Monday Morning Reads

Good Morning!

I’ve been reading some things that have really gotten me thinking lately.  The topic of racism has crept back into the public arena since the campaign season is now in full force. There have been two high profile media stories that have created a stir and one story that’s been percolating in my mind all last week.

There is the coverage of the President who opened the can of worms yesterday during a speech in front of a black audience. The other story was that of Morgan Freeman who called the Tea Party racist on the Piers Morgan Show.  Herman Cain shot back on Sunday saying Freeman didn’t get what the Tea Party was about.  Before both events,  I had actually read this post at The Nation written by Melissa Harris-Perry–who I admire–on white liberal racism that evoked a really strong tweet from Max Blumenthal yesterday. Then, LGF sent me over to Andrew Breitbart’s site where I got an eyeful of comments left there by republicans and teabots on the President’s words that were characterized as black power dog whistles by folks over there.  Calls of reverse racism filled the comments section.

So there’s my links to the re-emergence of the racism conversation. It hasn’t been pretty or civil. I really am not looking forward to any 2008 repeat of all that.  Thankfully, Sky Dancing has been a refuge from trolls for the most part.  I can tell you that Bostonboomer and I have had conversations on the phone about racism in the Tea Party before and I know we both feel there is overt racism in their ‘movement’.  This doesn’t mean every one that’s attended one of their rallies is a racist, but  all you have to do is look at their placards and you can’t deny it’s there.  So, I have to admit to agreeing with Morgan Freeman on his comments. Obama’s presidency has brought a lot of the worst stuff out on to the streets again.   I will also send you over to the LGF link to read the comments by Breitbart’s readers if you want to see exactly how alive, well, and thriving racism is in parts of the Republican party.  The weird thing is that the folks in the Breitbart comments section think the President is playing the race card.  It’s an odd juxtaposition of arguments to watch people screaming reverse racism using really overtly racist language and frames.  I mean, how can you talk about reverse racism when writing out your screed in some form of perverted ‘ebonics’ ?  Well, any way go look for yourself and you’ll see what I mean.

 I agree with the Freeman comments that there has to be some underlying bit of racism in the republican obsession to get Obama out of office.  The republicans did some pretty nasty things to Clinton, but I’ve never EVER seen so many people willing to take our entire country down over the election of one man.  They’ve been at it consistently for nearly three years now.  It’s like watching the confederacy rise again. All we hear is state’s rights and complete mis-characterizations of the president’s policies which have been very conventionally Republican.  Draw out a game theory decision tree and tell me what sort’ve end game they have in mind when every strategic move they make is aimed at making Obama a one term president at WHATEVER the cost to the country.  It’s just not rational.

Freeman said it unnerves him that the conservative movement is garnering momentum during an appearance on CNN last week.

“Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term,” he said. “What underlines that? Screw the country. We’re going to do whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man out of here.”

Freeman characterized the actions of the Tea Party as “racist” and suggested that Obama’s presidency has only fueled the rise of the coalition of conservative activists, and in that context has made the issue of racism “worse.” He said, “It just shows the weak, dark underside of America. We’re supposed to be better than that. We really are. That’s why all those people were in tears when Obama was elected president. Look at what we are, you know? And then it just sort of started turning, because these people surfaced like stirring up muddy water.”

We know Obama’s candidacy stirred up the issue and we know he’s not beneath playing politics with racism when it behooves him to do so.  However, his “Come march with me” speech is a narrative that tries to put the President in the same light as MLK  when the President is no MLK.   I do not think Obama is playing any race card because it feels to me like your basic pandering to a voting segment while trying to shore up your base. I don’t think it’s going to be very effective and I don’t think it’s a black power dog whistle. The Republican reaction to the speech idoes expose some of that overt racism to which Morgan Freeman alludes. When people act like Obama’s going Black Panther every time he gives a speech to black people there has to be something in there that’s above and beyond basic political differences.

However, back to where I agree with Blumenthal and draw the line at Melissa’s statements at The Nation painting those of us who criticize Obama with a huge brush of having double standards for blacks and whites.  I had thought about posting this article before but I didn’t really want to go there.  I have had my fill of that three years ago.  However, in light of these other things, I thought I’d post the link and have the conversation.

Elements of racism are every where.  The Tea Party can’t seriously deny that its attracted a pretty virulent strain.  I’m not about to say that I didn’t notice it in the likes of people like Orly Taitz and other former Hillary supporters that jumped on the birther and secret Muslim wagon.  However, some of this activity by die hard Obama supporters still strikes me as a hunt for communists under the bed and making excuses for the man.  Maybe when you’re so vested in some one else’s success and they fail you repeatedly you  just keep grasping for all the straws you can.

Dr. Harris-Perry thinks when we try to hold President Obama to his campaign rhetoric and criticize the deals that he makes with Republicans, we are holding Obama to a different standard than we did President Clinton because of Obama’s race.   She believes that there has been unequal liberal criticism of Clinton’s triangulations and Obama’s “cave-ins”.  I see more contextual differences than that.  Clinton had a huge up hill battle given he got elected so close to the Reagan “morning in America myth”.  There was less of an outcry for change then.  Obama, to me, came in with a much stronger push for change and Dubya’s legacy was incredibly negative.  Changing Dubya’s course would’ve been welcome.  Trampling on the Reagan legacy would’ve gotten blowback.

This is Blumenthal’s response.

MaxBlumenthal Max Blumenthal

The Obamabot “you’re a racist” strategy may have shielded Obama from legit criticism in 2008, but it’s spent by now.

If even liberal-left critics of Obama are tarred as racists, critiques of real anti-Obama racism are cheapened, can be discredited by right

….if not discredited then dismissed.

