The feeling that black-rights activists were part of a front for communism and socialism was widespread. Jerry Falwell famously criticized "the sincerity and intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations." Falwell charged, "It is very obvious that the Communists, as they do in all parts of the world, are taking advantage of a tense situation in our land, and are exploiting every incident to bring about violence and bloodshed." For the agents of intolerance, things haven't changed much. On October 9, a McCain supporter told the candidate that he was angry about "socialists taking over our country." McCain told him he was right to be angry.
The right wing continues to link the fight for black equality with socialism and communism. At the website of conservatism's flagship publication, National Review, conservatives like Andy McCarthy argue whether Obama is "more Maoist than Stalinist," and National Review writer Lisa Schiffren explicitly argued this summer that Obama must have communist links based on his interracial background. Schiffren mused, "for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics."
Same shit boys. Different toilet.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Yup. This is the modern Republican party--at least since Nixon. They are who we thought they are, etc. Bears repeating. Keep it coming.
I'm not sure that Republicans calling the Democratic Candidate for President a closet communist has anything, at all, to do with race.
I mean, Kerry got called a communist.
Gore got called a communist.
Clinton got called a communist.
Dukakis got called a communist.
Mondale got called a communist.
Carter got called a communist.
That Obama is getting called a communist is not representative of his blackness, but his democratness.
If you want to argue that the republicans are racist, sure! Definitely! Of course! "They are who we thought they were!"
But using how they're calling the Democratic Presidential Candidate a communist isn't exactly novel, new, and an attack they've been secreting away just in case.
They've pulled it out for every Democratic nominee in my memory.
One of my childhood memories from the 60s is hearing people say assuredly that Martin Luther King was a communist. And that's when it really meant something to be tagged as red. (Not heard in my family, thank goodness.)
But, of course, that charge was just based on King's speeches and marches. Nowadays, we have objective markers, such as the marriage of Barack's parents, because we know that "for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics."
They are who we believed them to be.
THIS is who they are.
They have never changed.
The whole questioning Black folks' patriotism is tried and true for them.
Communism is a "dirty word" and people love labels. Nevermind the absurdity, labels work.
Tying "left-wing associations" with Communism is absurd, of course, since real world "communism" has resembled facism and nationalism, not liberalism. But then "socialist" doesn't have the nasty reputation that "communist" does, or did. So the communist label is more useful.
Today, the right-wing shock jocks have dumped "communist" for the most part and are doing their best to muddy "liberal". In fact, Liberal is in danger of losing its original meaning entirely. It's own its way to becoming the new "communist".
The funny thing about the Schiffren quote is that there is a degree of truth to it, but it does not reflect poorly on the Obamas or the Communists, but on the Democratic and Republican parties.
In the late 50's there really was that kind of prejudice against interracial marriages that meant one had to be willing to cut against the grain of most of society to have such a marriage. And the Communist party for all its faults (primarily its belief in Communist economic and political doctrine) was far ahead of either major party at the time on such racial issues.
Sciffren's comment does not give us a reason to be suspicious of Obama. It gives us a reason to understand why blacks fighting for equality would see some appeal to the Communist party.
1. Kerry got called a communist.
2. Gore got called a communist.
3. Clinton got called a communist.
4. Dukakis got called a communist.
5. Mondale got called a communist.
6. Carter got called a communist.
Campaign rallies marked by shouts to "kill" them? NONE.
There is a deep and serious historical difference.
Nquest, if this was a thread about how the "kill him" people showing up at rallies are representative of deep racism, I would not disagree for a second.
Hell, I think that the SS should go to the homes of anyone who says such a thing at a rally and go so far up his ass that the bastard's breath will smell like the government for the rest of his life.
But if we're talking about how accusations of communism amount to race-baiting, I'm just going to point out that every Democratic nominee going back to when I was old enough to remember my parents bickering about elections had the democratic nominee called a communist.
ta-nehisi, you don't appear to be a baseball guy (your loss, but i digress), but still: aren't you surprised to learn that derek jeter's parents are communists? i must say it came as a shock to me!
more generally, the really fascinating thing to me is the way that right-wingers toss around terms like "socialist" (you mean: government ownership? in that case, aren't paulson and bush the leading socialists in america today?) and "communist" without understanding them.
what they typically mean is "we hate the idea of a safety net." hayek, the god of free marketers everywhere, believed in the safety net himself, but of course, he was an intelligent man and not a yahoo:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/tim_duy_in_defe.html
That Obama is getting called a communist is not representative of his blackness, but his democratness.
Let's get you focused here: what does your notion have to do with Dr. King?
