The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

I’m live-blogging the debate here.

{ 0 comments }

by Stillwater

In comments in a previous thread, both Mark T and  James H suggested I give my take on ‘the racism in politics’ debate on the supposition that a concise and fairly clear argument of how racism is a fundamental part of conservative politics would be beneficial.  To be clear here, they weren’t advocating that racism actually is a constitutive part of GOP rhetoric and movement conservatism, nor that the view needed to be expressed. Instead, the idea was that a short and perhaps compelling argument from someone who does think that (ie., me) might lead to some good discussion. I politely declined the invitation on the following grounds: that anyone who disputes the overtly racist language of many (not all) GOP politicians and the political strategies employed by movement conservatives going back to Nixon wouldn’t be persuaded by my arguments in any event since – and this was my point – anyone who disputes those facts won’t believe that any fact-based argument could decide the issue. But even then, I thought the idea sounded like a good challenge, even if daunting. So here goes. (It’s a bit under-argued, which I’m sure will show up in comments.)

In trying to decide how to properly frame the issue, I thought I’d take the above claim seriously and use it as the point of entry into the debate. And if we do take it seriously  – that is, if we assume that the debate is intractable due to a dispute over ‘facts’ – then something interesting might follow (tho maybe not, of course). For the record, I believe that movement conservatism is inextricably linked to racism – in particular racism against blacks and hispanics – and that political rhetoric and political campaign strategies employed by GOP politicians pander to the racism of conservative whites. Of course, the conservative rejects this claim and challenges me to provide evidence of a very specific type: non-question begging evidence of conservative intentions. And that’s very a very hard thing to do. (And even though others might also reject this claim, in what follows I’ll be discussing only what a (stereotypical?) liberal and a conservative appear to argue.)*

So on the face of it, then, we have what appears to be an intractable problem. And the dispute is over what constitutes un-biased evidence. On the one hand, my argument for the claim that racism is a central part of movement conservative rhetoric and policy prerogatives  apparently can’t be demonstrated in any non-question-begging way, since all the evidence I would present in support of that claim – what I view as the historical and rhetorical facts in play – presupposes the very question at issue: the racism of movement conservatives.  [click to continue…]

{ 103 comments }

One of the things that makes me a less-than-stellar blogger is that my mind works on a time delay. It takes me time to process information and determine what I think about it. And so naturally, it’s the week following all of the interest in South Carolina that I finally piece together my thoughts. I will try to do better in the future and white about any damn fool thing that comes to mind.

What jumps out at me with the whole affair is the degree to which we were often talking about the wrong things, stuck in gears of racist/not-racist. Very little good, in my experience, comes from racist/not-racist conversations. Or maybe, as a white guy with southern roots, it’s something that just makes me feel tremendously uncomfortable regardless of where I come down on the matter. That doesn’t mean it’s not a conversation worth having, of course. But in the accusation/counteraccusation tone that the conversation took, I didn’t get a lot out of my reading of it and I don’t regret my relative non-participation.

Juan Williams’s original question related to Gingrich’s comments on what he would say to the NAACP and whether or not he was concerned about the racial implications of what he said and if he could understand how one might be offended. Intended or not, this question does come across as an accusation of racism, at least to some people. And once the accusation is made, the conversation takes on a life of its own. I think a different question might have yielded better results. Something along the lines of:

TRUMAN: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. As a cursory review of the statistics on poverty and food stamps will reveal, it is not limited to a single race or single subculture. How comfortable would you feel going to pockets of poverty in West Virginia and questioning the West Virginian work ethic? Would you hold them to the same standard, or do you think there are differences? If there are differences, what do you think they are?

I choose West Virginia based largely on stereotype and because it’s a state that nominee Gingrich would need to win. If WV is a bad example, there are pockets in Idaho, Montana, and just about everywhere. Look under some rocks and find the best example. The point is that there is white poverty and it absolutely needs to be accounted for when a presidential candidate accuses another subculture of being too content with public assistance and not content with work.

