Catholic Presidential Candidates and Racial Stereotyping
An Open Letter challenging Republican Presidential candidates Santorum and Gingrich to avoid “ugly racial stereotypes” about those who receive government assistance–on Catholic grounds.
Who, then, receives government assistance? According to the latest government report, whites were a slightly greater percentage of the population receiving government assistance than African-Americans. Moreover, nearly half the recipients were “child-only” families–in which no adult received assistance. 95 percent of adults receiving assistance were parents or caretakers –the vast majority were women. A friend of mine said to me, “If you can’t find a job and you are a single adult with no children, you’re out of luck.”
Santorum tried to claim that he didn’t actually engage in racial stereotyping in talking about recipients of government assistance. Did he? Stephen Colbert doesn’t think so. Judge for yourself.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Stephen Colbert by all appearances and accounts seems to be a very committed Catholic who is also very educated about his faith, its ideals, its failings.
His faux presidential campaign is just the necessary and needed satire for all the so-called Christian bloviation going on in the Republican primaries.
Santorum and Gingrich will never allow themselves to actually share a stage with the adroit comic because Colbert will stick a pin and easily deflate their gasbag pretensions and hypocrisies.
John McWhorter, an African American commentator, has posted a commentary at “The Root” defending some of Santorum’s statements. (McWhorter himself may be from a Catholic background, but I’m not sure about that.)
I sincerely hope that these prominent Catholics lent their names to a public letter on evidence less slender than video clips cut up and pasted by Colbert’s producers.
I don’t suppose many of the signatories actually watch Republican primary debates. If any of them had, they would have heard Juan Williams ask Gingrich, directly and assertively, about the phrase “food stamp president” that apparently is being used to try to convict him of racism, and would have heard Gingrich’s response. The exchange is here. Please watch it for yourself.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Gingrich-Williams-debate-food/2012/01/17/id/424388
There is nothing racist about Gingrich’s proposal. His remarks are really no different than the idea that drove the welfare reform that, as Speaker, he helped shepherd through Congress in 1996: the best way to end poverty is for poor people to work.
Jim P, Did you think that audience clamoring response in that debate appeared to be racist? And was Gingrich playing to his audience?
I can’t wait for an open letter from the professor and her fellow Commonweal Catholics to President Obama regarding his outrageous attack on religious liberty via the contraceptive/sterilization mandate.
Or you can just play another clip of Colbert…
Words and images have a public meaning – not a private one.
The idea that Newt (a serial adulterer) and Rick (who probably wouldn’t recognize CST if he fell on top of it) are “the Catholic candidates” is one of the reasons that public faces of this church make it less and less attractive to more and more people. And, yes, JFK wasn’t exactly a Catholic poster child, either.
Rick Santorum on his support for legislation to allow ex-felons to vote:
“This is Martin Luther King Day. This is a huge deal in the African-American community, because we have very high rates of incarceration, disproportionately high rates, particularly with drug crimes, in the African-American community.
“The bill I voted on was the Martin Luther King Voting Rights bill. And this was a provision that said, particularly targeted African-Americans. And I voted to allow — to allow them to have their voting rights back once they completed their sentence.”
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/99770/in-defense-rick-santorum
The New Republic comments that this position is “as likely to win Santorum votes in the GOP South Carolina primary as cutting up the Confederate flag in front of the state Capitol for napkins. Yet there he was, saying this.”
Before we go any further on the “is he or isn’t he racist?” conversation, I’d like to suggest Jay Smooth’s short (only 3 minutes), insightful and fast moving instructional video (from all the way back in 2008) on “How To Tell People They Sound Racist” as an invaluable resource for such conversations. http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html
(Seriously. If you have time to make a comment on the subject, you have time to check it out.)
Which demographic group has been hardest hit in this down economy?
Which has the highest unemployment rate? Which has the lowest income rate?
Brett, could you limit conversation of Obama’s mandated contraception coverage to that comment thread please? Oh, wait…
Kind of big news for civil liberties and law, right? Nothing like a ignoring this major story via subterfuge… say labeling an opposing candidate “racist” or some other ad hominem.
In regards to the unconstitutional mandate, his Catholic enablers said this would never, ever happen in regards to ObamaCare and now it has…and they play Colbert tapes.
Brett: The editors of COMMONWEAL published an editorial about the regulations. In addition, there was a thread about the editorial.
Gentlemen, this thread was in the works before the announcement about the mandate. It has its own value. I want time to think before writing about the mandate.
What bothers me more than the “bla” people remark is the overly simple notion that a good portion of our economic problems could be solved if we handed poor people’s kids a broom at age 10 to foster a work ethic.
I’m hard pressed to see where a kid raised by two parents working three jobs to make ends meet doesn’t get a pretty fair exposure to the importance of meeting one’s financial obligations and supporting oneself.