That is, I want you to explain what it was about Dr. King that drew communist labeling which nowadays can miraculously share the same space as claims that he was a Republican or an anti-affirmative action conservative.
Is it MLK'S "democratness"?
The problem with your logic is the assumption that the communist tag is thrown out there for the same reason and, more importantly, for the same effect-objective.
I'm sure we could probably come up with statements about Kerry, Carter, Clinton, etc. where Republicans wanted to suggest that those white Democrats didn't "see America" the way most "Americans" did but in this country with the racial history we have the "he's not one of us" idea takes on different meaning when it comes to someone Black.
Republicans have painted white Democrats as anti-American out of political disagreements. The admittedly racist Republicans (admitted by you) paint African-Americans as anti-American for reasons that run deeper then mere political disagreements. "They're communist" is proxy for the being anti-American.
The obvious difference between calling Kerry an elitist vs. Obama is instructive here.
Everything that's similar ain't the same.
What angers me is that most people do not know the 'true' definitions of any of these political theories or movements and the worst part is that they don't bother to figure them out. Example: My friend's grandmother keeps insisting we fought the communists in WWII.
Nquest, if this was a thread about how the "kill him" people showing up at rallies are representative of deep racism, I would not disagree for a second.
This is a thread that referred to Dr. King someone who has been rumored to be a Republican. I say that because it wasn't him being a Democrat that factored in him being called a communist or communist sympathizer. And you can't separate the discussion in this thread from the stuff said at the rallies which included claims about Obama being a communist or socialist because of the same connection to the domestic "terrorist" Ayers.
The reality of these formulations aren't compartmentalized.
I'll just leave you the headline, you can find the Free Republic link yourself:
Ayers, Wright, Farrakhan, Obama, it's ALL Marxism
I await your comments documenting Farrakhan card carrying Democrat status.
Nquest, look at it from this perspective.
A white man gets called X by republicans.
Another white man gets called X by republicans.
Another white man gets called X by republicans.
Another white man gets called X by republicans.
Another white man gets called X by republicans.
Another white man gets called X by republicans.
A black man gets called X by republicans.
Why was the black man called X?
Racism.
The republicans have been playing the race card card for a while now, saying that any given criticism of Obama will be called a racist criticism. (Or would that be a race card card card card?) The republicans are, once again, reflexively calling the democratic nominee a communist, like they have been doing for the last nigh-30 years.
This is not evidence of racism on their part.
My goodness, there is so much racism that the republicans *HAVE* engaged in. Why point out the whole "communist" spasm they have every 4 years?
Jaybird, if you're going to try to strictly construct or strictly constrict the conversation to what this thread is about, the last thing you should be doing is making curious statements like this that have nothing to do with nothing.
Hell, I think that the SS should go to the homes of anyone who says such a thing at a rally and go so far up his ass that the bastard's breath will smell like the government for the rest of his life.
I didn't ask you what you think the SS should do and what you think in that regard was never questioned. Why are you acting like it was?
Jaybird,
It seems to me that this isn't an either/or proposition. Just because Democrats have been called commies in the past doesn't negate the very strong likelihood that there's a racial element included in this accusation. They're just getting a two-fer in this case, as they often do.
By allowing ‘communist’ to function as a slur, we effectively consent to private control of the ‘commanding heights’ of our economy, and we thereby pretty much foreclose the possibility of a humane economic policy.
Why was the black man called X?
Too late to act like you're actually seriously considering any and all reasons why. Your logic was too simplistic to consider anything other than:
Candidate = Democrat = called "communist"
This is not evidence of racism on their part.
Of course it's not when the extent of your examination is to simply check the Democrat box and call it a day.
My goodness, there is so much racism that the republicans *HAVE* engaged in. Why point out the whole "communist" spasm they have every 4 years?
That's weak (WTF are you trying to say: the racism they "HAVE" engaged in? like you have effectively decoupled and debunked the HISTORIC racialized link) and it's still not a response to the context which involved "the whole communist spasm" that goes back to MLK.
MLK and Farrakhan complicate your quaint little equation. Neither of them qualify for the "democratness" you've made the qualifying factor for public figures receiving the communist charge.
For some reason you have a problem considering this "whole communist spasm" from the perspective presented by TNC, let alone things I've said. From the quoted material:
At the website of conservatism's flagship publication, National Review, conservatives like Andy McCarthy argue whether Obama is "more Maoist than Stalinist
Go down the list and tell me what kind of communist:
John Kerry was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Al Gore was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Bill Clinton was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Michael was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Walter Mondale was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Jimmy Carter was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
After you do that, tell me why things that are similar are always the same since if your idea is legit. That is, tell me why similar things can't have differences.
