How to Listen for Racism on the Campaign Trail Op-Ed by Jeff Goldberg for Bloomberg

poet

Banned
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...m-on-the-campaign-trail-jeffrey-goldberg.html



Here are some things you could learn about black Americans from the recent statements and insinuations of Republican presidential candidates, Republican congressmen and Republican-friendly radio personalities:

Black people have lost the desire to perform a day’s work. Black people rely on food stamps provided to them by white taxpayers. Black people, including Barack and Michelle Obama, believe that the U.S. owes them something because they are black. Black children should work as janitors in their high schools as a way to keep them from becoming pimps. And the pathologies afflicting black Americans are caused partly by the Democratic Party, which has created in them a dependency on government not dissimilar to the forced dependency of slaves on their owners.

Judging by these claims, all of which have actually been put forward recently, here is a modest prediction: This presidential election will be one of the most race- soaked in recent history. It is already more race-soaked than the 2008 election, which, of course, marked the first time that a black man became a major-party candidate.

I don’t know why this is. Perhaps because Senator John McCain, the Republican contender in 2008, generally and admirably refused to race-bait. But the Republican candidates in today’s contest aren’t so meticulous about avoiding the temptation to dog-whistle their way to the nomination.

A Dark Art
Dog-whistling -- the use of coded, ambiguous language to appeal to the prejudices of certain subsets of voters -- is one of the darkest political arts. In this race, Newt Gingrich is streets ahead of his nearest competitor in its use. In addition to his comments about black children working as janitors, he has repeatedly referred to Obama as the country’s “food-stamp president.”

Food stamps have been fixed in the minds of many white voters as a government subsidy misused by blacks at least since 1976, when Ronald Reagan complained of “strapping young bucks” who used public assistance to buy “T-bone steaks.” (It is distressing to remember, in light of Reagan’s subsequent beatification, that he was to racial dog-whistling what Pat Buchanan has been to Jew-baiting; it was Reagan who also introduced the “welfare queen” into public discourse.)

The genius of dog-whistling is its deniability. It would be difficult for a figure such as Rush Limbaugh to run for public office, given his record of fairly straightforward race-baiting. (Limbaugh, who in the words of Harvard Law School’s Randall Kennedy is an “excellent entrepreneur of racial resentment,” has been on a tear lately. He has accused Obama -- who he says “talks honky” around white people -- and the first lady of abusing public funds as payback for the ill-treatment afforded their ancestors.)

But “food-stamp president” is just indirect enough that Gingrich is protected from detrimental blowback, at least during the largely white Republican primaries.

Kennedy, who studies the role of race in national elections, told me last week of a rule he uses to measure whether a candidate’s appeal to prejudice will succeed: If it takes more than two sentences for a critic to explain why a dog-whistle is a dog-whistle, the whistler wins. Gingrich seems to understand this, and so, despite criticism from blacks, has made the term “food-stamp president” a staple of his stump speeches.

New Realization
Kennedy offers the theory that this campaign’s dog- whistling may be prompted by a realization by right-leaning provocateurs that voters have become inured to charges of racism. I suspect another phenomenon has hastened this realization: A handful of black Republicans have abetted dog-whistling by making their own bombastic statements about the degraded moral health of the black community, the putative foreignness of the Obamas and the Democratic Party’s plantation-like qualities.

The former presidential candidate Herman Cain, who last week endorsed Gingrich, told me in an interview last year that Obama was more “international” than American. He also said that, unlike Obama, he rejects the label “African-American” because he feels “more of an affinity for America than I do for Africa.”

Representative Allen West of Florida, one of two black Republican House members, recently called the Democratic Party a “21st-century plantation” and compared himself to Harriet Tubman. In August, he said, “Today in the black community, we see individuals who are either wedded to a subsistence check or an employment check. Democrat physical enslavement has now become liberal economic enslavement, which is just as horrible.”

How far in intent is West’s message from this one, recently delivered by Rick Santorum in Sioux City, Iowa: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” (Santorum later denied that he said the word “black,” arguing that what he actually said was “blah.” The denial is not credible.)

The writer Gary Younge has noted that in Woodbury County, which includes Sioux City, nine times more whites use food stamps than blacks do. But it doesn’t matter: Santorum wasn’t driven from the race for making such a blatant appeal to white resentment -- instead, he won the Iowa caucus.

An Odd Video
Recently, I watched an educational children’s video produced by a company part-owned by Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate (and current Fox News host). The video series, called “Learn Our History,” is meant as a corrective to a left-wing interpretation of the American story.