Here’s Dr. Harris Perry’s closing thoughts after naming some  disappointing things done by Clinton and Obama.

These comparisons are neither an attack on the Clinton administration nor an apology for the Obama administration. They are comparisons of two centrist Democratic presidents who faced hostile Republican majorities in the second half of their first terms, forcing a number of political compromises. One president is white. The other is black.

In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

My suggestion is that you read the comments column for her post and then go back and look at the actual comments in the Brietbart piece and not just the LGF slice of it. You’ll get a quick lesson in spot the overt racism.

I did see some rethink of her position last night on Twitter after a bit of a pile on.

MHarrisPerry Melissa Harris-Perry
It’s completely possible that I’m wrong & economy is only meaningful variable. But race is worth discussing. Expect allies to agree to that.

Joan Walsh has a response at Salon. I suggest you read it because it’s full of examples of liberals criticizing Clinton.  In deed, much of that criticism of Clinton’s triangulations is what sent progressives away from Hillary Clinton in 2008 as I recall.  So, it’s a good perspective.

Outside of Congress, many of the white progressives giving Obama the most trouble weren’t uncritical Clinton supporters, either. While we remember Moveon.org getting its start to back Clinton during impeachment, it’s worth recalling that it wanted Congress to censure Clinton for his misdeeds; its slogan was “censure, and move on.” Also, the progressive online group was tiny back then, with nothing like the reach it has now. Obama critic Michael Moore was also a Clinton critic, who famously supported Ralph Nader over Gore in 2000. Nader and Michael Lerner, two organizers of the recent letter calling for a primary challenge to Obama, both regularly attacked Clinton.

For a final perspective, I suggest you go to Black Agenda Report–which btw is holding a fundraiser and could use some support–for some other thoughts on Obama’s form of triangulation.   I’m sending you to a recent article called: Barack Obama VS Those Craaaazy Republicans: Is He the Lesser Evil, or the More Effective Evil? Bruce A. Dixon characterizes what he calls Black Misleadership.  I’d say he has the same criticism we’ve had and it’s certainly not sourced in white liberalism. However, he frames the complaints using race dynamics.

Since the forces financing Republicans are the same as those financing Democrats the directors of US political theater have the power to play games with us. For them, Obama is the preferable alternative. Only the First Black President could have disbanded the peace movement and rolled into town promising to “cut entitlements” without provoking a firestorm of protest. Only the First Black President could have accepted a Nobel Peace Prize with a war speech, and invaded an African country without millions of protesters in the street worldwide. Only the First Black President with a strong Democratic majority in Congress could have resumed offshore drilling after the Gulf BP disaster, and blocked any new regulation on the oil industry. Only the First Black President could have given GM back to its managers after sticking the unions with its underfunded health care and pension load. Only candidate Obama could have come in off the campaign trail in September 2008 to whip Democratic votes in the Democrat-dominated congress for the $3 trillion Bush bailout, and only the First black President could have quintupled down on that bailout, giving the banksters $15 trillion more once in office.

From their standpoint, Obama needed, and continues to need two things. First, Obama needs running room to his right. In order for Obama to enact the neoliberal policies of his militarist and bankster sponsors, the policy demands of Republicans had to move further and still further rightward. In other words, he needs Republicans to play crazy and crazier, so that wherever he lands can credibly be claimed to be a little better than what might have been under a Republican regime, even when Obama’s position is actually to the right of Bush or Reagan. Secondly, the bankster favorite Obama needs to distract the attention of his voter base with a loud and persistent clamor over cultural issues and sustained furor over instances of personal (but not institutional) racism among Republican candidates and supporters. Like in any production, every actor has a job to do, and everybody does their job.

Since the purpose of Sky Dancing is to discuss real issues, I really couldn’t let some of this burbling boiling social vibe stew stay on the fire without a bit of a stir.  So, the links are there for you.  Make of them what you will.  Since this post has run so long, I want to share one more topic with you.

Back to economists where I’m not such a fish out of water.  I had to point out this blog thread on frames by Jared Bernstein because I spent two huge blog posts on Saturday elucidating frames and their impact on markets and the economy.  What a co-inky-dink!  He talks about a related idea which is how the Republicans are ‘framing’  our historically progressive tax codes as class war fare instigated by that secret muslim, commie, Kenyan president of ours!  The same things have been making him think of frames.

That said, ever since the R’s countered President Obama’s emphasis on fairness in the tax code with shrieks of “class warfare,” I’ve been thinking a lot about framing.  These thoughts were amplified by this smart piece in today’s NYT, arguing that as the language of budgets (“fiscal sustainability,” “deficit reduction”) has replaced that of economic security, progressives have ceded key intellectual ground.

The piece compares, to great effect, the rhetoric of FDR during the Depression to that of today.  But that led me to reflect on the points Stan Greenberg made, as I reviewed them here.  In this regard, the most salient difference in this context between today versus the days of FDR is not just the rhetoric or framing.  It’s the underlying faith in American institutions, most notably government.

Greenberg’s point is that absent that faith, a positive frame, even if it’s based in fact (we really do have the right ideas re economic security and they really don’t) will fail to resonate.

This means progressives have some heavy lifting to do.  Our work must be to re-establish faith in the institution of government…the belief that this institution is a force for good in your lives and can be more so.  And that has to come from explanation, evidence, and effective implementation of government programs.

It also underscores the importance of the current fight for fairness: if people continue to believe that government has devolved into an ATM for the wealthy, an enforcer of the inequality-inducing policy agenda, and a bailer-outer of the rich and the reckless, no frame will be smart enough to convince them otherwise.

So, any way.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?