All About Race
by Guest Contributor Jenn Fang, originally published at Reappropriate
This past Sunday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell broke with the GOP ranks to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president. Citing in part McCain’s negative campaigning as part of his decision, Powell said of Obama:
Sen. Obama has demonstrated the kind of calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach to problem-solving that I think we need in this country.
As political analysts posted wave upon wave of comments on this latest development in the ‘08 presidential election, Politico posted an email from Rush Limbaugh saying that Powell’s endorsement had nothing to do with Obama’s qualities as a candidate and everything to do with race.
“Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. “OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”
How racist of Limbaugh to see a Black man showing support for another Black man and to automatically assume it’s all about skin colour. Forget that Powell spoke at length about Obama’s qualifications as president: Limbaugh can’t fathom that Obama could be endorsed for any reason other than race.
This morning, Limbaugh defended his comment, saying that because Democrats are remarking on Obama’s race as reason for his candidacy’s historic nature, that Limbaugh is in the clear.
“I thought it should be about race,” he said. “I thought you liberals thought this was a historic candidacy because finally we are going to elect a black guy…why hide behind this, why act like it’s not about race?”
“This was all about Powell and race, nothing about the nation and its welfare,” Limbaugh added. The talk radio host also criticized members of the media for not addressing his claim that Powell likely hasn’t endorsed white candidates who, according to Limbaugh, have similar political leanings and experience as Obama.
It’s ironic that Limbaugh is making this argument; just last Thursday, I got into a discussion/heated exchange with some local Democrats over Obama and race. They were making the argument that Obama should be praised for not making an issue of the race and racism he has experienced on the campaign trail — like Jackie Robinson, the first African-American player to play for the then all-White Major Leagues, Obama was to be credited for not “turning it into a race issue”.
I find here a consistent perspective from some White Democrats to misconstrue why this election is all about race. Rather, like Limbaugh, many seem to equate discussions of race this year with accusations of racism; an uncomfortable, touchy subject that they would rather avoid. Limbaugh mocks Obama’s candidacy (comparing it to affirmative action) while leftists tout Obama’s “post-racial” candidacy — but in both cases, there is a determined effort to avoid a real discussion about race and what it means.
To say Powell’s decision has nothing to do with race is to argue that somehow we can wash away the effects of race from Obama’s candidacy. Of course, colour doesn’t wash off; similarly, it would be ludicrous to say that Powell’s endorsement had nothing to do with race, and liberals who would deny race’s impact in Obama’s candidacy would rather pretend Obama really is campaigning in the meritocratous America of their fantasy. But Limbaugh takes the other extreme, assuming that Obama is nothing more than the colour of his skin – a two-dimensional cardboard-cutout Black man.
Why is there such resistance to seeing people of colour as both “people” and “of colour”. From both sides of the aisle, we see pressure to simplify racial minorities into either racist or post-racial caricatures, but at no time are we allowed to be three-dimensional, complicated people who have a race.
I don’t think we should celebrate Obama as a post-racial candidate; that is no better than arguing that Obama has nothing to offer but his melanin — we are defining for a bi-racial, African American man whom he should be based on what we are comfortable with about him. And, for the record, I wish Obama were able to discuss more freely the racism and lynch mob-esque furor at McCain/Palin rallies, so intent is he on getting elected that he is missing the opportunity to initiate real, three-dimensional race dialogue in this country.
Not to say he shouldn’t try to win, but I think one of the tragedies of racism in America is that you can’t be a person of colour and do both.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
macon d wrote:
Thank you for identifying and clarifying racism on both sides of the political divide (though there seems to be an equating here of “liberals” with “leftists,” two different terms in my book).
Joe Feagin offers more good insights about racism among Obama supporters here.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 9:16 am ¶
RobynT wrote:
I really like this article. Living in a predominantly white college town, the fervor for Obama freaks me out (of course not as much as the hold-out pockets of fervor for McCain). It seems especially suspicious that whites seem to be more adoring of Obama–seriously, it seems sort of like teenagers adoring a pin-up sometimes, while a lot of people of color I know are more hesitant, skeptical… And I am always always suspicious of folks using Others to mark who THEY are–and all the Obama shirts, bumper stickers, etc. seem to be doing just that…
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 9:29 am ¶
Daniel wrote:
Good article with a compelling theme. I’m a little unsure why you would use an extremist blowhard like Rush Limbaugh to make your case, but I like the argument you make nonetheless. I don’t really get the “racist or post-racial” argument and I would love some clarification on that. What, exactly, do you mean by post-racial? I also don’t understand the “allowed” part in the context of your discussion. How can somebody else allow or disallow anybody else to define themselves? Perhaps you mean that people disregard other people in many ways including those who are racist? You’re right on target with your point of the difficulty of discussing racism and winning an election at the same time. Racism is, indeed, a tragedy on all fronts. Good post.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 9:39 am ¶
Melissa wrote:
macon d: That article said what I was going to say. I live in NW Indiana where there is still a lot of racism, and not subtle racism. I think that for many whites in the area, if Obama started discussing race and the racism he’s encountered, it would cause them to not listen to his message on other issues.