In one episode, a group of children are transported to Washington, in the late 1970s, a time when, we are told, “people are out of work and some of their morals are just gone.” The group, walking down a cartoon version of a street from “The Wire,” is confronted by a black mugger in a tank-top emblazoned with the word “Disco.” (Yes, “Disco.”) The mugger says to the time-travelers, “Gimme yo money!”

I asked Huckabee why the video advanced this particular stereotype. We had been speaking about the rationale for the video series, and he had just finished telling me that the project was meant to encourage moral leadership. Then he told me he had nothing to do with writing the show’s scripts, but it was his impression that the mugger wasn’t meant to be black. In any case, we were talking about a cartoon, he said, and cartoons traffic in “caricature.”

This is something cartoons share with many of today’s leading Republicans.

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist and a national correspondent for the Atlantic. The opinions expressed are his own.)



You think it's a game? -poet.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...m-on-the-campaign-trail-jeffrey-goldberg.html



Here are some things you could learn about black Americans from the recent statements and insinuations of Republican presidential candidates, Republican congressmen and Republican-friendly radio personalities:

Black people have lost the desire to perform a day’s work. Black people rely on food stamps provided to them by white taxpayers. Black people, including Barack and Michelle Obama, believe that the U.S. owes them something because they are black. Black children should work as janitors in their high schools as a way to keep them from becoming pimps. And the pathologies afflicting black Americans are caused partly by the Democratic Party, which has created in them a dependency on government not dissimilar to the forced dependency of slaves on their owners.

Judging by these claims, all of which have actually been put forward recently, here is a modest prediction: This presidential election will be one of the most race- soaked in recent history. It is already more race-soaked than the 2008 election, which, of course, marked the first time that a black man became a major-party candidate.

I don’t know why this is. Perhaps because Senator John McCain, the Republican contender in 2008, generally and admirably refused to race-bait. But the Republican candidates in today’s contest aren’t so meticulous about avoiding the temptation to dog-whistle their way to the nomination.

A Dark Art
Dog-whistling -- the use of coded, ambiguous language to appeal to the prejudices of certain subsets of voters -- is one of the darkest political arts. In this race, Newt Gingrich is streets ahead of his nearest competitor in its use. In addition to his comments about black children working as janitors, he has repeatedly referred to Obama as the country’s “food-stamp president.”

Food stamps have been fixed in the minds of many white voters as a government subsidy misused by blacks at least since 1976, when Ronald Reagan complained of “strapping young bucks” who used public assistance to buy “T-bone steaks.” (It is distressing to remember, in light of Reagan’s subsequent beatification, that he was to racial dog-whistling what Pat Buchanan has been to Jew-baiting; it was Reagan who also introduced the “welfare queen” into public discourse.)

The genius of dog-whistling is its deniability. It would be difficult for a figure such as Rush Limbaugh to run for public office, given his record of fairly straightforward race-baiting. (Limbaugh, who in the words of Harvard Law School’s Randall Kennedy is an “excellent entrepreneur of racial resentment,” has been on a tear lately. He has accused Obama -- who he says “talks honky” around white people -- and the first lady of abusing public funds as payback for the ill-treatment afforded their ancestors.)

But “food-stamp president” is just indirect enough that Gingrich is protected from detrimental blowback, at least during the largely white Republican primaries.

Kennedy, who studies the role of race in national elections, told me last week of a rule he uses to measure whether a candidate’s appeal to prejudice will succeed: If it takes more than two sentences for a critic to explain why a dog-whistle is a dog-whistle, the whistler wins. Gingrich seems to understand this, and so, despite criticism from blacks, has made the term “food-stamp president” a staple of his stump speeches.

New Realization
Kennedy offers the theory that this campaign’s dog- whistling may be prompted by a realization by right-leaning provocateurs that voters have become inured to charges of racism. I suspect another phenomenon has hastened this realization: A handful of black Republicans have abetted dog-whistling by making their own bombastic statements about the degraded moral health of the black community, the putative foreignness of the Obamas and the Democratic Party’s plantation-like qualities.

The former presidential candidate Herman Cain, who last week endorsed Gingrich, told me in an interview last year that Obama was more “international” than American. He also said that, unlike Obama, he rejects the label “African-American” because he feels “more of an affinity for America than I do for Africa.”

Representative Allen West of Florida, one of two black Republican House members, recently called the Democratic Party a “21st-century plantation” and compared himself to Harriet Tubman. In August, he said, “Today in the black community, we see individuals who are either wedded to a subsistence check or an employment check. Democrat physical enslavement has now become liberal economic enslavement, which is just as horrible.”

