For those who aren't regular readers of this blog, it's worth restating a couple things. 1.) There is principled opposition to health care reform, that has nothing to do with race. 2.) It's not clear to me to what extent race motivates Tea Party leaders. I believe it to certainly be a factor, but I don't have a grievance-meter to tell you precisely how much or how little. 3.) African-Americans, whom I obviously care a great deal about, would benefit more from health care reform, than any sort of game which seeks to divine the precise calibrations of Joe Wilson heart.
Having said all of that, I think Adam makes an important observation here. Media is very interested in Jimmy Carter's assertion that racism is at play in the town hall meetings. It isn't very interested in Glenn Beck calling health reform "reparations" and claiming "medical
schools will get more medical dollars if they've proven they've put
minorities ahead." He did this back in July. It isn't very interested in Senate leader Jon Cornyn insinuating that health care reform
will create a "quota system which will determine who would get treated on the basis of age and race."
There's a lot at work here: 1.) Race-baiters have, for the past few decades, repeatedly outfoxed anti-racists. Beck and Cornyn know how to walk up to the line. Carter is from a generation of liberals who never understood why people didn't agree them about Willie Horton. Thus Carter doesn't insinuate, he doesn't calibrate, he just speaks, political effects be damned. 2.) The dominant school of journalism holds that it's safer to talk about the effect of talking about race on Obama, rather than actually talking about its effects, period. That's true for most things though--reporters are generally more interested in gamesmanship, than issues. 3.) A lot of reporters take Beck and Cornyn's race-baiting is taken as a given. I'll be shocked if anyone asks Cornyn about this. I don't think they much care.
I think it's important for African-Americans to understand that.There's a part in The Audacity Of Hope, where writing about race, Obama notes that, rightly or wrongly, a significant swath of white people are exhausted, and repeatedly scolding them (even if you're right) is unlikely to alter the poverty stats. What we need, Obama argued, is a different strategy, one that connects our practical interests with the practical interests of the broader country--less energy on Don Imus and more on Harlem hospital. This sounds like a surrender, but it's really a re-affirmation of strategy that goes back to Douglass. The point was never to wash white people, (an arrogant pursuit, at any rate) but to free ourselves. My interest in anti-racism is passing. My interest in black people is essential.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Is this the Adam to which you're referring?
Carville And King's Silence. - A. Serwer
Frank Rich had a good column on this topic Sunday that I hope to write more about later:
Even Glenn Beck Is Right Twice a Day
I watched State of the Union and was stunned when Matalin said that and John King was quiet. Adam's post is spot on but this is the state of our media. What is so funny is that the media was the one to hype the post-racial American nonsense yet they seem so obsessed with still talking about race. Of course their obsession isn't about the lack of health care that minorities have access to or the fact that a black man with no legs was tasered by the police but who's blacker --Bill or Barack.
All you can do is shake your head and keep moving along.
Isnt Matalin's husband Carville?
Here's Matthew Yglesias today:
"Something that I find interesting about this is that if you put the argument a certain way—”racism has a lot to do with opposition to social insurance programs in the United States” people get very upset. But if you say something like “European social democracy works because post-WWII European countries were so homogeneous, but mass immigration is causing consensus around the welfare state to break down” then you come to expressing something approaching conventional wisdom among the center and right in the United States. These strike me, however, as nearly identical points of view just being expressed slightly differently."
I think that fits with this conversation.
Similar point made here:
"Health Care Is All About Race (and Profits)"
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/health-care-all-about-race-and-profits
"He'd watched a documentary on TV that referenced a study that showed the inverse relationship between ethnic diversity and social welfare programs. "It seems," he mused, "that those little European nations with high taxes where everyone's on the dole are that way because everyone looks the same."
Yglesias makes an interesting point, but I'm not sure the resentments and conflicts associated with new immigrants arriving in a country are exactly analagous to long-standing racial divides among groups already within a country.
It's analogous if you remove the element of the newness of the immigrants and just look at the fact that there's a minority group of "others" in both cases.
True, but "otherness" distinctions based on cultural differences, duration of residency, and concerns about divided loyalties/identies don't strike me as equivalent to distinctions based on race qua race.
For instance, if a white American thinks a newly-arrived white immigrant from Canada isn't really "one of us" until he's been here a while and become fully assimilated to our culture, that just seems very different than thinking a black American who's lived here his whole life isn't "one of us" simply because he's black.
It's analogous if you ignore the important stuff which isn't analogous.
I think the problem here is this. Many people are not interested in connecting the dots of mutual interest. Going back as far as slavery there has always been a segment of the white population, people who could pass for white or those who benefit from white supremacy that have viewed the white black divide as protecting their status, however paltry it may be. Their not willing to give that up for health care, better schools, on and on. Remember that bit from Chris Rock's stand up line about the one legged white bus boy being offered to trade lives with him and the response being "naw, I'm gonna ride this white thing out and see where it takes me." That's it in a nutshell.
I agree with Karl here.
And I would also state that the 'significant swath of exhausted white people' interpret damn near any actions by Black folk to 'connect the dots' as 'scolding'. This is a country where legit criticism of the governament's inept response to Katrina is met with Shelby Steele columns about 'shameful culture of Black poverty' and 'bargainers'.
Black Folks' 'practical issues' are, for the most part, ALWAYS viewed as being outside of the mainstream.
It's deeper and more essential than that, though.
I know I'm always harping on Tim Wise, but seriously: White was invented, and the purpose was to maintain sharp class distinctions between planters and the folks they needed to harvest their product.
You can argue that 'white' has been such a successful construct that it no longer matters how we got to it, but I'm a proponent of making sure as many people know it was made up for economic reasons as possible. Because I don't think we KNOW whether folks want to connect the dots, unless the dots are visible to them.
I see your point and agree to an extent. However, I think you assume that folks don't know the dots are there and I maintain that many do and don't care. It would seem that the draw of white mythology and the privilege that comes along with it is to seductive to toss aside for something as practical as common goals. Acting against our own best interest has been a fundamental constant in the history of American social behavior regardless of race (Marion Berry anyone?). The fact that white supremacy/white skin privilege is the long standing construct blocking the way on so many issues just happens to be particularly obscene. By the way, I realize the dots metaphor is starting to get a little abstract.