Then, after you do that, address the MLK/Farrakhan issue. The "democratness" line, again, doesn't work with them.
Part of the function of the communist label in this context is to construct black intelligence as a form of deviousness, i.e. that there is something unnatural and ultimately dishonest about a lucid, well-informed, intellectually-engaged black man, and that the explanation for this phenomenon must take the form of a conspiracy theory.
This, I think, is what is happening with the Ayers stuff. The point is obviously in part to paint Obama with the terrorist label, but I think it is also to convey the connotation of a conspiracy explanation for Obama's evident smarts: namely, that he's been in some way trained or cultivated by secretive white radicals as their front man. This is a pattern we have seen for decades, not just in the US but around the world. For instance, African nationalists were often seen as the puppets of devious white (and preferably Jewish) communists. Because if they were not communist puppets, this would mean they would be thinking for themselves, and that would contradict the basic premise of colonialism.
The point isn't really to suggest that Obama is ultra-leftist. It's to suggest that he's not thinking for himself and hence to suggest that he is not trustworthy for appearing to be so smart. This is why it is completely unsurprising for us to see suggestions that Ayers wrote Obama's book, and for there to be repeated "questions" about Obama's "background."
Jaybird,
You are missing the point. Yes, democrats have been "accused" of being communists in the past. But those "accusations" were generally being made out of a specific policy, the theme being "bigger government= communism." Against blacks in general the link was much more subtle "desegregation= communism," "civil rights=communism," and now even "white mother, black father= communism."
Its one thing to yell "communist" at any government programs, its another to yell it at racial themes.
The whole questioning Black folks' patriotism is tried and true for them
Question: We know John Kerry's patriotism was questioned but what about his wife Theresa?
While I remember Theresa H-Kerry being used to mock Black people because she was a "real" African American (though her native country was SOUTH Africa), I don't recall her patriotism being questioned. Even if it was, this presents a chance to show how similar things aren't necessarily the same.
John Kerry's patriotism was questioned because of his position on the Iraq and the Vietnam wars. Obama's patriotism is questioned for that reason as well. But once we look at why Michelle Obama's patriotism was questioned and situate it in the historical context we know that their Blackness, the cultural/ideological characteristic that makes them the "other" whom Whites fear due to some notion that Blacks (like ***communists***, like Arabs, etc.) live for the day that they will enslave [white] Americans...
(Nquest: THK was born in Mozambique not South Africa, although she did go to SA for university.)
same republican party.
same national review.
i am waiting for democrats to make the historical link between republican - and southern democratic and dixiecratic - efforts to keep black folks from voting. from way back in the 40's and 50's and 60's. it's all there and while teaching history while trying to get elected requires a bit of sophistication, i think the connection is easily understood by most.
same thing with the national review.
you think they'd be ashamed of their white supremecist and overtly racist past.
i guess not, because they continue to echo the same themes, using slightly more race-sensitive language. they no longer come right out and talk openly about how white folks deserve a more dominant place in our white society. no, they simply make arguments that might be considered race-neutral, as long as you don't look past the color-blind language to see that, coincidentally and gee whiz, they always appear to write stuff that reflects racist sentiment.
the national review: same as it ever was.
I have to say that I agree with "Jaybird."
I think the right calling Senator Obama a "Commie," a "Pinko," a "Socialist," or whatever has more to do with him being a Democrat than anything else. Republicans have been calling Democrats communists since (at least, FDR). Hell, they'll call anyone who is left of Ghenghis Khan a "Communist." And this is not just limited to presidential nominees - there is a significan percentage of Republicans who think ALL Democrats are a bunch of pinko/commie/socialists.
I mean, these same people who call Senator Obama a communist would gladly embrace any black candidate who agrees with them or is a Republican(see: Justice Clarence Thomas, Gen. Colin Powell, Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice, Roderick Paige, Lynn Swann, J.C. Watts, etc.).
I am just not seeing it.
"Oh, but *THIS* time the communist accusation is a racist one!!!"
Had McCain called Obama a tax-and-spend democrat, would that be a racist tax-and-spend accusation? Because we know that what McCain was "really" saying was that Obama will take money out of the hands of white people (AND FOOD OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF WHITE CHILDREN!!!) and put it into the Inner City!!!
My goodness. I am not saying that the Republicans are not racist. I am not saying that National Review is not a racist magazine. (Remember that Buckley argued on behalf of segregation... he later recanted but you can't help but wonder how much of that poison from that opinion was in other opinions he held.)
