Jimmy Carter to the Rescue

Hear, hear. When I first heard that reported this morning, my very first thought was "You're playing into the hands of all those conservatives who said that when Barack Obama was elected, any opposition to his policies would be demonized as racism." Good job, Jimmy. Stick to building houses.

Jason,

I disagree. Sure, if viewed solely from a political prism, Carter's comments may not "help" Obama - which I really have no idea what that means anymore. Does it mean that people who dislike Obama will get mad? I say who cares?

Carter states an observation that many of us, myself on these very pages, hold. As I looked at that sea of pissed off white male faces last Wednesday, I wondered why more people weren't wondering why this body of elected national figures from a major party were so blatant in their contempt and disregard for Obama. Wilson's disrespect for the first African American President is understandable, given the history and practices of the Congress, if one uses a racial and political prism. Did you get a gander of some of those signs of Obama last Saturday? Did you see the one with Obama dressed like an extra from King Kong?

I applaud Carter for speaking about this. Too many white liberals are just too scared - at this point, of what I don't know - face this growing possibility that the GOP is coming dangerously close to becoming an institutionalized white, racist party.

In part for tactical political reasons, and in part because of the need to afford the widest range of criticism and/or ridicule of anyone who occupies a position of such power, liberals generally and Democrats particularly should all shut up about racism. If something said of the president is obviously racist, then we can trust most people to see it as such without prompting. And if something is only arguably racist, then conservatives win a cultural and political victory every time their opponents argue the point.

The whole point of conservatives' use of racially coded language is to provoke the countercharge of racism in order to activate white grievance. A zen-like policy of nonresponse to right-wing racism is the only way to defeat it: it forces conservatives to push the language closer to the edge of obvious racism, and also confuses and angers them into making unforced errors.

"...but, really, if he wants to help Obama, he should just shut up."

Exactly, Jason.

Besides, the view that hatred towards Obama has to do with race and not policy is a cheap way of dealing with a complex issues. Had Obama adopted the policies of a right wing conservative the same people who call him a liar would be eating out of his hands!

Let's remember too the vicious hatred and accusations directed at the Clinton's.

Obama is hated by the right because they hate his policies and because that is what they do with people with whom they disagree: they hate.

Hatred is the coin of the realm for right wingers (and left wingers) since they have no other way of dealing with issues.

I can't imagine what Carter was thinking or what he hoped to accomplish. As pointed out above by Rhubs, on this issue of race, more damage is done to the president by Carter and his like-minded supporters of the president than by the actual racists. These so-called supporters just seem unable to follow the president's lead and ignore the racist crackpots on the Right.

Yes, there are some racist elements, but I agree with jack, there are a majority on the Right with credible opposition to this administration that has nothing to do with race. Disagreeing with them doesn't make them racists.

I think just having a liberal Democrat in the White House tends to drive this nutty fringe even nuttier. Just ask Bill Clinton. Democrats should just ignore the race angle completely, it's a no-winner.

Mr. Cookie hits the nail on the head. Is it because of simple political disagreement that at least 90% of the participants at Tea Parties, Town Halls, the Gazillion Man March are white? That the real crazies at McCain rallies foaming at the mouth about Obama being Muslim or Kenyan were inevitably white? How does one explain the crude caricatures ? What's behind their cry to "Take our country back"? From whom? The duly elected President of the United States who won in the most decisive election in a generation? One who didn't need any help from the Supreme Court or a 3rd party candidate drawing support from McCain. What explains this over the top mass hysteria by whites? Why is it so horrifying that maybe an illegal immigrant would get medical treatment - the issue behind "You Lie!" (as an aside, the only sure way to prevent that would be a national ID card - yeah, an ID card issued by the Federal Goverment would go over real well with the black helicopter crowd). People are showing up at Obama appearances armed. Imagine if somebody tried that during the Bush years - especially if his complexion were darker than a Starbucks latte . . .

During the Bush years, all we heard was "Liberals are so angry. They hate Bush". What, because we belonged to Move On? Because we wrote letters to the NY Times? Watched Olberman and Jon Stewart? Nothing, absolutely nothing that liberals did during those years remotely approaches the hatred and vitriol - I thought the right was unhinged during Clinton's presidency. In comparison to today, the 90's were civil.

Sign spotted at the march: "Bury the health care bill with Ted Kennedy". Way to stay classy.

I agree with Cookie and Dubya. No one is saying that mere opposition to Obama's policies is rooted in racism. But when one looks at the demographics of those who are rabidly protesting Obama's presidency based on the absurd pretext, for example, that he is a communist and wants to destroy our way of life, and when one considers that the misconceptions and venom are being stoked by demogogues like Beck and Limbaugh -- who are undeniabley and unabashedly racist -- then it is at least reasonable to conclude that the irrational protests are rooted in racism. Given our history, the burden of proof lies with those who claim racism is not afoot.

Rhubarbs, your point about the political wisdom of nevertheless ignoring racism is not without force. And ignoring racism is probably better than a few liberals here and there wimpering about it. But the real Conservative victory is that it has pushed us into the corner of being afraid to acknowledge and oppose racism when we see it -- that is, of putting us in the position of regarding it as politically expedient to ignore the cancer. Is that really where we want to be?