I'm curious, what issues in your opinion are being blocked by white supremacy/white skin privilege?
amichel,
When I see some opposition to health care being justified by claims that it may result in minorities getting care ahead of whites I see that as rooted in a fear in loss of white privilege and status. When I see some of the most staunch opposition to labor reform and unions in the south by people who would greatly benefit from both I make the small leap that it is because it may result in a loss of status. There are countless examples during and since slavery of whites acting against interest biased on race but it's a bit hard to point out in a blog's comments section without going on an on. I invite you to look into these few examples I've pointed out and see what you think. Hey, I could be wrong but that's, perhaps white racially tinged opposition is simply irrational and I'm making it more complicated than it is.
@Karl 12:31
I agree that there is no legitimate opposition to healthcare reform from the idea that minorities will get care ahead of whites. I have not heard such arguments advanced, but they are baseless. However, I do take issue with your example regarding unions and labor reform. I am from Virginia, which is a right to work state. While some workers might benefit in the short term from collective bargaining and unionization, this is a narrow and short-sighted view. In the long term, widespread unionization and the repeal of right to work laws would make Virginia a less hospitible state for new businessess and investors would look elsewhere for oppourtunities. I think this points to the difficulty of trying to determine racial animus based on wether or not certain policies are in someone's "rational best interest". You assume to know that someones motives cannot possibly be rational, and so must be racial. I think this goes to poisoning the debate, in that disagreements can no longer be legitimate differences of opinion.
@amichel from 12:14...
I think you have to unpack the word "privilege" a bit to come to your answer. I think it's more complex than Karl's response, and I think it's something that's just complex enough that it's easy to overlook simply because you're relatively unaffected(I'm a white male).
Coming from Dallas, we have a clear black/white divide that's been maintained primarily through a mess of economic and social constructs--our city council, our development projects, where we place and throw development dollars, where we put toll roads, etc, and how we maintain the balance between North (white) and South (black/hispanic) Dallas.
A good example is of the "white person project". For example, a new toll road (irrespective of the lunacy of building it inside our levees) is slated to run through the West side of downtown and into South Dallas. The toll road is being built to primarily develop a corridor on the West side, which will primarily help business dev on that side of town. It was put in place by white people, developed by white people, and will help white businesses. It cuts through neighborhoods in South Dallas (black) and provides a minimum of job opportunities (mostly construction and service) to the black community. The city council (which is required by law to be racially diverse) voted it in almost unanimously. Our black and hispanic city council members voted on a "white person project" because they could throw a bone to the black folk in South Dallas on the basis of new jobs.
That litany of detail shows how a city that ends up being dominated by "white people projects" maintains its racial divide both economically and socially. Projects that make it to city council are inevitably and primarily projects that are cooked up by people who aren't racist, but with the business and political means of cooking up a project to benefit themselves. They only involve the black community when they need to politically move it through council, and by that point they've addressed the issue by involving a sprinkling of minority owned businesses and jobs for the South side.
THAT, my friend, is how white privilege works. It's not evil, but it is integrated at every level, and limited city dollars and funding inevitably flow (rather than being technically blocked) to those with the projects.
Which, I might add, lends to TNC's basic point.
Instead of yelling at the game, the black community needs to work to build their own game that integrates into the system. If it's that new hospital (in our case, South Dallas desperately needs it's own Parkland), the community needs to vote in effective council members (and kick out the ineffective ones after a single term, no mercy) rally around projects and effectively engage the bureaucracy.
Democracy is an inherently color-blind institution, and it should be used to pound down on the stuff that needs to get done for the community.
We've gone beyond the nesting, which is a sign of differing views in dialogue if nothing else.
Karl, my experience as a white person raised by white people--even attending majority-black schools (where the state mandated curriculum treated white as both the default American and the signifier of class status, thus belying the message I got in the classroom)--was that most white folks don't know a) that they benefit from white privilege and b) that the white 'race', as they live its privilege in America, was invented to make sure the right people kept their privilege.
It may well be that a majority of white people pick up those facts with less effort than I did. And that, knowing how we got where we are, that majority evaluates its privilege with open eyes and consciously chooses to hang on tight. However, a lifetime of listening to white people deny that the system is pitched to benefit them tells me that denial is what's there in place of the facts.
Regardless, we're still debating whether undocumented immigrants should be able to access medical care in the US, and the visual is never, ever a 23 year old from Dublin with liver failure--that says something to me about how this debate is being deliberately racialized to prevent real progress that can improve the health of black (and white) children.
From the new GOP Senate health care survey line 25 asks those served would they be concerned with
"25. A "quota" system which would determine who would determine who would get treatment on the basis of race or age?"
Why even ask the question this way? Seems like a dog whistle to me and plays on that notion of a loss of status.
Regarding right to work, my understanding is that it allows people to work regardless of union affiliation, in that case why be opposed to even having the option to organize or the presnce of unions in the state. Seems a little irrational to me. But, your right, maybe it's not racial status, but, I'm just asking the question in light of our counties and the south's history? I don't assume that someones motives can't be rational and so must be racial. However this post is about how, if and why race may effect some peoples willingness to connect the dots, not all. My speculations are specific while I think you are making them broad. If they were then I would agree it would be poisonous to imply that all opposition is race based but this is not the case.
According to Wikipedia, 57% of the time the kid is from Mexico and 81% of the time he is from Latin America. Only 6% of the time is he from Europe or Canada (with Ireland being a presumably smaller fraction).
The vast majority of the people breaking our laws are Latin American. Why is it "deliberately racializing" [1] if people's mental image is accurate?
[1] Note: "Hispanic" isn't a real racial category, but lets ignore that.
@Phoenix--it's more than debating whether illegals can get coverage, we're being demanded to debate the issue when it doesn't even exist. In this case, the wedge is fantasy illegal brown people getting fantasy health care, just as the teabaggers are using a fantasy income tax hike in a populist white wedge about the pocketbooks of (mostly) whites who are being underprivileged by the fantasy pro-minority Obama-socialists who hate them because they're white. I don't know if it's denial, so much as tunnel vision, not to mention the powerful appeal of a universal unconscious fear of all our worst fantastic national demons.
Doesn't it exist? Dean Heller tried to put an enforcement mechanism into the health plan, to make it difficult for illegals to get subsidized medicine.
Dems killed his amendment. Why did they do that, if illegals getting coverage isn't on the table?
The tax hike is hardly fantasy. I have catastrophic care insurance, but Obama thinks I should buy first-dollar coverage. His plan proposes to raise my taxes if I don't buy health insurance he thinks I should have, rather than the insurance I want.
