Racism? Really?

[Anonymous]

Maureen Dowd (NYTimes) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=2&ref=opinion claims that people opposed to the President's health care proposals are racists. Over at Salon, Michael Lind http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/15/race/ does the same.

Am I the only one offended by this? Can we really NOT disagree with a President who happens to be black without being labeled racists by his supporters? Does this not diminish the President himself, forever associating him with his skin color, not his ideas, ideals, and intellect? I personally know 4 of Saturday's 75 - 100K 9-12 marchers and they are far from racists - in fact one shares the President's skin color. What's up with this?

[Anonymous]

There was a quote from a woman in the Post yesterday - the story was about the Black Family Reunion - that said essentially the same thing. I was offended by it, too.

[Anonymous]

You're offended by the article? Did you read it at all? The man disrespected the office of the presidency and she's providing some context for this disrespect.

Why does this offend you?

[jsteele]

Neither of the articles say what you say they say. I won't follow the ever so popular example of Joe Wilson and rudely label your expression of false information. Instead, I'll assume that you are blindly regurgitating something provided to you. Therefore, please take the time to read each of the articles and then return here to provide a more accurate review of the authors' points.

[Anonymous]

From Mr. Lind

"From the beginning, attempts to create a universal welfare state in the U.S. have been thwarted by the fears of voters that they will be taxed to subsidize other Americans who are unlike them in race or ethnicity or culture."

Am I crazy, or does this not say that voters opposed to universal health care base their opposition racial prejudices - i.e. racism? An how about the subtitle?

Diversity is healthcare reform's worst enemy. White America has never liked social insurance for people of color

And to quote Ms. Dowd:

I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.

I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

clearly equates the Tea Party movement (which she happily slanders with the statements of a few on the loony fringe) with racism - people who cannot accept a black president.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Steele -- I think you're wrong about this. See the following quotes from the salon.com article:

"Racial resentments undoubtedly explain the use of "redistribution" and "socialism" as code words by John McCain, Sarah Palin and Republican working-class mascot "Joe the Plumber" during the 2008 presidential campaign. Similar themes have surfaced during the healthcare debate."

And:

"Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act destroyed formal white supremacy in the U.S., every attempt to expand traditional social insurance in America has failed. Meanwhile, there has been a massive expansion in government-sponsored welfare going disproportionately to the white and affluent."

And:

"Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote wrote that "race is critically important to understanding the US-Europe differences" and that "hostility to welfare comes in part from the fact that welfare spending in the US goes disproportionately to minorities."

I don't think that this article can be read fairly in any other way except as making the claim that it is white racism that has resulted in opposition to more generous social benefit programs. And I think this is actually a fairly common view on the progressive side of the political spectrum.

In fact, see the article's subhead:

"Diversity is healthcare reform's worst enemy. White America has never liked social insurance for people of color"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're offended by the article? Did you read it at all? The man disrespected the office of the presidency and she's providing some context for this disrespect.

Why does this offend you?

Totally agree that he disrespected the Office of the President - no argument there. Totally disagree with the motive ascribed to Mr. Wilson (whom I know little about, and I suspect Ms. Dowd has never met) and those of us who do not believe the President's claims - racism.

The message was poorly delivered, but the message was not racial IMHO.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:From Mr. Lind

"From the beginning, attempts to create a universal welfare state in the U.S. have been thwarted by the fears of voters that they will be taxed to subsidize other Americans who are unlike them in race or ethnicity or culture."

Am I crazy, or does this not say that voters opposed to universal health care base their opposition racial prejudices - i.e. racism? An how about the subtitle?

Diversity is healthcare reform's worst enemy. White America has never liked social insurance for people of color

You are not crazy but you are drawing your own conclusions that are overly reductive. Saying that race has had a significant role in opposition to social insurance is not that same as saying opponents to Obama's healthcare plan are racists. In the first case, racism is one issue that is a significant factor for some people. In the second case, all opponents are racists. Lind was not making the second point.

Anonymous wrote:
And to quote Ms. Dowd:

I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.

I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

clearly equates the Tea Party movement (which she happily slanders with the statements of a few on the loony fringe) with racism - people who cannot accept a black president.

Dowd attributes a number of bad behaviors to racism. She does not suggest that any opponent to Obama's healthcare reform policy is a racist. It's good to see that you are gaining a somewhat more substantive understanding of the articles. Even better would be an acknowledgment that you unfairly misrepresented the authors' views.

[Anonymous]

Also from the Dowd article, since we're quoting.