I am saying that saying that this time the republican accusation of communist is totally racist is...
Well. I think it's silly... having seen every other democratic candidate also be painted as a communist.
(As for Michelle being treated differently... I remember the argument that there was a picture of Hillary out there burning a flag... same for Kitty Dukakis. It never surfaced, of course. It was discussed on talk radio and people said that it was going to surface any day now... and it never did. Now the whole 'whitey' tape (which I always assumed was a "why'd he" tape) struck me as in a similar vein as the flag burning thing... but, sure. There is probably a racist (or, at least, playing on the whole 'black people are even more racist than white people!' fear among a certain portion of white people) component that wasn't there for the Dukakises or Clinton. Sure. But that wasn't what this thread was originally about. Nor, may I point out, was it about audience members shouting 'kill him'.)
In 1996 Obama probably was a member of a quasi-socialist third party, the New Party:
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html
Phil: spot on!!
I watched some of the Youtube videos of McCain supporters heckling Obama supporters and one of the things they kept yelling was "go back to Russia!"
someone should let these idiots know that Russia hasn't been Communist for some twenty years now.
evidently they haven't opened a newspaper in all that time...
Jaybird,
You keep missing the point. First, there is the MLK and Farrakhan links already mentioned.
Second, there is the specific reason why:
It doesnt involve bigger governments, taxes, etc. How can accusing someone of communism for wanting desegragation not be about race? How can accusing someone of communism because they support equal rights not be about race? Heck, how can accusing someone of communism because they are the offspring of a mixed race marriage not be about race?
Im sorry, but how can you not see that saying "Clinton is a communist because he wants government to provide universal health care" is entirely different from "for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics?"
Not to minimize the racist motivation behind much of the opposition to Obama, but in fact there was a connection between communists and the struggle for desegregation and equal rights.
Communists risked and gave their lives in the South, for example in the efforts of the Civil Rights Congress, and the campaign to free the Scottsboro Boys. It was their presence in the movement which gave plausibility to the red-baiting of Rev. King.
I've no doubt that MLK Jr. and Farrakhan were called communists. There were a lot of people called communists way back in the 1960's. It was one of the few insults that had any teeth that the hawks used... so much teeth, in fact, that Bobby Kennedy tapped MLK's phone.
As for Farrakhan, it's well documented that the Jews have been out to get him since Elijah Mohammed ascended into heaven in that UFO. So I'll give you that one.
"On October 9, a McCain supporter told the candidate that he was angry about "socialists taking over our country." McCain told him he was right to be angry."
That's the conclusion of the first paragraph.
Do we just get to assume that the McCain supporter meant the Lisa Schiffren (have you read Lon's take on that one? Scroll up!) view or would it be racist to assume that the McCain supporter meant merely the whole "universal health care" thing?
Jaybird and Nquest,
I'm glad you guys liked the piece enough to argue about it, and I just have one thing to say.
Bush gets called "a chimp" by his detractors. If someone were to say, call Barack Obama a monkey, would that not be racist because Bush is white and he was compared to a monkey too?
What's key here is context: "monkey" has the specific and ugly history of being used as a racial slur. No one thinks Bush looks like a chimp because of his race.
Yeah, Democrats often get accused of being socialists. But in this case, people are genuinely arguing that Obama is the puppet of a socialist conspiracy to take over the government, something black leaders have in the past. That doesn't have anything to do with Obama's policies, his decidedly unsocialist, non-single payer health care plan. It has to do with conservative anxiety about race and social change.
Or at least that's my opinion.
Jaybird, maybe this will help you out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101201873.html
And, thanks, Adam...
Re: Bush, I never liked the chimp reference or hardly any monkey references. And while we're talking about racial slurs and context, I'll never forget when I had an on-line argument with a Black female who swore "redneck" was not a racial slur and deemed it acceptable for Howard Dean to use it because she didn't think it was.
Of course, I differed and still differ no matter how much money Jeff Foxworthy makes.
Thanks Phil for the corrective information (though the mocking remarks where the ones that didn't know the difference).
Fighting Words... I have no idea what you think your point is. You act like Uncle Tom is supposed to draw the same type of reaction as Nat Turner. Not making any direct comparisons here but there's a long history of certain types of Blacks being deemed as "responsible Negroes" and during the Jim Crow era those were the ones who "knew their place." Others were considered.... *wait for it*... UPPITY because they didn't.
What part of that don't you understand?
Also, a misogynist need not treat every women they come in contact with in a sexist manner (e.g. his mother) to be a misogynist.