How is that a "fantasy" tax hike?
Re: Dems killed his amendment. Why did they do that, if illegals getting coverage isn't on the table?
Illegal aliens can get coverage right now, today, if they pay for it, or if their employer does. That isn't going to change. The issue is whether illegal aliens (or perhaps even legal ones) will be eligible for subisdies. The answer to that, at least in regards to the illegals is a flat no, and this is already explicitly stated in the several proposed bills. There is no need for any further amendments on the subject.
@Ninja--ahh Ninja, does the health care bill prohibit enforcement of the law? Are there special provisions in the law that have special enforcement funding (your tax dollars?) to satisfy other parts of the bill? The illegal immigrant thing is a paranoid fantasy, a straw dog.
Insofar as the regressive tax on health care--well, I don't like it either; I would prefer single payer, and I definitely think that public option to compete with insurance company monopoly price gouging is essential. I do believe that despite your individual situation, all of us currently are paying a defacto emergency room tax that will by and large be reduced if everyone has health care coverage that promotes health maintainance and that doesn't just address catastrophe. But the teabaggers have been protesting tax hikes all along, and last I looked, nothing has changed. What's more it's the same old, same old--here's a sawbuck of savings for you so you don't pay attention to the Ft. Knox giveaway to corporate interests.
The worry is that enforcement on the ground will not be up to snuff, and that this may be by design.
Before Dean Heller's amendment was shot down, I wasn't particularly worried about illegals. But now that the Dems have tried to prevent enforcement of the law, I see reason to worry. What possible reason is there for not using the existing SAVE system to monitor the people getting this new government benefit?
I don't have proof that this is what will happen. But I see no reason it should not be part of the debate. The fact is, illegal immigrants (like Obama's aunt) getting public benefits is a real and problem.
All Obama's bill does is try to make that de-facto ER tax into an explicit ER tax.
Regardless, it is a tax hike. The Obama tax hike is not a fantasy as you asserted. It's real and it is a major component of the bill.
@Ninja--once again are there special provisions for other enforcement issues?
Inre defacto. Let's just talk blood tests and type 2 diabetes, a nationwide epidemic. People w/out health insurance cannot afford periodic blood tests, or more importantly don't get them. People with insurance do. We are all paying for those who don't get them.
Yes. For example, the IRS will be enforcing the mandate to purchase unwanted health insurance. HHS is in charge of enforcing the required benefits on mandated health insurance plans. A new regulatory agency will be in charge of creating and enforcing regulations against the famous "waste, fraud and abuse".
The various proposed bills are long because they go into detail. For example, section 1145 of HR 3200 puts the secretary of HHS in charge of regulating the costs of certain cancer treatment centers.
But of course, verifying eligibility for Obamacare in the same exact way we verify eligibility for Medicaid was voted down. The bill doesn't need to go into detail on that. Hmm...
You are telling me this doesn't warrant some discussion? Sounds fishy to me.
And under Obama's plan, we will continue to do so.
Regardless, there is no evidence whatsoever that additional medical spending on tests will lower costs. "Preventative care" is a deliberate confusion of terms.
Preventative care that doesn't do anything (according to most studies): additional tests and medical procedures.
Preventative care that works: hitting the gym and eating well.
Re: The worry is that enforcement on the ground will not be up to snuff, and that this may be by design.
How easy is it for illegal aliens to get other goivermment benefits right now? Food stamps? Medicaid? Social Security? I could be wrong but I believe it is very diiffcult for them to do so, though no doubt some few "lucky" ones with highly unusual circumstances may slip through the cracks-- there is no such thing as a law so perfect that no one can ever violate it. It will be just as difficult to obtain health care subsidies since the very same system and requirements will be in place. If you can convincingly argue that illegals can easily get, say, Medicaid already then I may listen to your argument, otherwise I think you are blowing smoke.
This is false.
Dean Heller's amendment proposed that Obamacare use the *very same system and requirements* as Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. Medicaid uses SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements), and his amendment proposed that Obamacare would also. The Dems shot it down.
This means that Obamacare will NOT use the very same system as Medicaid.
Why this disparity? Apparently discussing it is racist, so we should just avoid talking about it.
Ninja@11:40 PM
Wow, you bring up some good points but who on this site is saying that discussing reform and being in opposition is racist besides you? To make the jump that pointing out what might be racist motivations by some to saying that any discussion on the issue is racist is quite a leap. Personally, if strengthening provisions to block illegal immigrants from the possibility of getting coverage gets the bill through I'm all for it.I'm curious though, are you against all American citizens being properly covered under any conditions brought about through govt. regulation?
CitizenE implied that bringing up the issue of illegals getting Obamacare is racist.
@CitizenE (September 22, 2009 2:05 PM):
Regarding your last sentence, I couldn't parse it. If you are asking whether I oppose Obamacare, the answer is yes. Obamacare will directly hurt me: it makes my current insurance (Cat coverage + HSA) illegal and will force me to pay more for services I don't want. Additionally, the insurance company is forced to charge me and some fat lazy smoker nearly the same price, basically forcing me to subsidize them.
I don't think that saying it is a wedge issue is wrong, can anyone deny that immigration isn't? While you say their is nothing in the bill to expressly prevent immigrants from getting taking part in this reform their is nothing expressly supporting it either. A lot of what ifs proposed I wasn't privy to the ends and outs of why things certain things were left in or out but so I can't say. It's striking to me that there seems to be more concern coming from you that one or a handful of people might game the system than that there is one American citizen going without. You talk about your HSA+CAT but what about the future for the country and it's health choices or is it everyman for himself Mad Max style?
Karl, illegal immigrants getting Obamacare isn't my major concern. I was simply pointing out to CitizenE that the issue does exist and is not simply a "fantasy" to raise fears of "brown people". That's why I devoted so much time to it in *this conversation*.
I'm not sure if Obamacare will cover illegals or not. I'm a worried by the fact that the democrats were very careful to make sure there is no enforcement mechanism. Regardless, it's a real issue that deserves discussion, rather than calling it "a fantasy problem that brown people might get care."
As for the rest of it, I told you my big personal issue. My big macro-level issue is that Obamacare encourages people to go to the doctor, and forces the young to subsidize the old and the gym-rats to subsidize the fatties.
