Comments

1. lovepeaceohana wrote:

   On a naively hopeful note, maybe they’ll actually begin to realize that racism is more than marching around in white hats, burning crosses on people’s lawns. “I guess I’m a racist” – well, yeah, so now what’re you going to do about it?

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 2:18 pm ¶

2. atlasien wrote:

   Wow. “I’m a racist” is sort of like “I am Spartacus.” Just much more stupid.

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 2:18 pm ¶

3. Aaron Myatt wrote:

   Motherfuckers!!!!

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶

4. RJG wrote:

   Sadly the video seems to mistake the ends as being racist, when the problem is that a lot of the means are pretty damn racist.

   So feel free to be against healthcare reform. But once you decide to express that by showing a picture of the President dressed like some witch doctor complete with bone through the nose… woops turns out you’re being pretty fucking racist.

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 2:35 pm ¶

5. atlasien wrote:

   It’s also incredibly disgusting how the right wing uses people of color to shield white people from charges of racism.

   The implication: “Look, we’ve got one of you people on our side. And it’s a FACT that you can’t be racist against yourself. And if they’re not racist, that means we’re not racist either. So HA! GOTCHA!”

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶

6. kahri wrote:

   “…we’re racist”

   Well, your infant doesn’t have a political opinion yet, but yes I’m sure she’s already learned how to be racist…

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶

7. annie wrote:

   My roommate and I were cringing/laughing at this earlier today. Like Atlasien said, we noted the inclusion of POC — you can just imagine the creative minds saying, “And we’ll get a few ETHNIC people! Because black people and Asian people can’t possibly be racist! Oh man, failproof!”

   I think this ad is idiotic, obviously, but it is problematic on a larger level. It implies that people “call racism” just because they have no better argument against the right-wing healthcare plan, which trivializes the real racism that exists. (It also distracts people from the issue at hand.) And while I don’t know the people in the ad, and I don’t know if they are obvious racists, I would argue that they aren’t anti-racism. Which, in the end, has kind of the same end result: it treats racism as a cute little non-problem.

   I think anyone who is actively anti-racism would see how completely bonkers and wrong this messaging is. So while these people aren’t shouting out slurs, they’re certainly trivializing the racism that indeed exists in our culture.

   It reminds me of someone doing a racist thing, being called out on it, and saying, “Oh yeah? Well, you’re a racist for THINKING it’s racist! I don’t see race I have a black friend blah blah blah.”

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶

8. blah wrote:

   and some, although few, were criticizing Obama for not agreeing with Carter. It would have been over if he had

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 3:11 pm ¶

9. Manju wrote:

   Andrew Sullivan is wrong. This is not a strawman argument but a rather common one in progressive circles, which also touches mainstream democrats. For example, here is Harry Reid comparing opponents to healthcare reform to supporters of slavery:

   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/reid-compares-health-care-reform-foes-slavery-supporters/

   Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶

10. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @manju –

    Not really. He also compares them to those against suffrage and those against civil rights as in people who were stubbornly holding onto the past when the country was moving forward.

    Whether or not this health care reform is a good idea is highly debatable (particularly as it is becoming a foregone conclusion that people will be penalized for not carrying heath insurance, but subsidizes are still largely tax based). But this argument is stupid. Most people were charging that the heightened aggression we are seeing (birthers, racism from teabaggers, etc) is influenced by racism, NOT simple opposition to reform, which is coming from a variety of places.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 3:20 pm ¶

11. Super Amanda wrote:

    If Reagan were still around he would have paid a think tank to create this and add something similar to this glib drivel to speak in his speeches himself.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 3:39 pm ¶

12. Manju wrote:

    “Not really. He also compares them to those against suffrage and those against civil rights as in people who were stubbornly holding onto the past when the country was moving forward.”

    Latoya: The fact that he also introduced sexism into the debate only substantiates the point made in the video: there’s a concerted effort on the left to label opponents bigots. Reid could’ve chosen another topic to make his analogy if his real motive was to just say republicans are holding back progress, but he chose instead an incendiary racialized and gendered analogy.