I don’t know how Gingrich would have answered my question. He might have given the exact same answer. He might have thrown WV under a bus. He might have tried to outline some differences. Regardless of his answer, though, I think that you have to confront this issue when you talk about poverty and government support. And by shining the light on poor whites, the ensuing conversation here and elsewhere might have been dedicated less to accusation/counteraccusation and more towards how we look at poverty in different groups and the distinctions we make or don’t make.

Personally, I don’t think that Republican contempt for a perceived lack of worth ethic is entirely based on race. There are small government people who resent welfare in any capacity. There are also cultural issues that are not entirely racially defined. There was a lot of scoffing at #OWS protesters, a great many of whom were white (but they fit other demographics that conservatives often reflexively mistrust). But once you’re talking about West Virginia, or Montana or Idaho, you’re talking about people who are at least perceptually a part of a culture that Republicans, and white South Carolinians, are less enthusiastic to dismiss as lazy, entitled, or what have you. That’s why I consider the question important.

For my own part, my perceptions of poverty and government support changed a great deal as my wife and I have moved from here to there. She has worked at one government or county or charity hospital after another serving different kinds of poor: Urban black, rural white, immigrant, Native American, urban white, and urban Asian. And, because we have tried to live near the downtown hospitals, we have lived in all sorts of poor communities. Some characteristics – the type that Gingrich decries in the black community – transcend specific culture. It’s something to remember apart from accusations of racism. It’s something that needs to be a part of the discussion if only to keep the discussion from being a proxy for race (as much as we can).

I have found that many liberals often have a disdain for rural, poor white folks. But one thing you can’t get around is that they do favor policies that will help them get by. Conservatives have made it more than clear that they are willing to be vocal about poor minorities needing to solve their own problems. It is an open question the degree to which they are willing to say the same about poor whites from the Heartland. A question that should be answered.

[Header image modified from original image at Wikimedia Commons, c.berlet/publiceye.org]

{ 52 comments }

The State of the Union address was a bit of a disappointment to the punditry. But of course, the President’s message wasn’t meant for them. There’s probably no better example of what I mean than the intertube reaction to this bit, which was really the capstone of the evening:

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded…

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates – a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job – the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other – because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America.

Most of the people on the intertubes today – at least those that were hoping for Obama to succeed – have voiced concerns about Obama’s use of this story due to it’s militaristic backdrop. Andrew Sullivan, staunch Obama supporter, was pretty unimpressed with the speech in general but with the above bit in particular:

This notion that a country, a democracy, should have the same attitude as troops fighting a war is preposterous and slightly creepy. Yes, we should put aside our differences to get important things done, put aside ideology to focus on solving problems. But we are not a military and the president is not our commander. He is our president. We have every right to argue with one another and to distrust one another at times. The whole idea of getting each others’ backs in a boisterous democracy is deeply undemocratic. I do not want to be a citizen trained like a member of the Navy SEALs. Nor should anyone. This isn’t Sparta. It’s America.

Our own Jason Kuznicki went a wee bit farther than that.

I know that I will be reviled for what I’m about to say, but to imagine that our economy and the rest of our society should be run just like the military is the very essence of fascism.

Don’t achieve your personal ambitions. Don’t try to be different from others. Conform. Work together. We can be great, but only — only — if we are regimented and disciplined like the military. I will lead you.

With all due respect to Jason, much of what he reads into the speech I believe he has brought to the table himself. I usually agree with him on these issues, but this seems a bit of a stretch.  I can neither claim to have met Obama nor crawled inside of his head a la Being John Malkovich, but I’m pretty sure the intended takeaway wasn’t that it would be fabulous if the American people were replaced by the androids from I, Mudd.

In any case, I find that I disagree with Jason, Andrew and most everyone else this morning on the speech in general, but especially with the reactions to this particular bit of it. In fact, I’m pretty sure that against the current field of dream GOP candidates this locks up the second term – and for all the right reasons. [click to continue…]

{ 113 comments }