The problem with medical care in this country is simply that we consume too much of it. We do that because it has a low marginal cost (i.e., once you buy insurance, getting an MRI or something costs you very little extra). Obamacare tries to reduce the marginal cost even further, which will only drive people to consume more unneeded medical care.
I don't want to subsidize medical spending, I want to tax it just like regular income (i.e., eliminate the health insurance tax deduction). And I'd like to *raise taxes* on first-dollar coverage, which is the real problem with medical spending in this country.
@Ninja
I'm with you. Without going into it too much detail I'll just say I lead a very healthy gym rat lifestyle. However, I realize that there is nothing that behavior can do for genetic disorders, accidents, etc. I'm glad that HSA's work out for you but for the vast majority of people the deductible is too high and the out of pocket costs too great. We live in a modern world where yes, people do use healthcare sometimes too much, that's part of the reality of a system that is rooted in the quasi-free market/subsidy non-sense that we have. But, I don't see how re-imagining how we should have done or saying "don't blame me, I'm healthy" gets us anywhere at this stage in the game. Flat out, every industrialized country, blah, blah, blah, you know the stats, why can't we have do it? Every argument I hear against universal coverage of some type usually comes back to an opinion rooted in indifference to others or self-centeredness. In the richest country on earth? Come on, we can do better than that!
And if Obama wanted to subsidize insurance for those with genetic disorders, I'd have little objection.
People using too much is not a problem of either free markets or subsidies, but it is a problem of health care with *low marginal cost* (i.e., getting that MRI/test/etc "just in case" costs little or nothing). Socialized catastrophic care would not have this problem. Free market first-dollar coverage would.
Going to the doctor should cost you money out of pocket to discourage going unless you really need to.
My biggest objection is that Obamacare strengthens the worst incentives in our current system. A good health care plan (socialized or not) would reward healthy living and would give people incentives to consume less medicine.
The fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever that playing any games with the health care system will improve anyone's health. (If you disagree, please provide evidence.) Medicine (beyond the basics, which everyone gets) just doesn't affect health in any statistically significant way, according to basically every good study I've seen.
To put it another way: the life expectancy gap between the US and Japan is 4 years. The life expectancy gap between a completely sedentary person and a person who walks at a brisk pace 30 minutes/day is also 4 years. Rural living adds another 7 years to your life.
Medicine won't help. Exercise will.
So you don't mind socialized medicine then or subsidizes and the circumstances you consider right, cool, we can agree on that. I don't know what your background is, but if you know anything about biostats (it's part of what I do) in those extra four years you've cited is a lot more than simple mortality. That's way life expectancy as a metric much like infant mortality. I ask, are you against universal coverage that does anything less than fully address all your concerns? Also if and when Obamacare as you call it succeeds and if and when the approval ratings are along the lines of medicare will you still call the current reform bill Obamacare?
I get what you're saying. And I think you and Obama are right. But. Maybe it's just been some personal experiences lately, but I'm tired of letting the people who are wrong or crazy set the agenda. I'll say if I were Obama, I'd be doing saying the same things. But I'm not Obama, and I worry about what happens when we begin to start out conceding ground and not calling this stuff out. Maybe that's easier for me to say as a young white male, in fact I'm sure it is. It just goes against my mental instincts to go into an argument when the other person is demonstrably biased or wrong. And this white "exhaustion" with racism is cowardice.
I'm not being very coherent. I think that, in and of itself, is maybe a reason I'm wrong--or at least, my position is untenable nationally. There's a level of anger that I think is innate when you call this stuff out, and people don't like it when you're angry with them.
It's true. Again, it's something personal there that kinda goes beyond this specific debate for me, almost a pet-peeve, but moreso. A neurosis almost. I just fail to see how people expect government to work if theres a group of people who are on a primitive plane of reality, that we have to just accept things that are demonstrably untrue or else a large part of the country will have a hissy-fit.
I just don't expect government to work, period. Luckily, my agenda doesn't require it to.
but surely it does JL. I'm assuming you mean you're a libertarian. I can accept that as a philosophy, but there's a major practical issue that comes into play when it comes to forming coalitions and compromise. For instance, if you wanted a private market solution to climate change, you're going to be dealing with a large chunk of people who simply don't care or don't believe in it. Maybe this is a conversation for another thread, but that's part of my problem with libertarianism--not only deciding how little government can you get down to with you're own camp, and how do you then reconcile that with the fact that the vast majority of people (Republicans certainly included in that group) wanting more government.
I guess you'd have to go issue by issue. You know, this is probably for another thread.
(replying to Dan W @2:28 here as comments only nest finitely)
Actually, I'm an anarchist. My political agenda never requires a working government.
The point was never to wash white people, (an arrogant pursuit, at any rate) but to free ourselves.
Aye, and the point, as a white person, of confronting my own racism is that it holds me back. Everyone is more interested in, and influenced by, people they perceive to be like them. I guess there are solid biological reasons for that. It can lead to forms of blindness though, like thinking women can't be funny.
Glenn Beck knows "how to walk up to the line"?
Can you explain what you mean by that? I'm not sure I'm getting it.
If I understand you, the "line" has been blurred so badly because white conservatives are "exhausted" from being hammered on race. But they've never not been tired. They never expend any real energy on it at all.
I understand Obama strategy, but I also think that it's having some immediate consequences in allowing the Glenn Becks of the world to get away with serious racism. It's fine for Obama to be above the fray if that's what he chooses to do, but can he please just allow folks who want to deal with Beck's racism head on to do so without giving Beck the ammunition to say "well, Obama doesn't think I'm racist".
Because anyone who'd defend the leadership of the Tea Party movement from charges of racism is either a racist themselves, or a total stooge. For the contextally challenged, I'm not saying that everyone in the crowd at the mall was a racist, but the leadership? Hell yes!
I think the "line" TNC is referring to is the line where something is either racist or debatabley racist. Beck knows how to keep his comments debatably racist, without crossing the line where he's racist and rejected, by advertisers or audiences. The guy is on the cover of Time after all. Imus's "nappy-headed hos" jibe crossed that line.
This debate, probably like all debates, is being engaged in by the excitable partisans: "Beck's not racist!" vs. "Beck's racist!" The line is for the middle. Overt racists get smacked. Remember Obama Bucks, or Obama Waffles? Or Barack the Magic Negro? These are things that most people look at and say, That's wrong.
"without crossing the line where he's (Beck's) racist and rejected, by advertisers..."
