First off, this post will offend a lot of my right-wing friends, and while I hate to be dick, I am angry, and this post is meant to share my anger with the world in a constructive way. Hopefully, you will understand why I'm angry, rather than get offended. But, with that said, we (the Left) told you (the Right) that your rhetoric was going to get someone killed. And it may have.
On Saturday, when I heard that Representative Giffords was shot, I immediately had a picture of a suspect in mind - white, conservative, and in his mid-20's to mid 40's. And guess what - so did everyone else. When asked, Giffords' father pointed the finger directly at the Tea Party, as did the Sheriff, and every other Democrat and/or liberal in this country. There's a good reason for that - Sarah Palin put a crosshairs on Giffords, her office was vandalized during the health care debate, protesters showed up to her events fully armed, and her Republican opponent held fundraisers where his supporters could shoot an M16 at target with her name on it.
Now, it may be the case that the gunman was not a conservative or a Tea Partier, but rather a lone nutjob with his own agenda. But here's the thing - does he fixate on Giffords without so much heat put on her by the right? Does he even know who she is? We don't know that much. But if it is true that he had no connection with the right wing, don't celebrate, or blame liberals, but rather, breathe a sigh of relief because you got lucky. Really lucky. By the way, in the two days that have passed since the shooting, Senator Bennett and Representative Danny Davis have both received death threats
And if you want to respond to this post by saying that Democrats or liberals are doing this too, please cite specific examples - not from commenters on an open website, but examples from liberals similar in stature to Glenn Beck, Sharron Angle, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, hell, I'll even go with someone equal to Michelle Malkin's stature. And that's the difference - there are nuts on both sides, but the conservative leadership is actively courting the crazies. And we warned you that this could have serious consequences. Hell, the night before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords wrote to friends and colleagues to tone down the rhetoric.
And so, I say, we told you so. But guess what, whatever indignation and anger you might feel is nothing compared to the anger we liberals feel over the shooting. Everyone is losing. Oh, and don't you dare complain about the politicization of this tragedy - the attempted assassination of a political leader is a political.
Showing posts with label Tea Baggers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Baggers. Show all posts
Monday, January 10, 2011
Monday, September 14, 2009
Obama and Racism
So it appears that 60,000 to 70,000 people protested yesterday in a somewhat impressive showing of frustration with Obama's policies from conservatives. Now, the reason this is somewhat impressive is because conservatives aren't generally the protesting type. So, its kinda like seeing San Diego State play okay against UCLA - sure, they didn't win, but they didn't lose as badly as you thought they would. Or, in this case, sure 60,000 isn't huge, but its a lot higher than you'd intially expect. On the other hand, lying about the number of people there is pretty pathetic. You had a decent turnout teabaggers, but you didn't match the Inauguration.
Anyway, in the various blogs today (Andrew Sullivan, TPM, etc) a discussion is ongoing about how much of the protests against Obama are race inspired. And if that wasn't enough, "Mad Men" had a scene in which some executives chose not to advertise in Black media because they didn't want to be associated with African Americans. Couple those two things with my past experience as a civil rights attorney, and you got yourself a blog post in waiting.
First off, I loved the whole storyline in "Mad Men" regarding the African American market. The awkwardness of the ad exec when he's questioning the only African American he knows, followed by the executives openly deriding the idea of advertising in African American media (despite being told that it was both cheaper and would increase sales more effectively) was a great example of the dichotomy of racism in the U.S. Pete's questioning of the elevator operator about why the guy bought an RCA television was classic and awkward and there's no doubt that the operator will now think that Pete is a racist. But, Pete isn't a racist, he's just awkward in general, and his pitch to the Admiral TV guys shows that where there's an opportunity, he'll take it. Money trumps race.
The Admiral TV guys, meanwhile, are out and out racists. Even told that they could both increase their sales and lower their advertising costs by reaching out to the African American market, they not only pass at the opportunity, but they look disgusted by the very idea of it. In their eyes, race trumps profit.
And therein lies the dichotomy. Racism can be perceived when actors are, in fact, completely awkward around people of a different race because they don't know anyone outside their race. In that instance, integration can help alleviate the problem. As people get to know one another, the awkwardness ends. I would say that most Americans fall into this area - they're not racist, but racially awkward. Race for these individuals is easily trumped by other considerations.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the true racists. A study undertaken in 2000 indicated that approximately 20% of the time, minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans) received negative treatment when attempting to buy or rent a home. The study was based upon testing - where two people (one white person and one person of a minority group) apply for the same housing around the same time. The person in the minority group has slightly better qualifications than the white person. Yet, in 20% of the housing opportunities tested, the housing provider gave the white person better treatment, and race trumped profit. For individuals such as the Admiral TV guys, there's nothing that can be done to change their minds.