I’m white and am disgusted at the racism and stupidity at McCain/Palin rallies. I think Barack is a good candidate and, from everything I’ve read and heard about him, a good person. I like the things he stands for in the campaign. I hope he wins and that, after that, maybe he can address the racism that is still out there. The town I live in still has had problems where blacks have faced so much hostility that some have left. I would like to see that end and to not be told I’m too “open-minded” because I’m not racist.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 10:08 am ¶
Charlotte wrote:
“but at no time are we allowed to be three-dimensional, complicated people who have a race.”
The other day, I was listening to a sermon (“Proud” (I think) – Unitarian Universalist) about the importance of supporting transgender people in our communities. One of the things that Reverend Morn said that really struck home was that it is so important to give honor to people by calling them people of first, then discussing whatever group you’re identifying them with, to put the focus on our common humanity and individuality. Instead of transgender people – “a person who is transgender”, “a person who is lesbian” , “a person who is $race”.
It was an interesting idea, but one I really liked. It’s nice to hear it echoed here, on a totally different topic.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 10:23 am ¶
drispe wrote:
If that bloated oxycontin fiend followed his garbage through to conclusion, he’d see the holes in his argument. You don’t get endorsed by Colin Powell with race as the predominant factor in said endorsement. Where was this supposed groundswell of race based support for Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes? Those 2 were a joke, and therefore nobody cared for them. You better believe race is a factor for many McCain supporters. They hang effigies of Obama, trash his supporters’ cars, make him out to be a scary Muslim despite the Jeremiah Wright scandal. Any grand wizard would be proud.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 11:36 am ¶
KuriusJurge612 wrote:
THANK YOU! That’s what bother me in general is that Obama “transcends” race. But for the people that say that: has race really been transcended if you still have to bring it up?
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 11:50 am ¶
RJG wrote:
Are all those white dudes supporting McCain doing it because they’re white?
And Powell’s endorsement has a ton to do with race. One example being the way the McCain campaign and the GOP have treated Muslim-Americans. Another example being that people on “Powell’s side” believe this is appropriate. So, yes, it is about race, in the sense that many notable members in the GOP, their people who make talking points, and their satirists have a habit of being giant assbags when it comes to race.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 11:54 am ¶
OneShySistah wrote:
A large failure on the part of folks like Limbaugh, who accuse black voters of being racist because of our support for Obama, is checking their own skin. Turn the tables. When it’s always two white men on the ballot, is it racist for the white voters to throw their support behind one of those candidates? No. It’s business as usual. The point is voting for who you think has your best interests at heart. Feeling more comfortable or connected with someone who looks like you isn’t racist – it’s nature. The folks who toss around the word “racism” for that are afraid because it knocks the notion of colorblindness/post-racialism to its knees.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 12:02 pm ¶
Alex wrote:
I cannot take anything Rush Limbaugh says seriously. Partly because, as with Ann Coulter or, at times, Michael Moore, I question how much of what he says are things he believes, rather than things he says to draw up media attention and continue racking up contracts and book deals. Not that I don’t think he’s odious, I just suspect he’s more odious because he’s using his power to incite rage, not intellectual debate, and to garner attention and money.
So much of what he says doesn’t seem even remotely thought-out or analyzed, he seems to just want to get a knee-jerk reaction out of people. On the one hand, yes, it does get people talking. This article is a great example of that. But I do, at times, wish that we, as a community dedicated to discussing race and xenophobia with intelligence, choose not to invite certain talking heads to “sit at the table.” It lends this man a level of credibility I’m not sure he merits.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Top 10 Racist Limbaugh Quotes
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/elections/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
You wrote, “They were making the argument that Obama should be praised for not making an issue of the race and racism he has experienced on the campaign trail — like Jackie Robinson, the first African-American player to play for the then all-White Major Leagues, Obama was to be credited for not “turning it into a race issue”.”.
