The GOP mystique: It’s a white thing

[Curtis Metcalf]

All of it as a negative description of white people.  I am focusing on the feelings and attiitudes that may be evoked.

My intent here is not to replay past debates regarding the specific terms used.  Been there, done that.  My point here is set forth in my post immediately above. 

Is it reasonable to expect everyone, us in particular, to avoid discussing racial aspects of politics (and everything else) in a manner that some white people may perceive as negative? I don't think that's really your meaning, is it?

I think the standard is accuracy. That "feelings and attitudes may be evoked" is not, in my view, a reasonable objection to discussion. I (hypothetically) as a speaker do not feel responsible for your reaction to my words. I believe my obligation is to truth. My privilege as an American is to speak that truth as I perceive it to the best of my abilities.

I don't think the obligation that you seem to be implying (and my apologies if I have misunderstood your point) is a valid or healthy in terms of fostering understanding and perhaps progress. I don't say this to scold. I'm not even upset. I do think this kind of unspoken "obligation" to avoid giving offense above all is part of a legacy that cripples racial discussion and that it actually impedes progress. The expectations around communications especially about race fascinate me.

[michaelintp]

To sum it up. Reginald, I believe I understand where you are coming from. I hope you understand where I am coming from - that the fostering of an "us vs. them" attitude as applied to another racial group is a terrible thing no matter who fosters it and no matter what race is the "them."  Curtis, I see where you are coming from as well.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Wise Son]

As to Santorum, there seems to be some dispute as to what Santorum actually said, whether he started to say "lives better" and changed it to "lives ... [mutter mixing better and lives] ... people's lives better."  Though I do understand those who believe they heard him say "blaaii people's lives" and interpreted that as "black people's lives."  So as to that, I understand the concern, but it is ambiguous (because "sounds like" and "said" are not the same thing). I don't know for sure. 

Mike, have you watched the video?

He says 'black'. He says it perfectly clearly. The only "dispute" is the excuses that he's offering, and they have changed several times.

The crux of my comment is that the original article posted above made reference to Republican strategists trying to foster an "us vs. them" attitude. My point is that the fostering of "us vs. them" attitudes can be found on the Left and the Right. 

Discussing "food stamp presidents" and "black people taking other people's money," is discussing fictional ideas that exist to attack the character of the group it is discussing. Talking about "white privelege" is discussing a real phenomenon, which describes something which says nothing about the character of the group it is discussing.

[michaelintp]

I don't give a sh*t about Santorum. I'm inclined to agree with you but am not absolutly100% sure what he said.  That is why the article said "sounded like" rather than "said."

Moving on to the real issue:

Literal "truth" (or at least partial truth) can be offered as a defense for statements evoking an "us vs. them" attitude. Yet to deny the hostility-evoking reality of one choice of certain adjectives, modifiers, ways of "framing" issues, and negative racial stereotypes, is to deny Truth ltself. Doesn't matter if one is talking about black or white folk. "Us vs them" stinks.

But we have discussed this in the past and it has gone nowhere, so no reason for a replay.

I'm frankly tired of it. This entire issue, I mean. Makes me feel ill when I see it. If you don't want to or can't see it, then I give up.

[Redjack]

First of all, Santorum's "explanation" was "dog ate my homework" pathetic.  You weren't saying black, you were saying "blah"?  Really? 

And there's how the problem starts.  His decision to fire up his base by initiating an attack on black folks wasn't started by the left.  It was a political calculation.

And when he's called on it, he doesn't have the balls to own it, and instead people who are offended are accused of playing "the race card".  Are there any other cards in that deck?  I've never heard of the "woman card" or the "anti-semite" card.  I guess because those issues are not games. 

I get that there's a lot of people of all races who feel uncomfortable discussing race.  But that shouldn't mean we stick our heads in the sand. It means we need common language and themes to build from.

There's a big difference between the words "racist" and "racial".  Discussing race is not in itself "racist".  Pointing out and denouncing racism is not "racist". 

Among my linguistic bugaboos is the term "racially charged".  I never know what that means.  Is that a way for people to say something is racist but not admit that's what they are doing?  Is that a backhanded way of complaining that someone is being called on their racism?  It's too vague a phrase for me.

it means they'd rather not talk about it. ever. and they wish you wouldn't bring it up.

generally this is a luxury item that most non-whites can't afford.

[Kristopher]

First of all, Santorum's "explanation" was "dog ate my homework" pathetic.  You weren't saying black, you were saying "blah"?  Really? 

And there's how the problem starts.  His decision to fire up his base by initiating an attack on black folks wasn't started by the left.  It was a political calculation.

And when he's called on it, he doesn't have the balls to own it, and instead people who are offended are accused of playing "the race card".  Are there any other cards in that deck?  I've never heard of the "woman card" or the "anti-semite" card.  I guess because those issues are not games. 

I get that there's a lot of people of all races who feel uncomfortable discussing race.  But that shouldn't mean we stick our heads in the sand. It means we need common language and themes to build from.

There's a big difference between the words "racist" and "racial".  Discussing race is not in itself "racist".  Pointing out and denouncing racism is not "racist". 

Among my linguistic bugaboos is the term "racially charged".  I never know what that means.  Is that a way for people to say something is racist but not admit that's what they are doing?  Is that a backhanded way of complaining that someone is being called on their racism?  It's too vague a phrase for me.

it means they'd rather not talk about it. ever. and they wish you wouldn't bring it up.

generally this is a luxury item that most non-whites can't afford.

