It’s good social science. In fact, it’s excellent social science.

Must be biased.


We would like to thank TWIR readers Patrick Skarr and April Green for bringing Professor Voegeli’s article to our attention. We would like to thank Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Cappella for providing us with a copy of Echo Chamber.

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.