The only reason Obama should be credited for avoiding the topic of race in this election is because it is good strategy – good strategy precisely because many white voters fear talking about race and racism, OR pretend that neither exists. That’s why the term “turning it into a race issue” is usually spoken with discomfort and a tinge of anger.
My hope is that after the election (whether he wins or not), he will be able to delve into situations during the elections which have been centered upon race, but not discussed in meaningful ways. Or, that he will be able to bring attention to the role race plays in politics and policy on a consistent basis.
I think he not only has a grasp of the complex nature of race and identity in America, but has the ability as a public speaker to make people understand that race IS important – it is part of everything, and cannot be ignored just because it makes many people (especially white people) feel uncomfortable.
I also hope that he knows what an inspirational person he is, and can continue to be. The hoards of admiring, white Obama fans are a testament to that. He should (and I think he will) utilize those opportunities that come with being a Presidential Candidate, or (hopefully) a President.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 1:43 pm ¶
RChoudh wrote:
I have a question; is it possible that Obama is actively avoiding any discussions about race because he will begin these sorts of discussions after he wins? In other words, will it be easier for him to open up these sorts of discussions once he’s comfortably seated in the Oval Office?
Also I agree that alot of people, whites in particular, are holding Obama up to a higher standard than most other politicians, whether it’s in admiration of him or in seeing how he does in office. It’s like the liberal folks who admire him will do so as long as he avoids any touchy questions about race and white privilege, because he’s supposed to be blind towards that; he is after all a “post racial” candidate. And the conservative whites who might vote for him (racists for Obama) will judge his (and his ethnicity’s) capabilities in office. If he messes up while in office they’ll start whining that “minorities aren’t fit for office” and possibly refuse to elect any more future minorities into office.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 1:56 pm ¶
drispe wrote:
Speaking of race and politics, how about a post about the heifer from the McCain campaign who claimed a Black man roughed her up and carved into her face with a knife? She was quickly determined to be lying her ass off, thankfully.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 2:10 pm ¶
Merri Lee wrote:
I like Stephen Colbert’s anser to Rush’s question. “You heard it, Colin Powell would not support Barack Obama if he were a completely different person.”
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 2:29 pm ¶
Daniel wrote:
Great comments everybody! @Sarah: I am still laughing at you use of “hoard.” Are you suggesting that the Obama campaign is storing up vast numbers of white people to be used for an undisclosed purpose at a later date! haha! I know you really meant “Horde” but it was pretty funny the way it came out. Happy Friday!
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 2:42 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
:: Joe imagines himself getting his dream job as Rush Limbaugh’s nutritionist ::
“Want some more gravy on that Rush?”
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 3:57 pm ¶
Patrick wrote:
I look forward to the day that the United States of America elects a minority candidate, especially and African American. I am well beyond fed up with the attitude that Balcks and other minorities are somehow intellectually inferior. I am also tired of being portrayed as the 50 year old evil WASP. I want to be judged on my merits and behavior just as Dr. King espoused. Check the content of my character and stop judging me.
I do not support Senator Obama’s position of spreading the wealth. This is a socialist attitude that will stiffle strong work ethic and productivity. I am interested in supporting a more conservative Black leader. In any case, I welcome the time when those that are unmotivated to perform, no longer have the white man’s oppressive behavior to blame for their circumstances.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 3:57 pm ¶
jmn wrote:
Meanwhile, a Barack Obama volunteer really was attacked: http://www.asianamericansforobama.com/update-on-asian-american-barack-obama-volunteer-attacked-in-wisconsin
And we even know the identity of the person who did it.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 4:17 pm ¶
Mimi wrote:
These are many of the same people that said that this is why Oprah publicly supports Obama, right? A broken record just needs to be turned off!
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 4:46 pm ¶
Will wrote:
If race and racism were really discussed in this election by the Obama campaign I doubt Obama would not be where he is now.
In fact, I wonder whether Obama would have discussed race at all if the whole Wright thing had not happened. This is not a knock on Obama, it’s just a realization that in a lot of ways, race and racism is still the third rail. It would have been tactically stupid for Obama or the Obama campaign to raise it.