Yup!

[BmoreAkuma]

Maybe my 31 year old ears are falling off but the clown clearly said black people. What a pussy. Dammit I need a vacation out of this country again. Maybe some brazilian ass would make me feel better slightly. This is just too much for me.

[michaelintp]

The reality is that none of us can afford IT.  It - us vs. them - will destroy us. 

[Battle]

The reality is that none of us can afford IT.  It - us vs. them - will destroy us. 

So speaketh the instigator.

[michaelintp]

The reality is that none of us can afford IT.  It - us vs. them - will destroy us. 

So speaketh the instigator.

The price of raising moral issues.

I knew it would descend to this.

When one can't attack the principle, attack the speaker instead.

[Battle]

The price of raising moral issues.

I knew it would descend to this.

When one can't attack the principle, attack the speaker instead.

So speaketh the exaggerator.

[Curtis Metcalf]

This is not grade school. Having the last word is not winning.
Discussion please.

For instance, Michael, do you mean to say that discussing racism is akin to promoting separation? If so, I don't follow your reasoning. I mean I understand your concern about some kinds of discussion being fruitless and leading to further separation. I believe that some kinds of discussion about race and its implications are healthy and helpful. Do you disagree?

Battle, how is Michael voicing his concern an instigation? Perhaps you both are jumping to conclusions based on past behavior just a bit.

[Kristopher]

The Line is There

At a certain point, it just becomes overkill.

By "it" I mean everything. there is nothing on this planet that cannot be done to excess. Sex, drugs, violence or love, it doesn't matter. There comes a point when the law of diminishing returns sets in. The problem is getting folks to recognize that point.

It would seem that our Republican primary candidates don't understand that logic.

Well, maybe not all of them. Uncle Mitt has been involved in political campaigns for decades so he understands clearly that he only needs to prime the racism pumpa few times before it will turn into a gusher all on its on. But people like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and the now departed Rick Perry, seemed to have missed that memo. It's almost like they believe there is some sort of competition to see who can come up with the most outrageously racist comments everyday and they are determined to be that guy.

Overkill.

I don't know if these guys really believe the things they say about poverty or minorities, but I know they aren't backing away from them. They have staked claims on the vast plain of anti-political correctness, and they are desperately trying to erect a homestead. Even before Newt derided food stamps and Santorum said what many white people think about welfare, you had Bachmann, Perry and Cain leading the charge. There is power in appealing to those dirty little stereotypes people hold within their hearts, and it is the incredibly moral presidential candidate who turns down easily accessible power.

But, how many obviously racist comments can someone make before they stop being a viable presidential candidate? That depends largely on where collective opinion stands on what qualifies as racism. Gingrich and Santorum are banking on the fact that racism has been confined to such a small box in recent years that they can pretty much say anything and escape serious consequences. Hell, given the general tone people use to discuss the president and his family, that's a pretty safe bet.

Yet I believe that there is a line and both of them are dangerously close to crossing it completely with the majority of Americans. While Americans allow many forms of discrimination to exist unchallenged, they don't like to think of themselves or the people they like as racist. And while many comments that are racist to me are not considered racist by white people, stuff about food stamps and baby mamas generally gets the racist stamp. That's particularly true when those comments are coming from a party already branded as racist by non-members.

So I'm curious to see how this all works out for Newt and Rick. Will they be rewarded for their race to appeal to the bottom, or will it backfire on them? The outcome could very well decide how campaigns are run in the future.

http://ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com/2012/01/function-fbsclick-ulocation.html

[michaelintp]

                 I mean I understand your concern about some kinds of discussion being fruitless and leading to further separation. I believe that some kinds of discussion about race and its implications are healthy and helpful. Do you disagree?

You've summed up my position. The devil is in the details. In what you or I think fosters an "us vs. them" attitude  (going in either or both directions).  Perhaps "feel" is a better word than "think" because we are talking about the emotive content and the emotions we believe may be evoked in others.  As you say, I am just sharing a concern.  With no desire to rehash all of our past conversations at all.

For all folk to recognize this concern would be positive. I'm not excluding myself in this observation.

[BmoreAkuma]

You've summed up my position. The devil is in the details. In what you or I think fosters an "us vs. them" attitude  (going in either or both directions).  Perhaps "feel" is a better word than "think" because we are talking about the emotive content and the emotions we feel may be evoked in others.  As you say, I am just sharing a concern.  With no desire to rehash all of our past conversations at all.

For all folk to recognize this concern would be positive. I'm not excluding myself in this observation.

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from but unfortunately at times depending on the character of certain individuals it happens anyway. It is almost avoidable. Now it is up to the other members to distance themselves from that character "bait" to discuss it in a very adult manner. The same thing applies in religious discussion. IMO i think too many people act as if some riot is going to happen. But in order to properly discuss it, it doesn't hurt to bring it up without the slick comment.


As for Santorum he is a coward. Cowards run over to the news stations to cover themselves. He could have just admit and apologize and it wouldn't be as much of a big deal. But then again I could be wrong. He has to still deal with the comments he said about gays and now he has to deal with the blacks. If he says something stupid about women or Arabs it is over for him.