Beck has been "rejected" by something like 60 major adverisers because of his calling President Obama a guy who "hates white people" - so making noise and exposing these clowns isn't for naught, despite the insult to the national intelligence of that ass-kissing Time cover story.
Debatable racist? By whom? The only people who're debating if Beck is a racist or not are racists.
I actually don't think Beck successfully walks a line that Carter crosses, I think that the discursive line for talking about racism is actually different depending on who's being accused.
Conservatives have wrestled a lot of leeway in the national discourse over the past 20 years and the things they say represent a pushback against the white guilt that, whether it was genuinely felt or not, dominated the discourse during the 1960s-1970s and lead to the exhaustion Obama and TNC reference.
The country is very sensitive about and quick to deny charges about a generalized white racism, but very forgiving of charges of racial preference, "reverse racism", chronic overreaction on the part of people of color, and the like.
Beck pushes the line, for sure, but in tandem with a narrative that, whether the majority of folks agree with it or not, may be seen as relieving or cathartic by large swaths of the white population precisely because of the exhaustion occasioned by what some perceive as the constant scolding of history and empirical disparities when they are mentioned.
Josh, what do you mean by "get away with serious racism"? In what way is Glenn Beck getting away with anything? He's allowed to say that kind of stuff without being challenged on it, but to what effect?
I agree that his audience is huge relative to the needs of a profitable multi-million dollar business for Glenn Beck, but it's tiny relative to the persuadable population of voters. He does far more to hurt the GOP than he does to help it. The more Dems can persuade moderate Republicans and Independents that their only alternative to the Dems is a GOP that loves and agrees with Glenn Beck, the more those moderates will choose the mainstream Dems as the lesser of two evils.
Who's challenging him? He's lifted up as the second coming by 99% of the right. He's a hero to them, and has said horribly racist things with an entire TV network defending him on charges of racism.
So, he gets away with it. It has no serious impact on him. He can even loose major advertisers with no harm done.
TNC, it's amazing that a lot of folks ostensibly of the left - Internet warriors and traditional columnists, talking heads, etc. - haven't come around to your viewpoint on this one.
Reading "My Bondage and My Freedom" at the moment, and I know you mentioned this before, but Douglass went great lengths to argue that slavery had horrible effects on all white people, non-slaveholders and slaveholders alike. Obama understands this paradigm - which is why he addressed his recent speech mostly to those who have health insurance, for instance. They're the majority, after all. If we as progressives do not keep sympathy for our fellow Americans foremost in our minds as we argue these issues, we've already lost the debate.
Sure, it's a lot more fun to play gotcha. I think the explanation is obvious: what attracts eyeballs? For websites and TV news, the answer is the same - Drama. Controversy. Let's avoid this trap and educate ourselves on policy issues via primary sources. I'm trying. It's easier to check Fark and Gawker and Sullivan's juicier posts and just wade into the shitshow. But I'm trying.
Here's a hint: if you're involved in a debate over whether Glenn Beck or that Cambridge cop or Father Coughlin is a racist, you've already lost that one.
There's also a 4) ex-Presidents will always get more play than a senator, any day of the week. There's four ex-presidents, 100 senators, dozens of talk show hosts.
That is interesting and true. But it is possible? Or, better question, how is it possible, at this moment? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this....the reasons these accusations and counter accusations of racism get so much play is that not only are they inflammatory, they're cheap. Literally so: Couple of 30 second clips, five or six talking heads, boom you've got an hour of emotionally charged television where tense-lipped people debate Who's the Bad Guy. It's easy. How do you wrest control of the conversation back with mere fact?
I think it is possible, and it comes in this statement: "less energy on Don Imus and more on Harlem hospital."
It can (and does) happen at the local, community level. The community has to build inertia around a hospital in their neighborhood. They have to vote in representatives with the skill and knowledge to navigate the challenges around building that hospital where they need it. And they need to provide that representative or business leader with the community buy-in that provides the strength for him/her to act unilaterally in their regard.
"one that connects our practical interests with the practical interests of the broader country"
Credit this insight to the great sociologist and student of race v class, William Julius Wilson, who took a beating when he started making arguments in this direction back in the '80s - asserting that class-based policies to address disparities held more promise, ultimately, for black folks than race-based strategies. I'm certain Obama is taking Wilson's page on this.
Well, that's why class-based affirmative action is such a good idea, should we ever figure out how to pull that one off
Good schools. No Child Left Behind (really.... with funds). A sense that we better find and use _all_ our talent, before we start having to buy solar panels and windmills from the Chinese.
I also want to make the distinction between our political leadership doing what Obama does and whether bloggers, gadflies, etc. shouldn't be a bit more punchy in "calling out" the egregious racism at play among many of the prominent right-wing shit-stirrers, including such facts as Joe Wilson's holding Strom Thurmond in high esteem and sliming his daughter for not staying invisible or the Rush/Beck axis of sleaze. Exposing these folks for what they are doesn't mean that political leadership needs to dwell on it. But I'm glad we've got such folks as Media Matters on our side to dig into their business and nail them.
I understand your perspective, but policing the discourse has an important function. It's not just about scolding white people, it is also, as Dan W. points out, about agenda-setting. Not talking about racism gives people leave to ignore it's affects. One of the things we see in the aftermath of Carter's comment is not only the admittedly useless question of trying to figure out who in particular is racist and who isn't, but a much more relevant and troubling denial of the very possibility that any of the intense vitriol directed at the President, any of the evidently existential fear and talk about "taking the country back," and fears about the nationa suddenly not being "the America I know and love" could be rooted in racial resentment and/or discomfort on the part of some white folks. This denial is important not primarily because it would damn certain individuals, that's not useful as you say, but instead because it is important to make a distinction in our national discourse between arguments made in good faith and arguments made in bad faith. The former ought to be addressed and the later, dismissed.
Otherwise, the national political agenda can be hijacked by people who have no interest in advancing any kind of policy concern, but who are instead using public forums as a site for their emotional catharsis, a catharsis spurred on by beliefs and attitudes that the wider public has already deemed illegitimate.
That said, there are better and worse ways to call this sort of thing out. I'm not sure Carter's articulation was that out of line since he explicitly refrained from accusing all opposition of racism, but given the extreme sensitivity of the general populace and the knee-jerk reaction to deny that racial discomfort could play any part in all the uproar, a more delicate approach would have been more efficacious.