We know some bad stuff has been happening to Obama canvassers, volunteers etc and every once in a while we read about it. The campaign seems to be keeping it away with a ten foot pole, and for good reason. Any appearance of considering race or racism would be seized upon by Republicans and used as a wedge.
I can’t argue with the strategy, though it saddens me. However, even without the Obama campaign directly addressing it, there are quite a number of progressive people, both white and black, who are willing to tear down and un-mask subliminal and not so subtle racism (youtube videos etc, etc) and in a lot of cases, what some Republicans have done is so out in the open that it has forced some people to re-examine their prejudices because in some ways it throws up a mirror for them.
The latest example, the McCain/Palin supporting woman who claimed that she was attacked by an robber who was an Obama supporter (a 6ft 4 inch black man) and robbed.
When the news came out, it didn’t take long for the Republicans to use this isolated incident as an attack on Obama. To paraphrase one Republican blogger, this attack should cause anyone considering voting for Obama to rethink. So essentially, we have the insanity of tying this black robber directly to Obama. And now that it has proven to be a hoax, I highly doubt we will get any kind of mea culpa (though even if it was true, it would still be irrelevant).
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/375728/mccain_volunteer_invents_attack_hoax
But the good news is that within a day of the incident the lies that had been sent out by GOP operatives were being critiqued.
So I guess my point is that even if Obama does not talk about race when elected, as long as the rest of us do (in a saner country because I can’t think of anything being as bad as the last 8 years) progress will be made. If McCain wins.. well, I don’t know what to say in that case but that obviously racist attacks and racial scapegoating still works as a political tactic.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 5:08 pm ¶
Erin Leigh wrote:
@drispe –
While I’m on board with your point in bringing up the incident, calling her a “heifer” seems sexist to me. How about the “person”? She may be a racist ass, she may be completely fucked up, she may be someone for whom I have zero respect, but she’s still a person and not a cow.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 6:32 pm ¶
William wrote:
I was worried that your post would be a whiny liberal perspective on how race is absolutely not the issue here, but when you confronted both sides of the political spectrum – the right and the left – it becomes clear. Race and humanity cannot seem to coexist. People wanting to diminish one or the other fail to see a human being in this country can be treated differently because of the color of his/her/hir skin.
Ultimately, I appreciated this post for again addressing the goal of this discussion, to allow people to see race as a part, but not defining the whole, of a person of color.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 7:37 pm ¶
allheavens wrote:
@Erin Leigh
While I’m on board with your point in bringing up the incident, calling her a “heifer” seems sexist to me. How about the “person”? She may be a racist ass, she may be completely fucked up, she may be someone for whom I have zero respect, but she’s still a person and not a cow.
PLEAZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!
This woman was willing to take the risk of inciting racial hatred against Black men with the real possibility of physical harm being exacted upon some innocent because of her abominable lie.
As the mother of a Black man I have absolutely no sympathy for her or the McCain campaign that ran with this story without confirming its veracity.
Ashley Todd is just a narcissistic heifer who thought she could use her white privilege to perpetrate a lie. And for that she deserves every bit of my contempt.
*RANT OFF*
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 8:44 pm ¶
CJsDaddy wrote:
Many of the comments on this thread are what drive people away from wanting to discuss race in a meaningful way.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 10:06 pm ¶
drispe wrote:
Erin, I think this “person” has more of your respect than you think, but you made your point. I fully intend to call her something derogatory for her actions, though. If you can think of a good term that avoids all sexist implications, let me know.
Will brings up a big elephant in the room. Obama can’t truly acknowledge what his candidacy means to people historically oppressed by racism, even when his campaign is victimized by it. Many seem to be under the impression that when he calls for “change,” that it’s a call for some sort of do-over or clean slate on the issue. You better believe that racial oppression is going to be ignored tenfold if he becomes president. After all, his achievements automatically make us look like shiftless whiners in comparison.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 11:37 pm ¶
roschelle wrote:
It really doesn’t matter the outcome on Nov. 5th. Barack Obama has already won the presidential election of 2008.
Posted 24 Oct 2008 at 11:47 pm ¶
tj wrote:
Still nothing about the girl that lied about being attacked by a black man supporting obama?!
Posted 25 Oct 2008 at 2:53 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@All –
Okay, everyone, chill the fuck out.
1. I’m actually writing a full piece on the issue of the fake attack possibly for publication. Since y’all seem to anxious to discuss it, I’ll open a thread.
