It's sad, really. We've seen it blossom really in the last three weeks, although the rumblings started much, much earlier. Accusations of racism that stem from evidence invented in the mind of the writer, warnings about the dangers of an extremist right wing given a historically inaccurate embrace, and shocked expressions of dismay at the right wing "mobs" "terrorizing" politicians who are simply trying to do their jobs have one thing in common - an atttempt to marginalize if not silence a legitimate political opposition, a movement, if you will.
Let's look at a few examples first. The op-ed writers at the New York Times have received their marching orders, although left to their own devices I'm quite sure they'd have found their way regardless. First there was Maureen Dowd, who heard voices.
The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days
when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson
yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
She begins with a fallacy - the President not only did lie, he also accused those who disagreed of lying - and then concocts a racial fiction around it. If Ms. Dowd could bring herself to admit that the President did, in fact, lie about the illegal immigrant treatment in HR 3200 and that he did also accuse opponents of lying, her entire thesis falls apart. Next came Bob Herbert, telling us that the "Scourge of racism persists."
For many white Americans, Barack Obama is nothing more than that black
guy in the White House, and they want him out of there. (Mr. Carter
knows a little something about kowtowing to that crowd. During his
presidential campaign in 1976, he blithely let it be known that he had
no problem with residents “trying to maintain the ethnic purity of
their neighborhoods,” and he tossed around ugly terms like “black
intrusion” and “alien groups.” He later apologized.)...
These are bits and pieces of an increasingly unrestrained
manifestation of racism directed toward Mr. Obama that is being fed by
hate-mongers on talk radio and is widely tolerated, if not encouraged,
by Republican Party leaders. It’s disgusting, and it’s dangerous. But
it’s the same old filthy racism that has been there all along and that
has been exploited by the G.O.P. since the 1960s.
I have no
patience with those who want to pretend that racism is not an
out-and-out big deal in the United States, as it always has been. We
may have made progress, and we may have a black president, but the
scourge is still with us. And if you needed Jimmy Carter to remind you
of that, then you’ve been wandering around with your eyes closed.
Well, Bob Herbert sees racism in every act of a person of pallor, so it's not surprising that he treads this path. But doctors can tell you the dangers of anecdotal evidence. In a march of 1 to 1.5 million people a racially-tinged sign only shows that that bearer has problems. It's not as if those on the left haven't brought offensive signs. Would it then be proper to tar all Democrats with that black mark? Finally, we have Frank Rich, who regularly demonstrates that he should have stuck to Broadway reviews.
What made the lone, piercing cry of “You lie!” shocking was that it
breached a previously secure barrier. It was the first time that the
violent rage surging in town-hall meetings all summer blasted into the
same room as the president. Wilson’s televised shout was tantamount to
yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. When he later explained
that his behavior was “spontaneous” rather than premeditated, that was
even more disturbing. It’s not good for the country that a lawmaker
can’t control his anger at Barack Obama. It gives permission to crazy
people.
The White House was right not to second Carter’s motion
and cue another “national conversation about race.” No matter how many
teachable moments we have, some people won’t be taught. (Though how
satisfying it would have been for Obama to dismiss Wilson, like the boorish Kanye West,
as a “jackass.”) But there is a national conversation we must have
right now — the one about what, in addition to race, is driving this
anger and what can be done about it. We are kidding ourselves if we
think it’s only about bigotry, or health care, or even Obama. The
growing minority that feels disenfranchised by Washington can’t be so
easily ghettoized and dismissed.
Apparently Mr. Rich would like to "ghettoize and dismiss" the loyal opposition. That's what fellow Times columnist Thomas Friedman wants, after all. I'm sure they'd have a problem with it if it were the Democrats on the outside looking in.
Former President Jimmy Carter waded into these waters with both feet, further cementing his standing as not only the twentieth century's worst president, but the worst ex-president as well. Nothing like fanning flames that should be doused. He's done it before.
Other media are not exempt. Here's Howard Kurtz.
Is it racial?
Are the protesters, tea-partiers, birthers, deathers, doomsayers and
hecklers motivated, at least in part, by a distinct discomfort with the
country's first black president?
There is no definitive answer, of course, since we are talking about
millions of people, from Joe Wilson, the disrespectful congressman
who's now raised $700,000 for his "you lie" outburst, to the woman who
told Arlen Specter that Obama is trying to transform the US of A "into
Russia, into a socialist country."
But I began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some
critics when I heard them shouting about "the Constitution" and "taking
our country back."
Because, apparently, why else would someone want to bring the nation back to it's founding if not for racism? A full fisking of Mr. Kurtz nonsense is here.
Um, yeah, because conservatives never cite the Constitution as our
guiding document and we never speak of taking our country back. Unless
there's a black guy in office. First time "the Constitution" has really
come up in presidential politics, really.
Maybe Obama's health-care plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big...
Maybe.
...but how exactly is any of this unconstitutional?
Clearly, for some folks, there's a deeper rage at the man occupying the
White House.
How's this for a deeper rage: It was obvious Obama was a man of the
left who always intended to take the country in an unprecedented veer
to the left, but for two years he ran as a "moderate" and the supposedly nonpartisan media covered for his constant transparent lies.
Maybe that accounts for the "deeper rage."
Chris Matthews is another who takes the intellectually lazy road. As you read the transcript what strikes you is how little substance, how few facts are presented to back up the suppositions. Mr. Matthews takes a bunch of liberal democrats and gets them to say, "hey, I think it's racism." Proof positive.
Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ has a look at the Obama presidency thus far. He finds it an unimpressive lump, and it's all policy and analysis, with not a word about race. I'm sure some of the luminaries above can read between the lines, though.
This is all about shutting up the opposition, about changing the discussion from "I have legitimate concerns about the President's policies and the direction he seems to want to take the country" to "No, I'm not a racist." This is, of course, impossible to prove to the accusers. The only evidence that will prove it to them is to change your beliefs to match theirs, to acquiesce to the left's policies, to fall into line. Your opposition is, to them, proof of racism. They don't want to be seen as stifling dissent; they'd like you to stifle yourself voluntarily, to prove yourself.
If the Democrats and liberal media could marginalize the opponents of ObamaCare, of Cap & Trade, of the "Stimulus" bill, of the abandonment of Honduran democracy, of the lunacy of capitulation to Putin's Russia on missile defense, of card check, of government takeovers of private industry by winning arguments on the merits - without lying - they would. The accelerating accusations of racism are growing evidence that they cant.
9/21/09 1200: As I mentioned above, drawing broad conclusions from anecdotal evidence can be a dangerous thing. But maybe journalists such as Mr. Herbert are onto something. If so, then Iowahawk has some anecdotal evidence that should raise their eyebrows.
"Unless we do something quickly, America's editorial offices and
news studios will become potential killing fields," says Treacher.
"It's not enough that we treat media veterans with revulsion and
contempt. They also deserve our pity."
Among the programs Treacher suggests are intensive anger management,
drugs, psychotherapy, lobotomization, and "an anti-retard patch of some
sort."
"Maybe they could spend some mandatory shifts at the Sudoku desk, to help them with math and reasoning skills," he adds.
Like Owens, Treacher believes there is a strong correlation between journalism and sociopathy, but he has his own theory.
"Actually, I think the effect is in the opposite direction,"
explains Treacher. "Journalism doesn't always cause stupid, but stupid
sure causes journalism."