My kid certainly doesn’t need to be handed the custodian’s broom at his school to learn how important making a living is. In fact, since the district canned all the full-time custodians as a cost-saving measure and now hires only part-timers who don’t get benefits, most of the current custodians are schoolmates’ parents working a second shift for extra money.
Added benefit: Amazing how vandalism goes down when you know whose mom or dad is the one who’s going to have to clean up your mess …
“According to the latest government report, whites were a slightly greater percentage of the population receiving government assistance than African-Americans. ”
I can’t vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but it implies that the percentage of African-Americans receiving government assistance is much larger than the percentage of whites. Is that really true? And if it is, what is the purpose of calling attention to it?
Margaret: Was the audience racist? No. (I wonder if anyone here would assume otherwise?)
Is Newt playing to the audience? Of course.
Why was Newt’s response red meat for that audience? I would suggest a couple of reasons. One is that the impatience of conservatives with War on Poverty-style programs (which, in the view of conservatives, are thoroughly discredited) is difficult to overstate. That is sufficient, I believe, to explain why Newt’s response, in the clip I provided, was a grand slam for that audience.
Newt is not invulnerable to charges of racial insensitivity. The Daily Show, a week or so ago, showed a pretty devastating montage. Newt’s response should be viewed, I believe, as an attempt to nip that perception in the bud.
I don’t believe that any of the Republican candidates are racist. That is not to say that they will not say dopy or goofy things from time to time. Newt, who seems to speak off the cuff, is probably the most at risk.
Patrick Molloy’s comment of 1/20, 7:34 pm is deserving of a response – from signatories of that letter.
Distinction: politicians who make racist remarks because they are racists v. politicians who make racist remarks to get the racist vote
I recently heard Ron Paul accused of the later such racist speech in his newsletters.
Distinction: explicit communication v. communication by suggestion:
The latter includes the use of code words and phrases which have the effect of identifying a speaker with the sub-group to which he/she is speaking. Example: a non-Louisianian who sprinkles his speech with “Who dat say . . . ” would easily be taken by a Saints fan to be a member of the sub-group ‘Saints fan’. Politicians use code words to ingratiate themselves with their audiences by a pseudo-identification through the use of the audience’s own, preferred vocabulary, some of which can be offensive to other sub-groups.
The question here is: is “food stamp president” in a political context in So. Carolina a code phrase? I say it’s theoretically possible that Gingerich didn’t intend it as such, but if he is as smart as some say he is, he probably did know how his *audience would understand his words* whether or not he himself really thinks that the President is a friend of whichever deadbeats misuse food stamps.
About the misuse of political numbers: The other night Stephen Colbert was exulting over the latest poll in South Carolina. He said that he had 35% of the vote to Romney[s 33%. He then whooped: “That’s more than half!!!!’
There are lies, damn lies, and Stephen :-)
@Jim Pauwels (1/21, 12:02 am) “I don’t believe any of the Republican candidates are racist” is the direction I was hoping to help avoid taking by posting the link to Jay Smooth’s video above (1/20, 7:34 pm).
In it, he makes the distinction between the “what they did” conversation and the “what they are” conversation. The “what they are” conversation is, in my experience, fruitless. It almost inevitably ends up with one side shouting “you’re a racist” and the other side shouting back “no, I’m not” or “no, you’re racist”. Not very helpful.
The “what they did” conversation, on the other hand, can end up in a different, and more useful place.
Is Newt Gingrich racist? I don’t know. I have no way of knowing what’s in his heart.
Is what Newt Gingrich did by repeatedly calling Pres. Obama the “food stamp president” racist? I have no hesitation in answering yes to that question. In that phrasing, and the way Gingrich has repeatedly used it, he’s clearly drawing upon racist stereotypes and assumptions in his attempt to win votes in Republican presidential primaries in caucuses.
Given the unique role South Carolina plays in our nation’s history of race and racism, it’s not surprising that the racist things Gingrich has done in recent weeks have resonated with that electorate—to the point that he’s on the verge of winning today’s primary.
Am I calling Newt Gingrich a racist? No. Has he made a number of racist statements in the days and weeks leading up to today’s primary? Yes. See the difference?
P.S. Props to Rick Santorum for the anti-racist things he said on MLK Day about voting rights for ex-felons. (And thanks to Patrick Molloy @1/20, 7:34 pm for bringing it into our conversation here.) In not-entirely-unrelated news, Santorum is expected to finish a distant fourth in today’s voting.
Let me echo the above claim: The question is the way the language functions–not with the inner heart of Gingrich or Santorum. I am not as impressed with Rick Santorum’s talking about voting rights for ex felons on MLK Day–it reinforces the image of African Americans as felons on a day meant to celebrate achievements and engender hope. How would you respond if a politician on St. Patrick’s Day referenced it by opening a new in-patient facility for alcoholics? Or the day of the Pope’s visit, a governor noted in his speech before the Pope that he had made available the new missal to the priests arrested for child abuse? Ann is right, language is coded. And I think this coded language reinforces stereotypes.