2.@ Allheavens/Erin/Drispe -
Please note: I am not a fan of gendered slurs. However, we do not prohibit the use of them on this site. The major ones will get a warning from me or will get a comment deleted. But the word heifer is fairly mild, so it stands. But I’ll go ahead and say this now – focus on attacking what she did, not who she is as a person.
3.@CJsDaddy – See comment moderation policy #11 – no comments complaining about the comments. Either address people specifically or don’t say anything at all.
Posted 25 Oct 2008 at 7:48 am ¶
Westerly wrote:
‘B’ is for bull…
I only read about the Ashley Todd case last night. The minute she said that her assailant was (conveniently) “black, 200 lb and 6 ft. 4″, I was rolling my eyes because it sounded like s0meone’s fantasy.
I took one look at the photo and all I saw, other than a borderline smirk was one of the most unlikely looking ‘fresh’ black eyes that I’ve ever seen (i.e. very black with no swelling at all which meant it was either an older injury or good ol’ mascara/eyeshadow).
Then there was an inexplicably backward B ‘carved’ on her face (was her assailant dyslexic?) that at worst, looked like mild swelling from a (fingernail or pin) scratch , rather than the result of a violent knife attack.
Who knew that knives could make such perfect curves and in mirror image? Who knew that muggers would settle for $60 at an ATM machine, and wouldn’t run off with the stash and into anonymity, but preferred instead to dally, show off their calligraphy skills and make obscure political statements that need to be deciphered?
And who knew that a mugger who was violent enough to hold a knife to her throat and bash her in the back of the head, would be so incredibly solicitous of her lovely white skin?
She left then returned to the scene of the crime which makes absolutely no psychological sense at all. (If you’ve been attacked, escape and arrive at a safe place, you’ll stay put. You’re NOT going to abandon a safe haven and return to the scene of the crime in order to call the police.)
Then there was the fact that she went to the trouble to report the crime and give a statement – yet ducked out of receiving medical treatment. There have been a number of female sympathisers on the net who have cited their own unreported rapes as evidence that women are often uncomfortable with dealing with the authorities after a violent attack, but these women somehow seem to overlook that she REPORTED the crime… sent a photo to Matt Drudge and blogged about her ‘ordeal’ too.
Again, who goes to the trouble to file a report and sit through any number of intrusive questions but suddenly shies away from what would have been a routine medical examination? (If it had been a case of domestic violence case or if the assailant was someone known to her – fine. Divided loyalties and/or a fear or reprisal can cause people to be inconsistent or back away at the last minute. )
But in her case – where she clearly wanted the ‘attacker’ bought to justice – you’d think she’d do everything to compile evidence.
It was obvious that even the police weren’t buying her nonsense when they wanted her to submit to a polygraph test, sounded hesitant when describing the case and were refusing to make any declarative statements.
Heck, even Michelle Malkin figured she was lying and had no patience for the obvious fakery yet Palin and McCain rushed in to ring her and associate themselves with her story – which says it all really.
Posted 25 Oct 2008 at 7:50 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
Check out this post from AsianAmericansforObama.com for updated details on a non-hoaxed, violent, likely race-based attack.
Posted 25 Oct 2008 at 7:59 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
MOD NOTE - The Ashley Todd Conversation has been moved to this thread. Further comments posted here will be deleted.
Posted 25 Oct 2008 at 8:45 am ¶
DJ Black Adam wrote:
Very intersting and informative article. I must be in a bubble, I hadn’t heard about this or Jeniifer Hudson’s family until this morning!
Posted 25 Oct 2008 at 8:53 am ¶
CJsDaddy wrote:
@Latoya Peterson – I totally understand. I’m speaking of people’s reactions to the folks they criticize by using name calling and other insensitive language – some of which you point out (heifer). Other specific examples include: “bloated oxycontin fiend”, “grand wizard”, etc.
What I’m getting at is that is just seem like a lot of strong language. While the anger and pain behind it is justified, there’s a whole world of people that I believe could benefit from the ideas put forth on a blog like this. But they won’t listen because that kind of language is unacceptable to them.
Of course, it’s your space and I’m not telling you how to moderate it. I’m merely making the suggestion that inclusive and gentle language will hold more interest for many people. Feel free to blow this or my original comment away – I understand – perhaps it’s not a topic of this comment thread anway.
Posted 25 Oct 2008 at 5:05 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Powell has been a Republican because he is a career military man (funding!) and now wealthy celebrity speaker (taxes!), and perhaps because of his West Indian background might be more conservative than most black voters. (Am I out of touch on the last point?)
