| Turns out, recently Digby has jumped on the train to smear anyone who criticizes Obama as racist or race baiting. I personally think that Obama has been presumptious, I find him arrogant, I find his arrogance to be a facade for what lurks beneath is the same as what lies underneath Bush's arrogance. An inferiority complex. Self-doubt. Bush walks with his arms out to his side in some caricature of a Texan something I don't know what, but that's just the sense I get when I see him do his photo ops. Same deal with Obama. Different style of course, the half hop and the big grin and such. In either case, an overly-contrived set of gestures in an effort to superimpose an air confidence over a situation where one has found themselves quite simply out of their depth.
But obviously, you can't discuss that in the democratic party, because the second you say presumptious, the second you say arrogant, someone's going to slap the race card right down on the table. (presumably because it's probably true and there's no other real defense). Didn't you know calling Obama presumptious is the same as calling him uppity?
Now there is nothing more divisive than accusing someone of racism. One of the things that was pointed out in a way that I hadn't considered (thank you Pol C) is that, given where society is at this point, as far as the media is concerned, calling someone a child abuser is probably less toxic than calling someone a racist. Now it's already been discussed that people are rewarded for being sexist. At the least, a two week vacation and a promotion is the "punishment" doled out for those who speak inartfully about women. But I can think of nothing more toxic, at this point, than for someone to be branded a racist.
Now of course, that's a good thing. I want to make it clear the point here is not to say we need to make it less toxic to be racist. What we need to do is IMPLORE the people who use it for political gain, who take that situation to make a polticial opponent toxic, to stop. To make sure it's understood that those people who exploit the issue are pushed to the edges of discussion. Not to the forefront. These people, in my view, are despicable and divisive. I would fight for their right to express their views, but I would not provide for them a platform to SPREAD their views.
Because there is real racism in this society. Systemic. Both passive and overt. Even in the liberal bastion known as California, I see the economic divide, so just from a practical standpoint, does accusing your political opponent of being a racist help solve this economic injustice? It's certainly not proven in any way shape or form that it does. If it helps Obama to be president, and then he's actually able to do something about it, Ok. We'll see. If it helps an African American kid to think differently about himself when he sees an African American president, then OK. But ultimately, as I've always said, the proof. will. be. in. the. pudding.
This is just to say that what exist in the media with respect to this issue (inclusive of blogs), the toxicity of racism, does not translate to the real world. The hiring manager who is still either aggressively or passively racist still exists.
But of course we don't see the likes of Keith Olbermann doing stories about such hiring managers. We see the pundits give "equal time" on a real issue like affirmative action, and then turn around and build their own careers on a politicized version of the issue.
Can a blogger do that to? I don't see why not.
To wrap this up, I still feel the issue as it has manifested itself in the Democratic Party over the last two years has not been dealt with. Those who have exploited the issue are probably hoping it just goes away at this point. Because they got what they wanted from it.
If anyone wants to know what sparked this essay of sorts:
http://alegrescorner.soapblox....
From Digby:
Keep in mijnd [sic] that the GOP does not do this stuff for a knock out [sic]. They operate on the death of a thousand cuts. Little criticisms, relentlessly played, dribbled out over time designed to create a running theme. This one is obvious: elitist, aloof, and --- presumptuous. That last carries quite an amazing amount of freight --- presumptuous, uppity, doesn't know his place. It applies neatly to any Democrat who deigns to lead Broderville but the historical, subliminal American memory that attaches to such a word when the person in question is black is particularly powerful. (I smell the mark of Rove on that --- he's really good at stuff like this.)
And after I've let out the anger (cause you know people are going to get angry if you accuse them of racism, especially those who aren't racist), I want to be able to see Digby's point of view. Yes. They, republicans, did the same to Clinton actually. Obviously.
So the crux of the matter really is this: How do you know the difference between someone like me saying "I think Obama is presumptious" and someone like Karl Rove saying "I think Obama is presumptious"? (Can Michael Steele call Obama presumptious?)
If one can't tell the difference, then that's a problem. I can't tell if Digby can tell the difference, at this point.
You see, it's a form of power. To be able to stand up and accuse someone of being racist or even just race baiting and have people listen to you. And as far as using such power judiciously is concerned, I think Obama folks -- cultists or otherwise -- have failed.
I will end by saying this: The thing that came to mind is that there was once a lieberman supporter called the bullmoose, and he called good people unpatriotic cause they criticized lieberman.
I guess i've heard tell that did a lot of damage to the party. I think it's true it did. Real. Longterm. Damage.
This is a sort of Postscript where I make the assumptions I allude to above
If none of that got through ......
This should:
Hold outs are dealing with the undemocratic primary process. Doesn't mean they'll stop working to correct it. It just means balanced against a McCain administration, the outrage is mitigated. If one wants to think of it as reason prevailing, it could.
Hold outs are dealing with their hero (Clinton) not getting to be president. If one wants to think of reason prevailing here too, it could.
Hold outs are dealing with the sexism. They know, however bad Obama and his Media lapdogs are, McCain would be worse. Not that much worse, really. Reason could prevail here as well.
You can obviously reason with those who think Obama is to the right of Clinton ON ISSUES by saying McCain is hard right.
"Reason" WILL NOT, CAN NOT, and SHOULD NOT prevail on the issue I discussed above.
Where there is softening of the hardened outrage on other issues (as long as those issues can still be resolved), I can just simply guarantee that those who woke up one morning to find out -- from the Obama campaign, Obama bloggers and other media outlets -- they were race baiting, or that the Clintons were race baiting feel the exact same way about it today as they did that day, in pretty much, a fairly emotional context.
If anything, it's getting worse.
This is just my impression of the attitudes I see on the PUMA blogs. |