The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think that this article can be read fairly in any other way except as making the claim that it is white racism that has resulted in opposition to more generous social benefit programs. And I think this is actually a fairly common view on the progressive side of the political spectrum.

I actually agree with you for the most part. However, what you are saying is not the same as saying "that people opposed to the President's health care proposals are racists." Obviously racism plays a role in opposition to social reforms. It is equally wrong to suggest that race is the only factor as it is to say that race plays no factor. However, almost nobody ever makes either of these arguments. Certainly, neither Lind nor Dowd were.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that this article can be read fairly in any other way except as making the claim that it is white racism that has resulted in opposition to more generous social benefit programs

http://themoderatevoice.com/23896/socialism-is-the-new-black-guest-voice/

Lately, the word is picking up steam as a way for certain camps to remind the voters of Obama’s heritage as an African American and try to connect the two ideas. A clever new ploy to say the color of skin matters and can lead to dangerous paths. Some are working awfully hard to say, socialism has become the new black.

It’s like a grownup version of the old Ovaltine decoder ring that helped loyal viewers discover the hidden message. Be afraid of Obama because he’s not just like us, wink, wink.

Instead, whip out the word socialist to divert, confuse and inspire fear in the voters. Ah, at last, an insult that might work even if it has no basis in fact.

Let me translate this one for voters. The manipulation is to get us to look at Obama and see someone who may not act in the best interests of anyone who doesn’t look just like him. Maybe if the fear creeps in just enough we won’t look at his proposals in detail and realize that there are tangible tax breaks for small to mid-size business owners. Tax breaks that are plausible even in our present circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Steele --

Now I think that it is you who are misinterpreting Lind. The whole point of his article is that race is the *primary* factor underlying opposition to health reform. He certainly doesn't take the "race is a factor; there are other factors too" position that you suggest he is in your 10:58 post.

And you are slicing it a bit too thin when you say that Lind does not argue "that people opposed to the President's health care proposals are racist." If the principal reason that "White America" opposes health reform is on account of race, as Lind argues, surely at least some of those people are acting on racist impulses. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise. He (and you, I think) would agree that at least some people opposed to health reform are opposed because they are racist; of course no one would argue that all opponents of health reform are racist -- "all" is something that is never true about anything involving people.

The question is how many. I think the obvious reading of an article that throws around terms like "White America" and "white supremacy" is that Lind thinks the answer is "a whole lot." We could split hairs on whether he expressly states that -- I think he does -- or whether he just implies it, but I think the tone of the article is quite clear.

[Anonymous]

This much seems clear to me:

Racial antipathy is a factor in the vitriol directed at Obama.

There are also reasoned philosophical and political differences for opposition to him and his programs.

It is hard to quantify the part played by racism, and there will be differences of opinion about motivations.

Because race has been, and is still, a sore point in our country, we liberals should be cautious about throwing around accusations of racism AND you conservatives should be cautious in your attacks on our first black president. Free speech does not mean thoughtless and unrestrained speech.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The question is how many. I think the obvious reading of an article that throws around terms like "White America" and "white supremacy" is that Lind thinks the answer is "a whole lot." We could split hairs on whether he expressly states that -- I think he does -- or whether he just implies it, but I think the tone of the article is quite clear.

Again, I largely agree with you. I really have no issue with your reading of the article. However, my point remains. Saying that "some" or even "a large number" of opponents of social reforms are racist is not the same as the OP's statement that both Dowd and Lind say "that people opposed to the President's health care proposals are racists." Neither author makes such a crude statement.

Lind makes a case for a significant role played by race, but he supports his argument rather strongly. Debating the merits of his position would be an interesting intellectual exercise. Discussing the misrepresentation of his article provided by the OP would be nothing more than the debunking of a straw man.

[Anonymous]

I don't know about racism but I do know that some of the protesters at the Tea Party rally are nuts. I walked through it on Saturday and saw signs basically equating Obama with socialism, Communism, fascism (Hitler), and Islam. Not even close -- on any of those four.

I wouldn't be surprised if racism and/or xenophobia played an indirect role -- in that Obama looks different, has a different name, has a Kenyan father so he's not really one of us so it's acceptable to make outlandish accusations. If that is true for some people, I highly doubt that most of them are conscious of their reasoning.

There is research that shows if you divide people up randomly into Group A and Group B, that they become convinced their group is better than the other even though it was a random selection process. That's why we have to remain vigilant about how our perception of group differences (not just racial but gender, economic, sexual orientation, weight, etc) affects our judgment.