HOWEVER, he has been put through the Republican mill during the last 10 years or even longer. From a professional point of view, he had been convinced of or pressured to present bad evidence for the invasion of Iraq in that famous speech at the UN, reported around the world. As a cabinet member, he had to publicly support a war started on false pretenses and for which no specific goal had been set and no post-combat occupation plans had been made. That means putting “his” men at unnecessary risk – and I think most responsible officers, retired or not, continue to think of enlistees as “their” men. During the run-up to the 2000 election he was considered to be a possible VP choice, and had been researched by the “Religious Right” and pronounced unsuitable by James Dobson, the media star and most widely heard pundit of the Religious Right. Powell was insufficiently anti-abortion (and supported women in the military) for Dobson et al., though the Religious Right had supported Powell in his resistance to gays in the military. Dobson did a whole radio program (listened to world-wide by hundreds of millions) denouncing Powell. Knowing the typical Dobson rhetoric, I’d guess that Powell was called “not a real Christian” and so on. The Religious Right have become even more important in the Republican party over the past 10 years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Powell relishes some payback for insults.
Do we really need to add race as “the” or “the major” factor, given these insults/betrayals that would cause any retired white person to sit out the election or change parties?
Posted 25 Oct 2008 at 6:20 pm ¶
1classiladi wrote:
I think what we need to remember is that this presidency comes after blacks/A-As/etc. have seen tremendous job discrimination and mistreatment, especially in the south. Katrina shook our nation and showed blacks that they are still looked at as a secondary citizen. I think that blacks would come out strong to the polls regardless of whether the candidate was black or not because they are realizing the importance of presidencial policy and the need to fight to have their vote counted.
Posted 26 Oct 2008 at 2:17 pm ¶
Vic wrote:
I want that Obama win. We need a black president.
Posted 27 Oct 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
#35: James Dobson doesn’t call people “not a real Christian” because they’re pro-choice. He calls them “not a real Christian” because their Christian views depart from the gospel as understood by mainstream evangelicalism. There’s a distinction between opposing someone politically because you think they’re weak on an issue important to you (which was true of his initial resistance to McCain) and wondering if someone follows Jesus the way you think the Bible explains Christianity (which he also has wondered about McCain). I suspect he’d question Powell’s politics because of his views on abortion, but Powell doesn’t strike me as the kind of secularist that McCain often comes across as. I see people confusing those two things quite a lot, and it may be Dobson’s fault for creating a situation where the political religious right gets confused with religiously conservative evangelicalism, but Dobson himself doesn’t think they’re the same thing, and it’s extremely uncharitable to suggest that he’d question Powell’s Christianity just because of his political views. I don’t like the way Dobson expresses his politics, and I think he gives both evangelicals and conservatives a bad name, but I happen to be with him religiously, and I consider it a pretty vile slur on evangelicalism to move from his politics to thinking of his faith in this way, with absolutely no evidence but the fact that Dobson had a show that said some negative things about Powell.
Posted 27 Oct 2008 at 3:47 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
On the original post, I have to say that I think there’s a big weakness with the main argument. It’s true that someone who is black can support someone else who is black without it being a mainly racial thing. But keep in mind that McCain is much closer to Powell in terms of policy, and there have been a number of high-profile cases of black conservatives or right-leaning moderates who have either supported Obama or very publicly expressed a conflict of motivations and a temptation to support him, and the same theme is common in most of these. They see an Obama presidency as a confirmation that there really has been racial progress in this country, and they think racial progress will continue to be helped if people can see that it’s even possible for a black person to become president. I could give a long list of such people. Could it be that Limbaugh is lumping Powell in with the rest of them, on the assumption that a moderate conservative would be otherwise unlikely to support Obama on the issues? I think that underestimates how socially liberal Powell really is and how alienated he feels from the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, even if he might still be closer to McCain than he is to Obama on such issues. Nevertheless, it’s a bit premature to attribute it all to the view that no black person could support a black person without it being motivated solely by race. You don’t need that assumption at all to generate a comment like Limbaugh’s. I’m not Limbaugh fan (if I have to choose between him and Dobson, it’s a no-brainer for Dobson, and I’ve already expressed my distaste for his model of political expression). But I don’t see how Limbaugh’s comment requires the view being attributed to him.
Posted 27 Oct 2008 at 3:53 pm ¶