So back to the original issue, are the teabaggers racist? Mostly no. For instance, the socialism charge is dumb, but its the same charge made against every Democratic President since FDR. If anything, I think most of the protesters are racially awkward, abet moreso then most. But I think that people like Glenn Beck are purposely stoking racial fears. The whole thing about Obama seizing guns comes right out of the "Turner Diaries," the racist tome that inspired Timothy McVeigh. Birtherism is a direct result of the fears that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America. This fear is stoked by the fact that Obama is African American and has a Muslim sounding name.
One poll done on the birthers, shows that of Republicans, 42% believe that Obama is a U.S. Citizen, 30% are unsure, and 28% believe that he isn't. I would state to you that the 28% are racist, the 30% are uninformed, and the 42% are normal people. Anyway, here's my point to the whole blog post - you can work with the racially awkward and people who have honest disagreements about policy. That's 72% of Republican voters. But that 28% will never, ever, relent or compromise. Race trumps all other considerations in their eyes.
Anyway, in the various blogs today (Andrew Sullivan, TPM, etc) a discussion is ongoing about how much of the protests against Obama are race inspired. And if that wasn't enough, "Mad Men" had a scene in which some executives chose not to advertise in Black media because they didn't want to be associated with African Americans. Couple those two things with my past experience as a civil rights attorney, and you got yourself a blog post in waiting.
First off, I loved the whole storyline in "Mad Men" regarding the African American market. The awkwardness of the ad exec when he's questioning the only African American he knows, followed by the executives openly deriding the idea of advertising in African American media (despite being told that it was both cheaper and would increase sales more effectively) was a great example of the dichotomy of racism in the U.S. Pete's questioning of the elevator operator about why the guy bought an RCA television was classic and awkward and there's no doubt that the operator will now think that Pete is a racist. But, Pete isn't a racist, he's just awkward in general, and his pitch to the Admiral TV guys shows that where there's an opportunity, he'll take it. Money trumps race.
The Admiral TV guys, meanwhile, are out and out racists. Even told that they could both increase their sales and lower their advertising costs by reaching out to the African American market, they not only pass at the opportunity, but they look disgusted by the very idea of it. In their eyes, race trumps profit.
And therein lies the dichotomy. Racism can be perceived when actors are, in fact, completely awkward around people of a different race because they don't know anyone outside their race. In that instance, integration can help alleviate the problem. As people get to know one another, the awkwardness ends. I would say that most Americans fall into this area - they're not racist, but racially awkward. Race for these individuals is easily trumped by other considerations.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are the true racists. A study undertaken in 2000 indicated that approximately 20% of the time, minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans and Native Americans) received negative treatment when attempting to buy or rent a home. The study was based upon testing - where two people (one white person and one person of a minority group) apply for the same housing around the same time. The person in the minority group has slightly better qualifications than the white person. Yet, in 20% of the housing opportunities tested, the housing provider gave the white person better treatment, and race trumped profit. For individuals such as the Admiral TV guys, there's nothing that can be done to change their minds.
So back to the original issue, are the teabaggers racist? Mostly no. For instance, the socialism charge is dumb, but its the same charge made against every Democratic President since FDR. If anything, I think most of the protesters are racially awkward, abet moreso then most. But I think that people like Glenn Beck are purposely stoking racial fears. The whole thing about Obama seizing guns comes right out of the "Turner Diaries," the racist tome that inspired Timothy McVeigh. Birtherism is a direct result of the fears that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America. This fear is stoked by the fact that Obama is African American and has a Muslim sounding name.
One poll done on the birthers, shows that of Republicans, 42% believe that Obama is a U.S. Citizen, 30% are unsure, and 28% believe that he isn't. I would state to you that the 28% are racist, the 30% are uninformed, and the 42% are normal people. Anyway, here's my point to the whole blog post - you can work with the racially awkward and people who have honest disagreements about policy. That's 72% of Republican voters. But that 28% will never, ever, relent or compromise. Race trumps all other considerations in their eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)