The problem, as I see it is that Carter didn't bother to actually connect the dots - to point out the kinds of things that he saw and heard that seemed to him rooted in something other than differing policy preferences - but instead applied his analysis without much explanation. He also did not acknowledge in his initial statement the nuance and range of motivations, including but not limited to racial discomfort/resentment that might combine to create the overcharged atmosphere we've seen during the healthcare debate.
For me, it's not that he called racism, but the way he called it. He made the point in a way that made it easily assailable and as you point out, that kind of careless discourse can often cause more harm than good.
TNC: Can you define what you mean by "anti-racism" here?
Yeah, that's rather vague. In this context I'm talking about the uproar over Joe Wilson, Tea-baggers, Townhallers etc. I'm obviously very interested in, say, racism and the War on Drugs, racism and the formation of ghettos, racism and job discrimination etc.
I wonder if the useful distinction is between 'racism' and 'the system that enforces racial hierarchy.'
I don't have a grievance-meter to tell you precisely how much or how little.
Well, let's get one of our sci-fi geeks we have around here to work!
Because what this world needs, more than anything else, is the Grievance-Meter. Remember, we measure what matters...
The device is still in R&D, but there's a calibration scale.
Short story: I am black. Back before the election I was having a drink with some friends and got into a debate with the bar manager, who was a McCain supporter, about who was likely to win. We disagreed, I made my points and after about 30 minutes or so I got a call from some friends at another bar. I said my goodbyes and went to meet them. About ten minutes after I got to the new bar, I got a call from my 2 white friends at the first bar that the manager I was arguing with was going on some insane racial tirade, talking about the "crazy stupid nigger" that was just in his bar. Apparently they mildly confronted him on his use of language and he apologized to them but needless to say I was still livid.
This was an interesting moment for me. My first instinct was to walk back there, "keep it real" and see what he would have to say once I was standing there looking at him. But I had just started a pint of beer that I paid $9 for and I was loathe to leave it to get warm. I think it was a good thing because finishing that beer gave me a moment to ponder what exactly I had to gain by getting into it with this clown. I was out having a good time with my friends and some good beer and although I doubted the confrontation would get physical, it would probably get ugly. This guy had no power over me which is probably what pissed him off in the first place so ultimately, his racial attitudes were his problem. Why make them mine?
Aside from the vindication that everything I said about what would happen in the election was 100% correct, he now knows that I know about his little outburst and he hides in his office whenever I come through. Much more satisfying long term victory then whatever getting in his face would have accomplished that evening.
"But I had just started a pint of beer that I paid $9 for and I was loathe to leave it to get warm."
Nuff said. You are neither "crazy" nor "stupid." (Well, maybe paying $9 for a beer is questionable, but your instincts were correct. Finish the beer.)
African-Americans, whom I obviously care a great deal about, would benefit more from health care reform, than any sort of game which seeks to divine the precise calibrations of Joe Wilson heart
This really strikes at the heart of what deeply bothers me about so much political discourse -- we talk so much about the edges, and fail to notice that we're neglecting the heart.
Whether or not Joe Wilson, or any specific person, is a racist, matters -- of course it matters. But it matters less than actually achieving something for the huge numbers of people against which he may or may not hold prejudice. I, like most people, only have so much time in my day -- I/the country can spend our 24 hours talking about Joe Wilson (or his metaphorical equivalent), or we can spend an hour talking about him, and then move on to the effects of racism and from there into how to make life better. Either way, the 24 hours will be gone. And while it would always be hard to find some kind of useful balance in how much we discuss each aspect of these issues (individual racism, the larger problem at hand, how to address that problem, etc), I don't see us (the American public) trying very hard.
Bottom line, I don't think that trying to achieve uniform agreement on our reading of the grievance-meter is a good use of our collective time and energy, and yet -- as TNC pointed out last week or so -- it appears to be a conversation that we like to have.
Part of it may be habits of life in the political minority -- complaint is often the only satisfaction available.
To a degree we need to recapture the mentality of Progressives pre-LBJ -- "of course we can do it."
The media and those who partake of it like foodfights. It's who we are. A couple of weeks back in the Sunday NY Times, there were two side by side oped pieces. The one that got a lot of attention, and why she brings dough in to her place of employment, was Maureen Dowd's on racism and the Wilson flap. The other by Barbara Ehrenreich and Dedrick Muhammed spoke to the economic realities for Black Americans, documenting the sad reality that for Blacks the recession started early in the Bush administration, and that by now has reached Depression characteristics. I heard a lot of reverberation to the Dowd piece, none to Ehrenreich/Muhammed. I wasn't surprised, and even emailed TN about such an upshot immediately after I read it.
Why Republicans and conservatives work the soap opera end of the news cycle is because they know it captures everyone's attention; there's an audacity to the over the top quality of Glen Beck that chews up the scenery. I don't really know how to change this phenomenon. Van Jones got more attention for the outlandish things he signed on to via Beck than all the good work he has done, for which no one even at this site was much interested. It's easier to call Al Gore a rich elitist than to really examine or think about the effects of Global climate change unless an equally entertaining hurricane creates mortal havoc in our own backyard.
If someone could tell me how we could change this, I would like to hear about it because, I, myself, have few answers.
I don't know how to change it. In my cynical moments, I suspect the real problem is simply that serious discussion is a lot harder and more boring than the food fight/manufactured outrage of the week sideshow, and that this explains a huge amount of US politics.
Do you want to talk about health care reform, a topic choc full of really unpleasant topics like end of life and futile care, the role of "frequent flyers" in emergency rooms, the hard tradeoffs between predatory malpractice lawyers and incompetent/unconcerned doctors? All those are topics that can keep you up nights worrying about how they will affect you, personally. Or would you like to talk about interlocking perverse incentives between insurers, providers, and patients that lead to godawful waste? Or fine details of how to budget for health care reform? Or any of a dozen C-SPAN worthy topics?
No, you don't. Those things are depressing and boring and discussing them is way too much like work. So what shall we discuss? How about whether a public option is socialism? Or whether illegal immigrants will get healthcare? Or whether the people fighting against it are racists?
Those topics have some real advantages. If you don't have immigrant family members/friends, they're pretty distant, and so they're not really very upsetting. (Not like worrying about whether the hospital and nursing home will start playing ping-pong with Grandma next week in a grand game of cost-shifting.) And you can quickly convert the discussion into an us/them good guys/bad guys story to fit your tastes, which means you don't have to read anything or learn anything to have the conversation.