The pictures depicting Obama dressed as some sort of "witch doctor" that were all over the DC protests are all the proof anyone needs that, for many, the opposition to Obama is rooted in racism. Whether Wilson is a bigot is uncertain and accusing him of racism doesn't help matters much, but for the GOP and Obama haters to deny racism has nothing to do with it is absurd on its face.

dhurtado, I agree completely. However, in a larger sense, all Americans are racists. Myself included. Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as race. It literally does not exist. Anyone who looks at a person with darkly pigmented skin and identifies that person as the member of a class of similarly darkly pigmented people is, by definition, a racist. (The same applies to any such categorization by superficial attributes, whether it's dark skin or light, nappy hair or straight, or so forth.) I see signs that my generation of Americans may be the last of whom it is categorically true to say that we are all racists; I now regularly encounter pockets of young adults who do not "see race" in the way that 400 years of Americans before them all did.

Anyway, I don't see much value in policing the existence of racism as such. People hold all kinds of opinions, and were we honest we would all of us realize that not just some but most of what each of us believes will strike our descendants as not just wrong but abhorrent -- and rightfully so. Further, I really think we have crossed a line where overt expressions of racism are socially taboo, even among people who hold decidedly racist opinions, and the bar gets lower every year. I mean, as recently as the early 1990s, politicians could get away with saying the equivalent of "macaca." No more. This is why conservatives cloak their racist appeals in coded language, and why they rely on the trap of provoking liberal counterreaction rather than using overt racist appeals.

So I'm not particularly concerned with the threat that conservative racist traps will prevent us from having a "conversation" about race. Opinions and words don't particularly strike me as worth fighting through name-and-shame accusations; what concerns me is actions. When a racist opinion turns into an action that materially affects a person, that is bigotry. Bigotry we can fight, even if we demur from a too-aggressive fight against mere racism.

I think it's one thing for a commentator like Dowd to spear Wilson for the implications of his act of disrespect to the president during an address to the Congress, and quite another for someone like Carter to make an issue of what demonstrators feel or don't feel toward Obama.

If a member of Congress yells out an insult to the president in the middle of his speech, it's a fairly distinctive breach of particular traditions and rules, and it's thus legitimate to call for a reprimand and to note what's behind it.

It's a little different when a bunch of yowling knuckledraggers is filmed waving Obama=Hitler placards, running their mouth about being taken over by muslims, and toting assault rifles to presidential town hall meetings. They are entitled to demonstrate, but their attitudes are clear and most Americans are seriously grossed out.

Making martyrs of the knuckledraggers, however, allows them and their sponsors to engage in bouts of pious indignation about how they are only engaging in a civilized policy disagreement with the administration -- it's not a very smart option.

As has been said, the point about coded racism is to be able to hide behind the code -- it won't be upfront and honest, and it doesn't leave too much evidence behind.

Rhubarbs, I have heard the statement before that, biologically, there is no such thing as "race." I must confess, however, that I don't really know what that means. That said, there clearly is such a thing as chauvinism, which, when based on the differences in pigmentation and other physical characteristics we associate with race, is what we call racism. You say you are more concerned about bigotry than you are racism. I take it that you regard the latter as being merely a state of mind or a statement of opinion, and the former as discriminatory action that is motivated by racism. I'm not sure there is universal agreement with regard to your distinction between racism and bigotry, but we can certainly use it as a basis for discussion. First, I think it is arguable that the protests we are discussing do fall within your definition of bigotry to the extent that they may undermine the President's initiatives and even the Presidency itself. Second, it is not useless to stand up to racist sentiment or opinions, even if they have not yet materialized into actions. For example, you correctly note that it is now highly unfashionable to utter explicitly racist opinions or epithets. That is a direct result of those who oppose racism being publicly judgmental about racist expressions. I think that public judgmentalism about racist expression also deters bigoted action and not merely racist expression. I understand what you are saying about the Conservative counter-attack whenever liberals and others raise the issue of racism, but my point is that the Conservative counter-attack only works because we are sheepish about, and, when the counter-attack comes we back off and even criticize one another for being so politically inexpedient as to have raised the issue. If instead we stood our ground and stood together in calling racism what it is, the Conservative counter-attack would not work.

I think Jimmy Carter should keep quiet on the point of racism being at play in the right wing opposition to Obama, especially considering how he framed his comments: “the overwhelming part of the right wing opposition to Obama is racist”, says Carter.

That there is a racist component to some of the opposition seems so to be.

But whether Wilson was/is a racist in yelling out “You lie” is unknowable I’d argue and that’s part of the problem with Carter’s comments. If we distinguish between the sheer right wing nuts and the right wing opponents who are able to cite policy disagreements with Obama, like say Orrin Hatch on health care, then the problem of tarring with too wide a brush surfaces and damages the cause of advancing liberal policies by distraction and diversion and as noted above feeds and exacerbates the right wing critique of the playing of the “race card” as a sign of liberal desperation.

One test, I’d suggest, of the inappropriateness of Carter’s comments is to ask whether Obama would have wished them said by Carter. The answer is a resounding no for pragmatic and principled reasons I’d wager.

Figuring into why it was bad of Carter so to speak is of course him being an ex president. No one is telling Dowd and her colleagues what and not what to say but surely an ex president ought to be mindful of the almost institutional status of his pronouncements and so mindful at least ought to be more temperate and prudent about his words and at a minimum not stoke racial fires by his sheer overstatement. Here my sense from watching and reading the last few days’ news is that he has set Obama’s presidency and health care agenda back.

As for the distinction between bigotry and racism and that we are all racists, oy vey!

Yes, these things are always so fucking complicated, aren't they? But perhaps no more or no less complicted than, say, apartheid in the West Bank?

Another very, very foolish observation from the Jew hater.

So, sure, let's pretend that probing the systemic nature of racism in the attacks on Obama is as gratuitous as probing the systemic nature of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. As is probing the systemic nature of Islamic terrorism and religious fanaticism.

george