And I’m sorry Jim, I’m really not impressed with Gingrich’s defense. I heard the remark, and I heard the response. I think it traded in racial stereotypes. And I don’t why you would think that academics wouldn’t watch or google the presidential debates. I read the report on whose actually receiving assistance. It’s mainly kids, or those caring for kids.
And I find the idea of making little kids (of whatever color) serve as janitors at their own schools morally repugnant.
“The question is the way the language functions–not with the inner heart of Gingrich or Santorum. I am not as impressed with Rick Santorum’s talking about voting rights for ex felons on MLK Day–it reinforces the image of African Americans as felons on a day meant to celebrate achievements and engender hope. ”
The problem I see with this formulation is that it renders any policy position with which you disagree subject to being labelled racist. Indeed it flips the entire discussion on its head, rendering it meaningless. Sanatorium’s comment shows this precisely. I heard the President & Al Sharpton on MLK Day talk about the incarceration rate among black young men, with Sharpton attacking conservative policies as a leading cause of this. Yet it is the white Reublican who gets castigated for trading in racist imagery because he mentions his political action with respect to said incarceration rate. I suppose next Santorum’s comments about the debilitating economic effects of family instability are up for labelling as racist, never mind the fact that the facts bear his position out. (Where’s Daniel Patrick Moynihan when you need him.) And of course no mention is made of the President’s $35,000/ plate fundraiser last night with some rap moguls who produce music videos with some of the most vile language and female debasement.
So in this telling, I suppose it’s only acceptable for black politicians to talk about the incarceration rate on MLK Day? Or if Nancy Pelosi had said something along the lines of Santorum’s, would it be acceptable? My take away from this is that with respect to white Republicans, from Prof. Kaveney’s view, it’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
Jeff Landry,
I see a rather dramatic difference between saying you support giving convicted (black) felons their voting rights back after they are released form prison, and saying many blacks should never have gone to prison in the first place.
Republican strategy since the 1960s (in presidential elections, at least) has been to appeal as much as possible to white men (including racists) while writing off black people. It’s called the southern strategy.
Racist?? the 1960s retort to “some of my best friends are Black’ was… ‘what’s their phone number’… I bet Gingrich has no phone numbers.
The 1990s retort to “I am on the side of low-income people” in a French presidential campaign: “Then tell me, off the top of your head, how much does a subway ticket cost?” – - the candidate was stumped, thus indicating that he never took the subway.
I go back to Don Lemon on CNN asking if the GOP had become the party of white Americans and Dan Rather saying that GOP candidates should be asked what they would do to help those in poverty.
Of course we know everyone in their hear ttoday harbors no prejudce(or is that just a way of avoiding issues about race being talked about honestly>)
Jeff –
I grant you that there is a problem with getting at the real meanings of politicians words. If merely mentioning code words (e.g., lifetime on welfare) were intrinsically racist, then those words would always be racist in intent and discussion of such problems (e.g., lifetime on welfare) would be disqualified from public discourse. So how to resolve this difficulty?
As is usual with semantic problems we need to look at the context in which a word or phrase is uttered. Does, for instance, Gingerich talk about defenders of food stamp programs mainly when he is talking to (assumed) racists? Does he discuss the issue in *other* contexts? If he limits the use of those words to talks with (assumed) racists, then I think we can be pretty sure that he is using them as code words.
But I grant you that the problems with code words can never be entirely resolved. Southern congresspersons *had* to talk about voting right in the 60′s. So were they being racist when they used the words? I say the only way to tell would be to look at how they voted. You didn’t find Sen.Bilbo voting to guarantee voting rights for all. You did find Hale Boggs doing so.
“Is what Newt Gingrich did by repeatedly calling Pres. Obama the “food stamp president” racist? I have no hesitation in answering yes to that question. ”
Luke – there is no racial content to the phrase “food stamp president”. People of all colors are eligible for public assistance. More Caucasians than African Americans receive public aid. Anyone who helps feed the hungry knows this. Why would you, or anyone, assume that food stamps are only, or primarily, for black people?
I think Jim should visit Fr. Pfleger’s parish and ask them if they think the”food stamp president” comment was racist? Noone assumes food stamps are prinarily for blacksm but issues of poverty inordinately affect blacks.Instead of framing issues in terms of one’s political preferemce, it would be good to put on the eyes of the poor
Like the embrace of the Southern strategy by the GOP back then, Gingrich and Santorum are playing to the white Southern gentry.
I thought Colbert did a good job of skewering the divisivenes these “Catholic” candidates bring.
“Let me echo the above claim: The question is the way the language functions–not with the inner heart of Gingrich or Santorum. ”
No, the question is that those who signed the letter are accusing two major presidential candidates of “perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes”.
The evidence offered in the letter in support of that inflammatory accusation is virtually non-existent.