It's not too hard to see what actually gets the press. Even the "death panels" discussion was kept at a nice straw-man level--bad people want to kill off grandma, rather than buying grandma six more months of lingering misery will cost enough to send a kid to Harvard. The easier, less viscerally upsetting discussions are the ones that prevail.
I think you can profitably apply this same observation to our rush to war in Iraq, the later torture scandals and how they've played out, how we discuss the death penalty and police brutality, and on and on.
Beck crossed the hell out of the line. The difference is that no one cares about the real line of racism, they care about the line of outright Jim Crow white supremacy and then perhaps only by proxy of the embarrassment it causes.
In other words the media is far more interested in guarding the line of comfortable dialogue for those who have no interest in fighting racism that they ever were about the line of racial justice.
I don't know that it's arrogant at all.Perhaps it's a result of religion but I don't think Douglass was at all disinterested in "yelling at white people" or the kind of moralizing that the anti-racist movement has always been known for.
What else could we call that Fourth of July Speech Douglass gave?
Douglass, King and others were really all about changing white people, they had to be.
Perhaps in an era of changing demographics it's no longer necessary, but as I implied in an earlier thread I think that anti-racism has to be at the core right alongside more tangible efforts.
In other words the media is far more interested in guarding the line of comfortable dialogue for those who have no interest in fighting racism that they ever were about the line of racial justice.
Perfect. Well said.
And that's the real problem here: there's an inherent weakness in discussing issues pertaining to race and privilege when the only voices we're quoting in the discussion are those of the mainstream corporate media. We can spend all day trying to analyze why politicians, pundits, and demagogues say the things they do--but it doesn't really bring us closer to any real change in the dialogue, because it never challenges the parameters.
Don't get me wrong, blogs like this one are excellent for their commentary and the discussion they generate. But we're still at a point where it's a purely one-way street in the larger media world. We have to listen to their spokespeople, but they don't have to listen to us. In fact, they revel in ignoring what doesn't fit their worldview, or isn't in their bosses' interests. And they really don't try to hide their insularity anymore.
I'm curious: Does anyone go to the MSM for intelligent, or even non-moronic discussion of race? They mostly get the sports scores right, and they're an effective enough source of quotes from the two big parties and various large organizations, but for insight into any serious issue?
The way it looks to me: If you want to keep a large audience, you can scare your audience or make them mad at some bogeyman, but you can't make them uncomfortable. You lose viewers and readers when you make casual readers feel stupid or dirty, or when you make them confront some fact they'd really rather avoid. And honest discussions of race are chock full of uncomfortable. Want to talk about crime statistics? Or sunset towns? Want to confront your own unconscious racism? Want to have a real discussion of the performance gap in schools? Or illegitimacy rates?
Often when reaching a large group of people it isn't the most nuanced or analytical message that is successful but the simplest. Once a person is in the habit of using a sledgehammer to pound a 10d nail the sledgehammer gets used regardless of the damage it may do.
In a sense a person could say that we are seeing the final effects of mass-market advertising on our political discourse. Death Panels don't exist, but then again neither does a lower-tar non-cancer-causing cigarrette. The fact that people believe in both says more about the effects of mass-marketed misinformation than it does about the intelligence of the people who believe in such things.
It seems to me that the more I read, and in this case I think a person would do well to pick up a biography of Sam Rayburn and see exactly what he went through to create the SEC, the more I understand that no significant change --either for better or worse-- has ever happened in this country without a good deal of hysteria whipped up on either side. Reason being that it is so much easier to appeal to a person's emotions than it is to give them the information that they need to make an informed decision. In simpler terms it's easier to manipulate than it is to educate. I am starting to wonder how much --at least on the republican side, maybe also on the democratic side-- our political parties resemble brands that voters identify with for emotional rather than practical reasons. I think the reason behind this is obvious, when a person is the target of a sucessful emotional appeal it's really easy to convince them that Barack Obama is a muslim, or that Conservatives are all composed of birthers and truthers and people who cling to the 3 G's of political discourse. When politics becomes a marketing game opinions become sacred but facts become free. In short, the same tools once used to sell cigarettes to kids are being used to market ideas in the public sphere and the result is pretty much the same, cancer rates are rising.
What we need, Obama argued, is a different strategy, one that connects our practical interests with the practical interests of the broader country--less energy on Don Imus and more on Harlem hospital.
Absolutely YES.
One thing that gets overlooked a lot in today's media is that the extremist fringe makes for good TV, but doesn't necessarily reflect mainstream opinion. And conservatives like Beck USE THIS. Beck, like all of these guys, is a cynical opportunist. I don't think he's explicitly racist; hardly ANYBODY is explicitly racist in that old George Wallace way (which is all Jimmy Carter knows about) except a relative handful of confused, stupid and/or crazy people carrying misspelled signs.
What Beck and co. are doing instead is driving the debate. They LOVE to talk about racism in simplistic terms, because (a) they get to destroy their own straw men and (b) they take the focus off of stuff that matters. What matters is absolutely NOT whether some cracker with a sign hates black people. What matters is whether the debate gets turned from a debate about health care to a debate about whether crackers with signs are dumb or not. Which is what Beck wants.
It has been a very interesting experience to find the 'silent majority' on my side.
My husband and I were in the car recently, listening to Ed Shultz on Air America debate a caller about health care. The caller said he was a conservative Christian who didn't believe the government had any business getting involved in health care. Ed Shultz responds, "Well, are you anti-abortion? Because if you abortion should be made illegal, that's the government getting involved in health care, telling a woman she doesn't have the right to choose!" And then he and the caller start arguing about abortion.
My husband and I both thought that was the wrong way to go. Given how the caller labeled himself, it could be assumed he was anti-choice, but the caller hadn't brought up abortion. He was talking about health care. Abortion, like race, is one of those volatile issues that can distract civil discussion about anything else.
We both thought it would have been better for Ed Shultz to ask the guy what kind of insurance he had and through whom. If he, like many of the protesters, had Medicare or Tricare, Shultz could have tried to drive home the point that those are government programs. If the caller had insurance through his employer, he could have asked what would happen if the guy lost his job. If he had no insurance, ask what would happen if he or a member of his family becomes seriously ill.
In other words, Shultz should have tried to connect with the guy on why a public health care option would be good for him and his loved ones. But the moment was lost again by bringing up abortion, which while a valid issue just like race, wasn't the immediate issue at hand.