How far in intent is West’s message from this one, recently delivered by Rick Santorum in Sioux City, Iowa: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” (Santorum later denied that he said the word “black,” arguing that what he actually said was “blah.” The denial is not credible.)

The writer Gary Younge has noted that in Woodbury County, which includes Sioux City, nine times more whites use food stamps than blacks do. But it doesn’t matter: Santorum wasn’t driven from the race for making such a blatant appeal to white resentment -- instead, he won the Iowa caucus.

An Odd Video
Recently, I watched an educational children’s video produced by a company part-owned by Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate (and current Fox News host). The video series, called “Learn Our History,” is meant as a corrective to a left-wing interpretation of the American story.

In one episode, a group of children are transported to Washington, in the late 1970s, a time when, we are told, “people are out of work and some of their morals are just gone.” The group, walking down a cartoon version of a street from “The Wire,” is confronted by a black mugger in a tank-top emblazoned with the word “Disco.” (Yes, “Disco.”) The mugger says to the time-travelers, “Gimme yo money!”

I asked Huckabee why the video advanced this particular stereotype. We had been speaking about the rationale for the video series, and he had just finished telling me that the project was meant to encourage moral leadership. Then he told me he had nothing to do with writing the show’s scripts, but it was his impression that the mugger wasn’t meant to be black. In any case, we were talking about a cartoon, he said, and cartoons traffic in “caricature.”

This is something cartoons share with many of today’s leading Republicans.

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist and a national correspondent for the Atlantic. The opinions expressed are his own.)



You think it's a game? -poet.

The blah not black cover is just preposterous. Do politicians forget there is video?
 
The blah not black cover is just preposterous. Do politicians forget there is video?

You know the drill. Republicans can say (and pretty much do) anything, and be able to backtrack it, or declare that they were misquoted or misunderstood. Black is white. Up is down. Right is left. And Obama is a Muslim. And a Nazi. Intent on destroying America. And George Bush was the best president we ever had. The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression was a figment of our imagination. And there was WMD. Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny. And the Tooth Fairy.
 
Odd that they would attack Obama for food stamps. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to abolish the system, and they've never done so. Nor do any of the candidates seem to want to do so. And Obama hasn't made any changes to the system that would cause payouts to be more frequent than they otherwise would be. It's still operating under the same rules it always has, making the same payouts it would've been required to pay out under the terms of the law that established it, which would be required of any president.
 
Odd that they would attack Obama for food stamps. The Republicans have had numerous opportunities to abolish the system, and they've never done so. Nor do any of the candidates seem to want to do so. And Obama hasn't made any changes to the system that would cause payouts to be more frequent than they otherwise would be. It's still operating under the same rules it always has, making the same payouts it would've been required to pay out under the terms of the law that established it, which would be required of any president.

The argument they are attempting to make is due to his leadership/handling of the economy this many more Americans are on food stamps.
 
The argument they are attempting to make is due to his leadership/handling of the economy this many more Americans are on food stamps.

Which is not an argument at all. He has been quite stellar, despite the foot dragging and obstructionism of the Republicans.
 
Anyway, this practice is as old as sin. John Calhoun was one of the foremost defenders of slavery in the early 1800's. He wrote a book called "Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States", which provided one of the most elaborate defenses of the practice. The thing is, he actually didn't even mention slavery by name once in the entire thing. The entire book talks about "protecting minorities from majorities", and "states rights". Protect what political minorities from the majorities desire to keep them from doing what? Protect the power of states to continue doing what? It would take an incredibly naive individual to take him at his word, ignore his past, and accept his claims as a wholly disinterested and honest critique of purely systemic issues in American democracy, as if there's no such thing as motivations.

And yet, to this day, I still often here naive individuals making these arguments! "Oh no, the Confederacy had nothing to do with slavery! It was all about states rights being infringed by the government!" Really, now? Can anyone here even think about anything besides slavery that the rebellious states were worried about interference in?

I am reminded of an approach Nietzsche sometimes used. The standard philosophical method had always been to take the argument at it's face and pretend there was no such thing as motivations. And this is how most approached Socrates' bizarre and long-winded arguments about how there was no true reality, and that all that we see is a shadow. Nietzsche, however, took one look at Socrates, and simply wondered about what type of person would make such an argument, and why someone would argue such a thing? And he quickly arrived at the solution: Socrates was ugly. Seriously, dude was hideous. Just look at his bust:

200px-Socrates_Louvre.jpg


In Greek society, where male physical perfection was the tantamount ideal in the eyes of most of society, this was a horrible fate. It would be awfully convenient for him, now wouldn't it, if physical forms were truly irrelevant, and there were some ultimate perfected reality?