Both men have lengthy public records, and both have made innumerable public appearances in the current campaign. If there are long and consistent patterns of racially stereotypical words and deeds, these academics who signed the letter should be capable of documenting them. Where is the evidence?
“I am not as impressed with Rick Santorum’s talking about voting rights for ex felons on MLK Day–it reinforces the image of African Americans as felons on a day meant to celebrate achievements and engender hope. How would you respond if a politician on St. Patrick’s Day referenced it by opening a new in-patient facility for alcoholics?”
I don’t know if the stereotype of the Irish American drunk has any basis in fact, but I am certain it is true that African Americans are incarcerated at disproportionate rates. Like Rick Santorum, I believe that re-integrating released convicts, including the disproportionate number of African American convicts, back into society is a worthy social goal. And I don’t believe it’s racist to invoke Dr. King’s legacy in advocating that goal.
“I think Jim should visit Fr. Pfleger’s parish and ask them if they think the”food stamp president” comment was racist?”
Uh huh. Let’s suppose that those parishioners think the phrase is racist. We already know that Newt Gingrich thinks it isn’t racist, and we’re pretty sure the South Carolina audience thinks it isn’t racist. Who gets to decide? Or is everyone right?
It’s odd that the self-described Catholic leaders did not pillory Gingrich and Santorum for invoking other stereotypes that are homophobic, misogynistic or nativist. Did their powers of observation fail them? Or can we assume they’ve not het discovered anything improper in the candidates’ views on these topics?
My educated guess, however, is that their silence does not indicate approval and, once they reconsider, we can expect the leaders to hurl additional thunderbolts, in a scrupulously nonpartisan way of course and only after the most thorough and intense analysis of a variety of linguistic codes, all to the complete satisfaction of fair minded Catholic prophets, even if not to other puzzled members of the left. We still have eleven months for them to perfect their analytic abilities.
“And I find the idea of making little kids (of whatever color) serve as janitors at their own schools morally repugnant.”
To the contrary, it would be an admirable improvement if all children, everywhere, had to do the janitorial duties at their own schools. There’s nothing wrong (quite the contrary) with learning to clean up after yourself, rather than having a sense of entitlement that other people deemed lower than oneself are always going to pick up trash, etc.
Stuart, all children, everywhere-yes. Poor children only- no.
“Luke – there is no racial content to the phrase “food stamp president”. ”
Jim: give me a call. I have a great looking bridge across the Golden Gate that you can have very, very cheaply.
1 800 555 1234 and ask for Boopsie.
“I see a rather dramatic difference between saying you support giving convicted (black) felons their voting rights back after they are released form prison, and saying many blacks should never have gone to prison in the first place.”
And??? I’d think the more politically risky statement is the former. I don’t see the President talking about rehabilitative justice for felons.
@Ann- My point is confusion about what in Santorum’s statement is “coded”? The options, to me, are the following: the content (rehabilitative justice for felons), the setting (MLK day), his race (white) or his politics (conservative). My guess is the latter.
” Why would you, or anyone, assume that food stamps are only, or primarily, for black people?”
Jim P. –
You wouldn’t and I wouldn’t. But some would. They’re called racists *because* that is the sort of assumption they automatically make.
“Like the embrace of the Southern strategy by the GOP back then, Gingrich and Santorum are playing to the white Southern gentry.”
No, Bob, not the gentry. They’re manipulating the poor whites or former poor whites, some of whom still feel the need to feel superior to somebody. Yes, some of the gentry are still racists, but those, I think, tend to be the nutters who need someone to hate, not just someone to feel superior to. Or maybe it’s different it South Carolina. Complexity, complexity.
Jim P. –
About the ex-prisoners and voting — how many ex-prisoners are likely to vote at all? The last thing the recidivists want is for the government to even know where they live. This is a non-issue if anyone is thinking about counting votes.
I didn’t mention Santorum above because what I’ve heard him say on TV has not struck me as using code words. Also, given what he says about his grandfather’s background in Italy, I think he might have a certain sympathy for black Americans. Gingrich on the other hand . . . I don’t know if he[s a racist, but he certainly seems quite willing to use code language. Either way I find him despicable.
I don’t have much more to say about this. South Carolina’s primary has now come and gone. Apparently I erred in describing Rick Santorum as a major candidate. It appears he’ll be out of the race within two weeks. Newt has just scored a smashing victory and the entire nomination is up for grabs. If I have to keep buying Boudway drinks at this rate, he won’t be able to drive home.
I’ve just read two news reports and two commentaries as to what happened in South Carolina, and the word “race” didn’t appear in any of them, except as it pertains to “political race”. Apparently the folks on the press buses don’t have their decoder rings on, either. On the other hand, they have actually spent a lot of time within the borders of the state of South Carolina over the last ten days, following the candidates and talking to voters. Perhaps they’ve all filed stories on the rampant racism that is widely believed around here to persist among South Carolina Republicans, but if so, I’ve missed them all. Perhaps one of you will be so good as to provide URLs.