--"Carter is from a generation of liberals who never understood why people didn't agree them about Willie Horton. Thus Carter doesn't insinuate, he doesn't calibrate, he just speaks, political effects be damned."--
Oh yes. No doubt whatsoever on this one. The Obama is a Mooslim slander and "We want Our Country back" and the birth certificate canard are all figments of Carter's wild imagination. Nothing to see here -- move along.
We don't we ask, say, Ambassador Andrew Young if President Carter (an 84 year old white man who grew up in the South) is ignorant or politically naive about the methods and consequences of racial demagogues who manage to get elected to office.
I think you misread "doesn't insinuate, doesn't calibrate, he just speaks."
Your response argues past TNC's point, but never addresses it. You do suggest an interesting point that TNC's Northern perspective undervalues the importance of confronting racism head on -- or perhaps undervalues that importance _in the South_.
Not sure how much time TNC spent living in Maryland, but I would hope that Coates's "perspective" is a bit more varied than that.
Fair point. Though nb. I simply noted that you were potentially _suggesting_ an interesting -- but as yet unformed -- point.
Your initial argument didn't make sense -- the discussion was about the political wisdom of Carter's statement rather than its truth.
The second argument -- that Carter and Andrew Young had to be given credit for some (particularly southern?) political wisdom -- is more interesting: I'd love to hear more.
I don't know whether I'm right to suggest a distinction between northern and southern -- it was simply an idea that came to mind.
The purpose of the birthers and the "muslin" canards is to stake out the kook position as far out to the fringe as possible, which is how you sneak more "rational" positions, like "health care is socialism" or "we could solve this whole thing with tort reform", under the edge of the tent. They've moved the tent. And they're sucking you in with this stuff, because now they get to say "of COURSE we've got nothing to do with this birth certificate nonsense" and sound reasonable. They are not reasonable, though.
The teabaggers do not form a serious challenge to Obama. The thugs in suits sneaking in after them do.
"The point was never to wash white people, (an arrogant pursuit, at any rate) but to free ourselves."
Of course, it is also worth realizing that there may be allies amongst the 'great unwashed.'
Most certainly. I added that line about arrogance because I think it presumes that we (black folks) are clean. We ain't. Nobody is.
Obama was quoted quoting Alinsky:
"No enemies or allies, only interests."
It's funny, though, much of this debate re-capitulates an old theological debate: salvation by works vs. salvation by faith.
As to my comment, I couldn't resist the opportunity to use the term "great unwashed" in a modern discourse.
Race in America (as previously noted) was and ALWAYS has been a conscious construct of an economic elite, waging a class war against WHITE people. By cloaking the true nature of the poison with the various sweeteners used over the years; status, fear, privilege, solidarity, threat, etc. the elites have convinced whites (against all evidence to the contrary) to swallow the idea that THEY aren't niggers too. The reason the opposition becomes so incensed is that they DO comprehend at some level (actually many), that their opposition is not "real". Of course they understand that there are no death panels. Of course they don't think that the U.S. electorate just picked "Hitler" in preference to a "War Hero". What they are fearing is the loss of their narrative. They fear the loss of the storyline that let's them justify their lives in almost any dimension. Loser in a dead end, low pay job? Illegal immigrants got the job I SHOULD have. Passed over for promotion? Couldn't give it to me because of affirmative action. Covert Muslim non citizen got elected? Brer Rabbit done out slicked us again.
What is playing out is what anyone who has ever dealt with a substance abusing relative recognizes as classic endgame interaction. As the justifications and rationalizations run out, and can't be sustained against ANY aspect of reality, the response to the MOST reasonable request (healthcare like it is, is unsustainable, we should do something) is EXACTLY what we see at the town halls. Wild accusations, hysteria, threats, escalating to violence as the end approaches.
Understand that this is open class warfare, but only one side is fighting it with that as the acknowledged context. Race is an issue simply because that is the weapon they brought to the fight. Having used it for 300 years, they will use it until it doesn't seem to work. The election of Obama is the death knell of that weapon, and so they use it with more vigor. I say the classcist nature of the conflict should be made more explicit. With a backdrop of Wall St perfidy, economic hardship in every class but the TRUE elite, there has never been a more perfect time to do harm to their weapon. You can kill the troops, but it's better to bomb the factories....
"You can kill the troops, but it's better to bomb the factories...."
In general I agree with you, but I have a particular problem with this metaphor -- much as Fallows has a problem with boiled frogs. Bombing the factories never worked.
Sun Tzu: attack his strategy, attack his alliances, attack his army, attack his cities, in that order of preference. Clausewitz: attack his center of gravity (whatever that is).
Responding to Ulysses larger point, I would add one further issue, which most people tend to underestimate: since 1965 the United States has seen the largest influx of new immigrants since the 1920s.
It's tremendously varied bolus of new citizens. In part for this reason the political impact has only recently begun to become visible.
One thing common to these folks, in general, is that they have not really fit themselves in the black-white division: most obviously because they are Asian or Latin American, but even because they are Mediterranean/South/Southwest Asian, etc.
By their own lights these folks are politically underrepresented -- being represented by Joe Crowley doesn't cut it, even if his tan resembles theirs. But they're not likely to muster enthusiastically for a fight against the "white establishment" either, especially if it means simply substituting, for example a black 'foreign devil' for white.
Begin to talk about specifics -- national values/community values, education, health care, police brutality, small business success -- and you begin to get more interest.
Not only does the 'racism,racism' cry offend the racists, it also causes new ethnics to tune out.
Jeezus you finally come around TNC. I don't get why you worry what white people think about you anyway. I mean, just look at us. We're pretty much a bunch of fat beer guzzling slobs (unless we're doing meth) we can't dance, and we don't look good bald. And contrary to what you might think, we don't sit around the dinner table talking about black people. Its more about the Chinese who took our jobs.
You can't all wee-weed up every time a few crackers crawl out of their meth lab/trailer with a Hitler mustache painted on an Obama sign. Most of us are too busy clipping Fantastic Sam's coupons to pay attention to politics anyway.
"Carter is from a generation of liberals who never understood why people didn't agree them about Willie Horton. Thus Carter doesn't insinuate, he doesn't calibrate, he just speaks, political effects be damned."
I don't understand it and liberals shouldn't understand it. We're right, they're wrong. The Reagan/Clinton/Bush years are over. Now is the time to be liberal as all hell.