And this is the appropriate way to approach conservatives as well. What type of person would want to make the arguments that conservatives do? A racist, of course.
 
Last edited:
The argument they are attempting to make is due to his leadership/handling of the economy this many more Americans are on food stamps.

Really? Because they always attack the program itself. Seems like a roundabout way of doing things. Are they seriously under the impression that Obama is intentionally destroying the American economy with no other purpose in mind than the "enslavement" of blacks to food stamps?

Anyway, conservatives make this argument no matter what the state of the economy is. Anytime a Democratic president is in office, they simply can't shut the fuck up about the subject. Seriously, if you hate it so much, get rid of it. I can at least respect that. I cannot respect you if you are going to bitch about it constantly and yet keep it in place.
 
Which is not an argument at all. He has been quite stellar, despite the foot dragging and obstructionism of the Republicans.

Well there are a record number of people on food stamps. That is fact. It's up to each voter to determine why they believe that is or who deserves credit/blame (in this case it would be blame).
 
Really? Because they always attack the program itself. Seems like a roundabout way of doing things. Are they seriously under the impression that Obama is intentionally destroying the American economy with no other purpose in mind than the "enslavement" of blacks to food stamps?

Anyway, conservatives make this argument no matter what the state of the economy is. Anytime a Democratic president is in office, they simply can't shut the fuck up about the subject. Seriously, if you hate it so much, get rid of it. I can at least respect that. I cannot respect you if you are going to complain about it constantly and yet keep it in place.

Yes, their argument is the result of his policies are a record number of people on food stamps.
 
Lee Atwater explained it quite succinctly:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

When Newt says "foodstamps" he means "n-----" "n-----" "n-----."
 
Yes, their argument is the result of his policies are a record number of people on food stamps.

Ridiculous. This recession is an extraordinary circumstance. Do they honestly think we'd have recovered by now were they in power? You can't make any comparisons to anything more recent than the great depression. The only recession of similar depth was the one that happened in the early 1980's, which was essentially an entirely intentional recession the federal reserve created in an attempt to deal with inflation. However, this recession, just like the Great Depression, followed decades of neo-liberal policies, wasn't predicted* and certainly not intended, and was accompanied by deflation.

It is stupidity to try to hold anyone who's dealing with such circumstances to the standards of those who dealt with much less serious recessions that had much different causes. If you compare Obama's handling of the economy to other countries in modern times dealing with the same recession, rather than previous leaders dealing with totally different circumstances, America's recession has actually been remarkably light, and our recovery has been remarkably swift. Things are far worse right now in the United Kingdom which is, incidentally, controlled by a Conservative government that has been implementing your sides recommended prescription of austerity. Our unemployment levels have been going down since 2009; their's never stopped growing. Our GDP briefly shrank by around 1% for one year, and is now growing again; their's has been going down by 5%.

*Except by those who are always predicting such things; if it rains on a day the weatherman said would be dry, don't respond by running to the guy who predicts rain 365 days a year.
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous. This recession is an extraordinary circumstance. Do they honestly think we'd have recovered by now were they in power? You can't make any comparisons to anything more recent than the great depression. The only recession of similar depth was the one that happened in the early 1980's, which was essentially something the federal reserve created in an attempt to deal with inflation. However, this recession, just like the Great Depression, followed decades of neo-liberal policies, and was accompanied by deflation.

It is stupidity to try to hold anyone who's dealing with such circumstances to the standards of those who dealt with much less serious recessions that had much different causes. If you compare Obama's handling of the economy to other countries in modern times dealing with the same recession, rather than previous leaders dealing with totally different circumstances, America's recession has actually been remarkably light, and our recovery has been remarkably swift. Things are far worse right now in the United Kingdom which is, incidentally, controlled by a Conservative government that has been implementing your sides recommended prescription of austerity. Our unemployment levels have been going down since 2009; their's never stopped growing. Our GDP briefly shrank by around 1% for one year, and is now growing again; their's has been going down by 5%.

You don't have to buy their argument. I'm simply stating the one they are making.
 
The argument they are attempting to make is due to his leadership/handling of the economy this many more Americans are on food stamps.

true, but do you agree...i do not and i think that you do not

the various 'codes' that racists use are clever but not as clever as they think

still it is sad

what is perhaps worst is i am starting to think of the anti-obama crowd as mad dogs :( - they seem to have become the anything at any cost to defeat obama...the end justify the means
 
Back
Top