To the list of the letter’s demerits, I guess we can add irrelevance. Even as an exercise in detraction, it isn’t very good.
@Jim Pauwels, (1/21, 4:01 & 11:47 pm) Thanks again for your comments. To clarify, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve known for almost my entire life that food stamps aren’t just for African-Americans. I grew up in one of the poorest and whitest states in the country; and I’ve lived most of my adult life in a city sometimes known for having the largest white ghetto in the country. Plenty of people using food stamps to keep body and soul together, all of them European-Americans.
At this point in the proceedings, perhaps it’s best if I link to Ta-Nehisi Coates of “The Atlantic”, a far better writer on these issues than I. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/real-racists-do-real-things/251625/ This is a post he wrote after one of the South Carolina debates. The whole thing is well worth reading, but for our purposes this is the key excerpt:
“When a professor of history calls Barack Obama a “Food Stamp President,” it isn’t a mistake to be remedied through clarification; it is a statement of aggression. And when a crowd of his admirers cheer him on, they are neither deluded, nor in need of forgiveness, nor absolution, nor acting against their interest. Racism is their interest. They are not your misguided friends. They are your fully intelligent adversaries, sporting the broad range of virtue and vice we see in humankind.”
So, again, the “food stamp president” line is a “racist thing that Newt Gingrich did” (and has done repeatedly for months on the campaign trail despite being called out on it), and that he did again last night in his victory speech). It does not mean Gingrich “is a racist”. It means he is a person seeking the most powerful elected office in this country who regularly does racist things. It is reasonable to conclude that, if he were elected president, he would continue to do racist things regularly during his term of office.
P.S. Charlie Pierce is not and never claimed to be an “objective” journalist, but he is (in my view) a very good reporter—one who does his homework, visits places, interviews people, and puts all of it into his writing…along with his own version of highly opinionated liberal, Massachusetts-Irish-Catholic political and social thought. He’s had a few things to say about racism and the South Carolina Republican electorate. Since you asked, here are links to some of what he’s written for “Esquire” on the topic in the last couple of days:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/newt-gingrich-south-carolina-headquarters-6642181
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/south-carolina-primary-results-6642563
Not that I like Newt, but he does have a long history of openly criticizing conservatives about racial issues: http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004/04/kleiman-on-newt.html
Sometimes I wonder if this country would be in better shape if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee in 2008 instead of Obama. Surely there is less antagonism against women than against African-Americans, and maybe she would not have faced as many obstacles in governing… I wonder if this country was quite ready for a black president…
@Studebaker (1/22, 9:18 am) Thanks for the link. Among other things, this reinforces the value of (I think) Jay Smooth’s distinction between the “what they did” and “what they are” conversations about race and racism.
Speaking just for myself, I’m just not very interested in a discussion about whether Newt Gingrich (or Barack Obama, or John Boehner, or Nancy Pelosi) is “racist”. On the other hand, I am interested in whether a politician is someone who has a history and record of doing racist things. Not to belabor the point, but as best I can tell, Newt Gingrich falls into that category. In particular, many of his words and actions in South Carolina over the past two weeks, fall into that category.
FWIW, here’s a column by Ron Brownstein about the issue of race in South Carolina politics:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/why-racial-polarization-is-still-central-to-south-carolina-politics/251765/
Brownstein’s key conclusion is that “the dominant fact of South Carolina politics is racial polarization”. (Some historians have made the case that racial polarization has been the dominant fact of South Carolina politics for the nation’s entire history.)
I think we make a mistake when we infer that because a group of people is anti-”entitlement” that it is always racism that’s at play. Yes, there are people who hate people on welfare, and, yes, most on welfare in the cities are black (at least in the South that seems to be the case), but I think that gets the cause-effect relationship backwards in some cases. Some people hate people on welfare because they hate “entitlements”, which they view as something-for-nothing which *they* have too pay for. Most on welfare that they know are black, so they can’t stand blacks. Notice that So. Carolina elected an Indian-American governor, and Louisians elected an (Asian) Indian-American governor who is as dark as any Afro-American (and he’s likely to be re-elected). I think that in many cases, at any rate, that the objection is to the “free” programs, not to the ethnic group as such.
But I don’t doubt that there is still a lot of pure-d racism in all this.
(P. S. Does anybody know if there a word for people from India besides “Indian”? The social studies people call American Indians “Amer-Indians”, but what’s the word if you want to talk about an India-Indian? Is there such a word?