    The racial one was particularly egregious since it is so ahistorical, given that it was the democratic party that housed segregationists for most of American history post civil war, so much so that progressive stalwarts like fdr and jfk made deals with southern democrats to ignore lynching in return for passing progressive legislation, like the new deal for example.

    so here they are again, pushing progressive legislation (which i support) using racially divisive methods.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 3:49 pm ¶

13. RJG wrote:

    “The fact that he also introduced sexism into the debate only substantiates the point made in the video: there’s a concerted effort on the left to label opponents bigots.”

    No, the concerted effort on the left is to label the right as people unwilling to progress our society forward and work in the interests of the people. When the Republican Party’s meme is “we want to delay this as much as possible” it’s useful to call them out for it and relate them to other groups who wanted to delay, bury, and silence a discussion as much as possible.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 3:59 pm ¶

14. jvansteppes wrote:

    We don’t need to make a concerted effort to label opponents bigots, there are a huge number of bigots out there who ACCOMPLISH THEIR RACISM ALL BY THEMSELVES, though as someone who opposes many of the president’s policies myself I will say that just because a racist movement against Obama has emerged doesn’t mean ALL his critics are racist.

    Was it Glen Beck who called health care reform ‘reparations’? Yeah, clearly his opposition to health care reform isn’t racist at all…
    The birthers and teabaggers (who have ruined a previously wholesome queer term) totally deploy racist symbols, analogies and codes. Calling Obama a Muslim as if that’s a bad thing IS racist. Challenging his citizenship when ironically it was McCain who was actually born outside the country IS absolutely rooted in racism. Referring to him as ‘boy’ follows racist tradition. I could go on.

    Also, a straw man argument is a straw man argument. The fact that this ad is a straw man argument can’t be changed by Democrats using the same tactic elsewhere. It just means that both parties like straw men.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 4:09 pm ¶

15. Manju wrote:

    “No, the concerted effort on the left is to label the right as people unwilling to progress our society forward and work in the interests of the people.”

    Fine, then use the example of republican opposition to say the new deal, which is a much better analogy since both pieces of legislation concern economics.

    Reid analogy was gratuitous dogwhislte, like glen becks “reparations.”

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 4:17 pm ¶

16. jen* wrote:

    Oh brother is right. But this is exactly the moment a lot of people have been waiting for – some kind of opportunity to “own” their racism while they try to prove that it’s really not that bad.

    Kinda like that line in that new George Clooney movie where he brushes over the fact that he’s being racist by saying, “I stereotype – it’s faster.”

    Privilege causes us not to want to change – so when we see our privilege we make excuses. Most people do that. But we don’t all go on the offensive and make obnoxious commercials about it.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 4:26 pm ¶

17. Karen wrote:

    Im probably not the only one to shout when they saw the brothas/sistahs of color up there. my reaction was more “oh HELL naw.” Then again, I should not be surprised at the lengths that GOP will go to after they hired “Hip-Hop Mike…”

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 4:29 pm ¶

18. nathan wrote:

    The health care reform bill in the Senate is a rotten, long winded, corporate driven mess. With that said, claims that the bill is “racist,” or making the trivialized links this ad is making between racism and health care reform opposition, are so stupid that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Many people don’t really seem to want to talk about the actual issues; they’re content hiding behind various boogymen (socialism, “reverse -racism”, political correctness, etc.)

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 4:34 pm ¶

19. RJG wrote:

    @Manju:

    Okay, let’s say that Reid was bringing race into things and horribly implied that all Republicans are racist for being against health care reform.

    Exactly how does that translate to all people pushing for reform / all liberals / etc are calling opponents to the reform racist? Because I see nothing indicating that this was a swipe at Reid’s remark.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 5:33 pm ¶

20. eric daniels wrote:

    This is Conservative “Poltical Correctness” at it’s worst, when in doubt use the media to fan right- wing white victimhood on the mantle of “reverse racism”, it’s a great and effective commerical whichever conservative group paid for it . But it does not excuse the racist signs the death threats to African- Americans and President Obama at these protests during the summer.

