The Bitter End
Obama's minions are predictably spinning away regarding his "bitter" remarks about Pennsylvanians. Their main line of argument seems to be he was simply telling the truth. Well, he was saying what he thought, but is it the truth?
Actually, his elitism, as I've said, isn't what really bothers me. I assume most politicians, for all their talk about the wisdom of the people, are elitists. If they didn't think they were good at running our lives, they wouldn't be running for office.
Trouble is, Obama's elitism ends up with him dismissing ideological opposition as so much confusion and fear. Alas, this is not a new side of the man. In fact, it was what turned me off when he made his well-received speech on race.
Let me go back in particular to one section, where he discusses affirmative action:
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.
He's trying to be even-handed, but he just can't bring himself to say that any whites haven't been privileged (after all, they've got White Skin Privilege), so all his statements are conditional. He might as well be talking about a child worried about a monster under the bed--the fear is real, the belief is not.
Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch.
"As far as they're concerned." Those lucky whites who sweated to build a life here just don't get it.
They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor.
Ah, now we're getting an inkling of the real problem. Globalization and big corporations. Government-mandated racial bean-counting--or perhaps any major social program--couldn't really make anyone mad. (And what about the millions who oppose such programs but are doing just fine personally, thank you?)
They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
So here we have it, and it sounds just like his "bitter" statement. The real enemies are corporations and the free market itself, not properly reined in by government. And because of these evils, confused white people blame busing (busing?), race-based affirmative action and crime. (He'd later add guns and Bibles to the mix.)
Think of this. There's apparently no principled opposition to "benign" racial preference. If you don't like it, Obama's way of reaching out is letting you know you're simply mistaken. He wants a dialogue on race, but how can we have one if we can't talk openly and honestly about these programs--which might be a bad solution to a problem, even if whites are privileged, by the way.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.
All those voters the Dems lost to Republicans--it was just a mistake. What's The Matter With Kansas? and all that. If only whites could see things more clearly, they'd know how to vote. Meanwhile, serious reform of welfare and affirmative action is off the table. (Wait, didn't we do the first one? And didn't it work out okay?)
Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends.
Exploitation? Crime is, and has been for some time, a legitimate campaign issue. I admit it's been a winner for Republicans, but does that mean all that talk is merely a cynical ploy?
Let's look at the U. S. crime rates from when Reagan took office to today. In 1980, the murder rate per 100,000 was 10.2. In 2006 (most recent year available), it's down to 5.7. Rape, down from 36.8 to 30.9 (and it might even be better than that since reporting rates have arguably increased). Robbery, down from 251.1 to 149.4. Burglary, down from 1684.1 to 729.4. Theft, down from 3167 to 2206.8. Vehicle theft, down from 502.2 to 398.4.
These drops are stunning. Now there are a lot of potential causes, but it seems to me at the very least, crime is fair game for politicians, and rather than merely exploiting fear for political ends, they seem to have done something about it.
Talk show hosts and conservative commentators
Nothing to say about liberal commentators?
built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Black anger--justified. White anger--false consciousness.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive,
Not mistaken, just counterproductive
so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
So white concerns may be misguided and even racist, but the actual problems underlying them--the problems Barack believes in and wants to talk about--are real. Thanks for starting the conversation.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:02 AM
10 Comments:
Thanks - am now convinced Obama is the answer given the confederacy of quibblers arrayed against him
I, on the other hand, think that LAGuy has accurately demolished a segment of The Speech that has been accepted without comment by most of the punditocracy (even those who oppose Obama's candidacy).
quibblers? So ad hominem is your argument? What about even one counterpoint?
AAGuy
You want one counterpoint? I'll give one counterpoint.
And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
So white concerns may be misguided and even racist, but the actual problems underlying them--the problems Barack believes in and wants to talk about--are real. Thanks for starting the conversation.
Obama acknowledges that the whites' feelings are "grounded in legitimate concerns," and says that calling them misguided or racist would be a mistake. From that you read him to say precisely the opposite -- that those feelings are in fact misguided and racist? Thanks for giving the most uncharitable possible reading of his words, and thus completely derailing any conversation that might have been started.