If I may be allowed to speak (for myself) as a white, middle class white Southerner, I think the aim of this post and its comments reinforces to many in the South the futility of “race dialogues.” Again, the game appears to be rigged so that one sees a “Southern strategy” wherever one wants. It’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” I’m not all that interested in defedending Gingrich because I personally believe he is a hypocritical pompous windbag, but the notion that Santorum is playing to racial tropes in his comments is simply laughable on its face to me. Again, if Ted Kennedy had given a MLK Day speech in, say, Memphis in which he spoke about his record of support for restoring the franchise for convicted felons (of all races, but a majority of whom happen to be African-Americans convicted of silly drug possession charges), we aren’t having this conversation with its solipsistic distinctions bewteen whether one “is” a racist or just “doing” racist things. The sad thing, to me, is that this kind of “dialogue” about race does more harm to racial harmony because, again, many white, middle class Southerners like myself quickly conclude that, no matter what I say or do (with the exception of registering as a Democrat perhaps and abandoning conservative principles) I’ll be accused of racism. Meanwhile, we choose to ignore uncomfortable conversations about the impact of serial single-parenthood has on the education, welfare, and safety of poor African-American children, or the impact of a “gangsta rap” culture has on the mores and attitudes of under-employed African American males because we don’t want to appear “insensitive.”
Luke – Ta-Nehisi Coates’ starting point is that Newt’s words are racist, and that the people who cheered Newt Gingrich were cheering racist words because they were racist. (Note that I’m trying to formulate this as you’d like such things to be formulated, but in fact I don’t see the distinction between racist words/actions and racism itself as being as clear-cut as you apparently do). But that is precisely what hasn’t been established – that Newt’s words or the audience’s reaction are racist. Coates and the signatories of this letter are entitled to their unsupported opinions, but without any supporting evidence, there is no particular reason I should take them seriously.
Ron Brownstein points out that South Carolina’s electorate consists of 1/3 African Americans who vote monolithically Democratic, and 2/3 Caucasions and others who vote, less monolithically but still decisively, Republican. I would say that putting those two facts adjacent to one another doesn’t add up to Newt’s words or the audience’s reaction being racist. It does mean that there is a divided electorate in South Carolina, and that division seems to correlate fairly strongly with racial identity. Perhaps, fifty or one hundred years ago, that division would have been overtly racially-motivated. Nevertheless, conservatives can support conservative principles for non-racial reasons, and progressives can support progressive principles for non-racial reasons. Once again, the claim that there is some sinister racist motivation requires some actual evidence.
@Jim Pauwels (1/23, 11:06 am) Thanks for your response.
I’m sorry I’m not being clearer. Maybe a different example would help. Imagine a white man managing a Woolworth’s store in the South in the 1950s. Imagine he believes in the full equality of all humans. Now imagine him refusing to serve a cup of coffee at the lunch counter to a black customer—not because of what’s in his heart, but because he’s obeying the law. That, I would submit, would be an example of racist behavior by someone who is not a racist.
Rather than go back-and-forth again about Gingrich’s words and actions, I’ll link to this dispassionate and well-reasoned (or so it seems to me) post by Peter Suderman at reason.com: http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/23/bush-and-obama-the-food-stamp-presidents
“Under Bush, the program grew by 14.7 million individuals; under Obama so far, it’s grown by 14.2 million, and, as of October, was declining.
So Bush wins on volume, and Obama wins on velocity: In just a few years, President Obama managed to expand the program by nearly as much as Bush. But Obama didn’t do it without some help from his Republican predecessor, who approved policy changes that set the stage for the program’s current growth.”
To remove our discussion from the heat of the moment, I’m curious whether you (and others) would consider Ronald Reagan’s invocation of “states’ rights” at the Neshoba County Fair in his first campaign speech after receiving his party’s nomination in 1980 to be an example of racist behavior? (Knowing something about the history and context of the situation, in my view the answer would be “yes”.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia,_Mississippi
http://youtu.be/eX_eTDP-CSg
I agree with Jeff that we need a real and wide ranguing conversation about t race. I disagree that the candidates spoken about in SC weren’t using a race card – and no it’s not just every poor or middle class white in the South being picked on – but IMO there is still lots of southern strategy.
Maybe I’m just naive about this, or perhaps I just want to move to a more substantive conversation, but I don’t find what Regan did in ’80, nor Gingrich’s rhetoric all that different than the tactics of someone like Al Sharpton. In other words, I think this represents a political tactic to play upon resentment and suspicion more than anything about race in particular. I don’t think this tactic peculiar to white Republicans, although I know that view is unpopular.
For white Southerners of my generation, there is no Southern strategy as the images and rhetoric of politicians from the late ’60s simply do not resonate with us. And as I said above, the constant accusations of “racism” or “insensitivity” have frankly increasingly fallen on deaf ears.
Hey, Luke, that food stamps article in Reason isn’t good – it’s GREAT! Thanks for the link.
The parallel to President Reagan’s Mississippi speech is interesting. I just Googled “Gingrich food stamp president”, and found an article on the very first page of results going back to August 5 of last year. So presumably he’s been using the line for months, including in Iowa and New Hampshire, neither of which has as fraught a history of racial relations as South Carolina. Do you argue that using the same line in Iowa and New Hampshire is also intended to be interpreted as some sort of racial code?