I do have to admit, though, that these fuckers make some unintentionally funny shit.
meh, the term socialist has been thrown around to describe democrats for decades. If you sincerely believe the use of the term is indicative of race baiting then you're either a)new or b)working way too hard to read racial motives into every attack on Obama.
Nquest,
MLK was called a communist as a result of his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, the Poor People's Campaign and his talk of an "economic bill of rights".
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Beyond_Vietnam.pdf
"Beyond Vietnam" alone would probably have gotten him the communist label. But in fact, there was more. According to wikipedia:
MLK: "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."
'King had read Marx while at Morehouse, but while he rejected "traditional capitalism," he also rejected Communism because of its "materialistic interpretation of history" that denied religion, its "ethical relativism," and its "political totalitarianism."'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Chicago.2C_1966
When we learn about MLK in school, the class tends to skip from 1965 to 1968. The socialist stuff is what gets skipped over.
I agree with Phil's take on this. And I also believe the murmurings of Obama being the anti-christ falls along this same line of thinking(and yes, there are many people who believe this, I get e-mails from the fundamentalist side of my family on a pretty regular basis). The idea of a black man speaking with such confidence, coherency, and intelligence is sooooo unthinkable in this world view that the only possible explanation for it is that the devil must be the one behind it.
What really scares me is that there are many people who would view the assasination of Obama as a moral or even heroic act, especially due to religious beliefs. I wish that I had some more biblical hermaneutics training because I suspect many of these believers are basing their beliefs on rather vague passages from Revelations. Rather than argue from the point of view of an atheist, which I think would be dismissed automatically, it would be helpful for knowledgeable 'moderate' Christians to respond to such accusations...to speak on 'their' level. There ought to be a religious scholar e-mail address you can forward these things to! I'm not even talking about trying to get these people to vote for Obama; I think it would be progress if one could just convince them that Obama is at worse just another sly politician, rather than some anti-christ that they feel needs to be assasinated.
I would say something, but "iron pimp hand" said it better and clearer than I ever could. No matter who the Democrats elect, either Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, someone white, black, yellow, blue, or green, the some members of the Republican elite will always refer to them as commie/pinko/socialists, latte-sipping volvo-driving elitists, and America-hating traitorous cowards. These attacks are nothing new, and you shouldn't read racial motivation into them.
Ninja, I'm aware of all that history, speeches and all. None of that explains the conspiratorial nature of the charges, much less the intensity of them. Notice the Farwell comment questioned the "sincerity" of Dr. King et al. Somehow they didn't genuinely want civil rights which is the exact sentiment in this kind racialized hype:
"They would prefer an America where blacks could oversee white people being indentured servants who do manual labor for no wages."
(an exact quote from the net)
Somehow King's desire for equality isn't considered the reason for entertaining "democratic socialism". No, it's the racialized idea that Blacks want to turn the tables on Whites that adds a different character to the "communism" charges.
Plus, I didn't question why King was called a communist out of ignorance of what you pointed out. Jaybird's theory was that the charge has something to do with "democratness." I pointed out that MLK and Farrakhan aren't/weren't Democrats.
So if someone is going to direct me to some information about MLK, direct me to some solid information that he (and Farrakhan) are/were card carrying Democrats.
you shouldn't read racial motivation into them.
You shouldn't make such ignorant assertions. There's historical evidence that shows a "racial motivation." There's nothing new to that. The only thing being read is the same historical pattern.
All this talk and not a single one of you have addressed this:
"The right wing continues to link the fight for black equality with socialism and communism."
This "who you're going to believe? me or your lying eyes?" routine is never going to work. I know I missed the posts that went down this list and actually looked at the actual character of the charges against these candidates:
John Kerry was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Al Gore was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Bill Clinton was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Michael was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Walter Mondale was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Jimmy Carter was. Maoist? Stalinist? or other?
Since there is nothing new to these attacks, surely there are answers to all of them since the attack against Obama has been pegged as a certain type of socialist/communist.
Nquest,
I don't get what your point is. I don't get why you're getting so worked up over this. The right wing calls anything it doesn't like "Communist." If you disagree with them, you are a liberal. If you are not a Republican, you are a Democrat. It doesn't matter if they are black, white, whatever. It doesn't matter if you are working for health care reform, racial equality, or any "liberal" cause, they will always throw something like "socialism" out there.
You give these people (Right wingers) way too much credit. The person who said, "Is Obama a Maoist or a Stalinist?" probably doesn't know the difference between a Maoist, a Stalinist, and a hole in the ground. These people are just name calling, and its best to just roll your eyes and ignore them.