I not only stand by my statement, I draw attention to it. Obama, former President of the Harvard Law Review, was very careful in how he phrased this speech. He took care, as I hope I show from this excerpt, never to say that the underlying concerns of whites were legitimate.
The evasive language is there for everyone to see. Sure, he'd like to have people (at least some people) believe he's saying their concerns are legitimate, but he doesn't say it, and he could have said it easily and directly if he wanted to. In fact, until the "without" clause, he seems on the verge of saying (in an easily separable quote) that it's wrong to call white's misguided or racist due to these ostensible concerns, but he doesn't say that, does he? All he ends up saying, in this carefully worded sentence, is that you shouldn't just note that white's have potentially misguided or racist beliefs unless you also note they're based on "legitimate concerns"--but he never says what these concerns are. He certainly doesn't say it's THEIR concerns. The language is intentionally ambiguous, so it doesn't contradict what he's stated earlier, and which couldn't be clearer--the "legitimate concerns" are not what the misguided and perhaps racist whites think they are, but rather what Obama is saying that they are.
I am not derailing anything. I'm just pointing out what Obama set out to do. He could have been unambiguous, but instead he chose to imply something that some listeners very much wanted to hear, without actually saying that something.
That's precisely what I mean about an uncharitable reading. It's a speech, not a law review article. He couldn't drop footnotes to refer you back to what he meant, and words in a speech are often chosen for their oral rhetorical effect rather than absolute precision when seen in writing by a critical reader.
I choose to believe he is referring back to "legitimate concerns" enumerated earlier in the speech:
"[I]n an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."
You choose to believe he's so slippery that he used the speech to pretend to say what people wanted to hear while leaving himself a narrow "out" to avoid outright lies.
Both are logically defensible positions based on the ambiguity of the text before us and the nature of speechwriting. I believe my reading has the advantage of encouraging further dialogue about how to account for those listed legitimate white concerns when discussing matters of race going forward. It certainly wasn't perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill, it was the worst possible discussion of race in our country except all those others that have been tried.
I'm not being uncharitable, I'm reading what he said in as straightforward a manner as possible. If he wanted to say that, for example, white's opposition to affirmative action is legitimate, nothing would have been easier. He chooses to never say it. Instead, he says--straight out, no interpretation required--that thoug whites say they're bothered by A, they're really bothered by B. And then he complains about all the people on the right who exploit their fear or A when he, Obama, gets the real problem, and will deal with B, even if it's not what whites are truly talking about. Meanwhile, he'll respect whites by recognizing their pain is real, even though they misdiagnose the situation. (On the other hand, when it comes to complaints of blacks, he makes it clear they unerstand the legitimate the cause of their pain.)
So, at the end of all this, when he saysn we shouldn't call "the resentments of white Americans" "misguided or even racist"--it seems he's actually saying something new--UNTIL he adds we CAN do this, actually, but only if we also note underneath it all there are "legitimate concerns", and intentionally doesn't say what or whose legitimate concerns these are. Suddenly he goes into the passive voice to avoid saying it--look at the language: "they are grounded in legitimate concerns." All he had to say to put any ambiguity to rest was "their concerns are legitimate" but he choose not to.
He'd already said white's fears were based not on what they say they are--this was a chance for him to fix that, and he doesn't. What he does do is use words that people could interpret to mean that, but he makes sure he never says it--it's not just sloppy wording, it's very precise.
I'd say we've both made our points pretty clearly (and I did only promise one counterpoint), so I'll leave you the field. By the by, this is the only interesting piece I've seen on the whole bitter remark, but then I've been in the Caribbean for two weeks with other things on my mind.
Actually, it's worse than that. Look at Obama's wording, since it leaves no room for interpretation.
"to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns"
Obama is saying, logically speaking, you can, in fact, say, whites are misguided or perhaps even racist, but only so long as you also recognize there are legitimate concerns underneath it all. But if their concerns were legitimate to begin with, there'd be no reason to add this addendum.
Actually, if he wanted to say the cause for white resentment is legitimate, it would have been even easier. Here is what he said--
"to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns"
Here's what he would have said--
"to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, is wrong"
Post a Comment
<< Home