@Jim Pauwels (1/23, 4:02 pm) You’re welcome. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
To answer your question—yeah, pretty much. The fact that IA and NH have (in some ways) very different histories with race than SC may help explain why Gingrich finished a distant 4th in both states. (Though I hasten to add that I’m not claiming it’s the only factor…or even the dominant factor necessarily.)
I think Jeff Landry has something of a point (@1/23, 2:55 pm) as well. If you go back and read speeches, or watch TV news clips from the 1960s, it’s clear that young Southerners (and Americans in general) today have grown up in, and live in, what is, in many ways, a radically different (and better) society when it comes to issues of race and racism.
On the other hand, Faulkner’s famous line about the past not even being past contains an important kernel of truth—not just for Southerners, but for all of us. As the comedian Louis C.K. says, the Civil War is only “two old ladies, back to back” away.
150 years. He means that a baby girl born in, say, Texas, in 1860 would have memories of being enslaved. If she died in 1935, a descendant of hers born in 1930 would have memories of her. Memories that would still be alive today when that woman is 81. That’s how far removed we are from slavery as a dominant social institution in our nation.
This is not about picking on white Southerners, or conservatives. This is (in my view) about all of us working together, supporting each other, holding each other accountable, so that we may all live in greater liberation from the sin of racism.
“This is not about picking on white Southerners, or conservatives. This is (in my view) about all of us working together, supporting each other, holding each other accountable, so that we may all live in greater liberation from the sin of racism.”
Luke, while I appreciate your sentiment, frankly this entire discussion is the reason many white Southerners such as myself believe that race discussions inhibit achieving the goal you’ve articulated above. I perceive a double-standard where (as I’ve already stated) it seems the game is rigged so that no matter what a white conservative says, it is subject to the label of racism. The Joseph Gao race here in my home district in New Orleans illustrates not only this double-standard, but also the new generation of Republicans for whom the southern strategy is wholly inapplicable. As you may know, Gao is a former Jesuit seminarian turned lawyer who works among the substantial Vietnamese community here in New Orleans who defeated the long-time incumbent William Jefferson in the majority (by a long shot) black district. Gao spoke openly about the culture of government dependency among many New Orleanians, and the impact of the disintegrating family structures have economically and socially; he also supported the closure of decrepit housing projects in favor or mixed income housing arrangements that have proven highly popular with residents. Al Sharpton came to town to campaign for Gao’s black challenger, and castigated Gao’s rhetoric, and insensitivity to racial issues and told all-black audiences that it was time to “take back” the district and elect someone who “was one of them.” Never mind the fact, too, that the entire prosecution of Cong. Jefferson, according to Rev. Sharpton, was purely motivated by race.
So, who, exactly, in this telling is using “coded” language? Who is engaging in “racist” language to scare up resentments among people? Al Sharpton has a TV show; Joe Gao is back working among the Vietnamese shrimpers. It is this double standard that simply makes me tune out when I hear the word “racist.”
Jeff –
I’m in Cao’s district too. I even voted for him second round, in spite of his party affiliation. (I figured that good guys like him are desperately needed in his party, and the Democratic opponent looked crooked.) But Cao won because the black majority didn’t vote automatically for a black man (Jefferson). They also voted for our new white mayor, Mitch Landrieu. That really don’t say much about the white folks in our district, though I should mention that the worst racists in the district moved to the suburbs a couple of generations ago after the schools were integrated. But I agree — the changes in people here about racial issues have been deep, though not universal. But we had Archbishop Rummell as far back as the ’30s working to change us. He was the game-changer here.
Oops — should have been:
Cao won his first race because the black majority didn’t vote automatically for a black man (Jefferson).
@Jeff Landry (1/23, 5:11 pm) & Ann Olivier (1/23, 9:27 pm) I’m so far removed from the situtation that I don’t have anything to add to the discussion about the politics of race swirling around Rep. Cao’s election and subsequent defeat. Thank-you both for providing the kind of detailed local information and knowledge that makes the internet in general and this blog in particular such an interesting forum.
Jeff, I think I have some appreciation for the situation you and some other conservatives find yourself in as regards to the politics of race. It seems to me in some ways it’s similar to the situation many liberals have found themselves in as regards the politics of war and patriotism over the past two generations.
John Kerry and Al Gore both found their patriotism and “toughness” on foreign policy questioned in ways that George W. Bush largely did not—despite the fact that they were both in the tiny minority of privileged young men who volunteered to serve in the Vietnam War. Whether liberals like it or not, whether it’s fair or not, it’s something that kind of goes with the territory in our national politics—and it has for at least the last 40-60 years.
More to the point, feeling like it’s unfair (as I do) and pointing out examples of one’s opponents not living up to their own standards (as I have) just doesn’t work (at least in my experience). We all bear the burdens (and blessings) of history and have to figure out how best to live with them—and how best to move forward. Given the history of the Republican Party over the past 40 years on the issue of race, that’s a burden conservatives are likely to have to bear for at least the short-to-medium-term future.
That’s why I take the recent examples of prominent non-white, and non-male Republican elected officals as a sign of hope and progress. Joseph Cao, Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio, and others are all—among other things—signs that the Republican Party may be moving towards a politics that further marginalizes racist behavior. Here’s hoping it continues.
“That’s why I take the recent examples of prominent non-white, and non-male Republican elected officals as a sign of hope and progress. Joseph Cao, Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Marco Rubio, and others are all—among other things—signs that the Republican Party may be moving towards a politics that further marginalizes racist behavior. Here’s hoping it continues.”
My only point in raising Cao’s election as an example is that we won’t get past it unless our liberal counterparts stop being so willing to accuse us of racism everytime we talk about, say, school choice for poor black inner city children. As the saying goes, it takes 2 to tango, and as long as provocateurs like Al Sharpton continue to hurl the race card at anyone on the right, such a marginalization will never occur.
@Ann – As you well know, the reason Cao won the first time is because the black turnout was low, not because they voted for Cao. The second election was determined by a higher black turnout, ginned up in part by scare tactics from Al Sharpton.
i agree re: Rummel. An effective use of magisterial authority, wouldn’t you say?
@Jeff Landry (1/24, 9:28 am) I appreciate your persistence in this thread. And I think I understand your point about Rep. Cao’s election (and loss). But I think you may be missing mine; so at the risk of being redundant and appearing rude, I’ll try again.
Picking up from your Al Sharpton example: if conservatives like you wait until liberal provocateurs stop “using the race card”, I think you’ll likely be waiting a *very* long time to marginalize racist behavior within the Republican Party/conservative coalition. There will *always* be provocateurs using whatever card is available to them to tear down and defeat their political opponents. If it “takes 2 to tango”, then stop dancing with the wrong partner.
Take foreign and military policy, for example. President Obama’s opponents are still questioning his patriotism, let alone the various planks of his foreign policy platform. He still gets called an appeaser. We’re told he’s weakened the US military, when in fact military spending has risen significantly under his administration.
Despite the continued attacks, in recent years Democrats have finally, for the first time in decades, pulled even with Republicans in polling on the question of “who do you trust more on foreign policy issues?”. Why is that?
I’d suggest it’s largely because of what Obama has *done* on foreign and military policy. (Also partly because of what Pres. Clinton did before him.) The best way to overcome a damaged (and damaging) reputation is to demonstrate one’s trustworthiness. To create, in effect, an ever-widening gap between the accusations of one’s opponents and the actions one has taken.
It’s taken liberals and Democrats a full generation to recover from the impact of the Vietnam War on the party’s reputation. There were a lot of bitter intra-party fights and debates along the way, and a lot of failed experiments, and frustrating half-successes.
It was only after decades of work that the party was able to produce and to nominate a candidate like Barack Obama: someone who “opposed stupid wars; not all wars” and would say so publicly and repeatedly, someone who could confidently contradict a military hero like John McCain in debate on foreign and military policy—and win.
The coach of our local professional football club has gained a certain reputation for his anti-charismatic ways, and his anti-charismatic sayings. One of those sayings is “do your job”. What he means is: Do your job; don’t worry about how the guy next to you is doing at his job. Do your job; don’t worry about what the owner says. Do your job; don’t worry about what’s in the paper or on ESPN. Just do your job, and the rest will eventually take care of itself.
It’s not my place to tell conservative Republicans what they should do. But I would submit that a major reason Republicans no longer enjoy a huge advantage with voters on foreign policy issues is the degree to which Democrats have “done their job” and as a result, earned back the trust and support of a key part of the electorate. I strongly suspect that a similar sustained effort by conservatives may be needed on issues of race. (The good news for conservatives like you is that, as best I can tell, that effort is already underway and beginning to bear fruit.)
I understand your point, although I find your analogy a bit limp. In today’s world, accusing a politician of being a racist is something quite different than accusing him of being weak on foreign policy. I’m happy to say that I think electing reform-minded politicians like Cao, Jindal, Haley, Tim West, among others, who stand for changing the policies that have kept generations of black children in poverty – like school choice reforms – are moving us closer to a day when we overcome these legacies. It’s just that when provocateurs get their own TV shows on national networks, it gets harder. Sometimes the pressure has to come from your own side to stop playing the provaceteur.
@Jeff Landry (1/25, 11:22 am) Point taken.
P.S. Following Jay Smooth’s advice, I’ve been trying to have the “what Newt did” conversation, not the “what Newt is” conversation. As for the “racist” v. “weak on foreign policy” accusations, the more exact parallel, to my way of thinking, would be between calling a politician a “racist” v. calling a politician a “communist” or “anti-American”. See the difference?
Again, because I find the conversation more fruitful if it’s about what is done rather than if it’s about trying to read people’s minds or impute motive to them, I’ve tried to stay away from accusations about what people “are”.