    So they can run every commerical with the pharse I quess “IM A RACIST” with Martians as far as I am concerned, my repsonse is going to be I am glad you finally admitted to something truthful for once in your miserable lives. Now it’s not just my mind playing tricks on me or the media playing along in denial for ratings.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 6:47 pm ¶

21. Eric Knowles wrote:

    Andrew Sullivan’s analysis is right on target. Chalking the starling vehemence of many Obama-haters up to racial prejudice is not equivalent to suggesting that prejudice drives specific beliefs about Obama’s health care reform policy — that it will promote euthanasia, increase abortions, etc. It is, nonetheless, a savvy maneuver on right’s part to accuse Obama’s supporters of making this leap. Right or wrong, stressing the racial component in health care attitudes is almost certainly a losing political strategy for the left. Perhaps this is why Stan Greenberg and James Carville went out of their way to say — on the basis of very flimsy evidence — that race plays no role in Obama’s opposition (see http://tinyurl.com/yfjooun for more info about that study).

    Although Mr. Sullivan is correct that the ad’s claim is not a “meme” (yet), it has been be examined empirically. My colleagues and I recently published a study testing whether racial bias has a measurable effect on, among other things, specific attitudes toward toward Obama’s health care plan. (You can download a copy of the paper here: http://socialecology.uci.edu/faculty/eknowles) We find that the higher participants score on a measure of implicit (i.e., unconscious) anti-Black prejudice, the more likely they are to oppose the plan — and to believe that it will “pull the plug on grandma,” raise the deficit, etc.

    These findings can themselves be abused by the right through strategic use of a logical error known as the “converse fallacy.” (Or, more precisely, by strategically accusing us, the researchers, of committing this error in interpreting our own findings.) Here’s how that works. In a nutshell, our study shows that “if prejudiced, then (probably) opposed to health care reform.” Note that this does not imply the converse claim — that “if opposed to health care reform, then (probably) prejudiced.” Yet the makers of this ad would no doubt claim that any social scientist demonstrating an influence of prejudice on health care views is making exactly this erroneous logical leap. We’re not; all we found is that, yes, Obama’s race appears to be one factor predisposing some to oppose his health care agenda. But because it’s always good political strategy to accuse someone of “playing the race care,” I fear we can expect any empirical data on the subject to be distorted to make more ads like this one.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 6:48 pm ¶

22. Kristen wrote:

    This is killing me. The use of the black man at the very end, almost in slow motion, like he’s been wounded – KILLING ME. Derailing and trivializing at its best. And then the further characterization of the “government takeover of healthcare”. What part of public *OPTION* is so hard for these people to understand?

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 8:18 pm ¶

23. octogalore wrote:

    There is certainly racism out there, no question. And Sullivan’s got a point, that people aren’t claiming per se that policy disagreements equate to racism.

    But there is a tendency to group people who disagree on policy in unfair ways. Look at jvansteppes’ comment: “teabaggers (who have ruined a previously wholesome queer term) totally deploy racist symbols, analogies and codes.”

    There are a wide variety of people at tea parties. Some are left libertarians who are active in human rights movements. Others are more extreme. But the former certainly have the right to be upset at being conflated with the latter.

    And I don’t see a problem with including POC in the ad. I know and am related to POC who disagree with the public option and would say so publicly. To suggest they are being used as objects rather than independently acting as subjects seems quite problematic.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 8:42 pm ¶

24. bane wrote:

    I kept looking for the Onion logo. That is the most hilarious unintentionally funny ad I’ve seen ever. It must be really cathartic for some people to watch it, and have a proxy admit it for them.

    Posted 07 Dec 2009 at 9:05 pm ¶

25. Super Amanda wrote:

    I think what the under lying theme in all this is that in the 1950’s white supremacy labeled everything about civil rights, anti-lynching legislation and fair employment practices, anti-colonialism, African studies and many trade unions as “Communists” thus destroying, through the gross violation of civil rights, wiretapping, mkultra etc etc etc the strongest most multicultural Left that the US has ever seen.

    The rightwing/ the republcrats, the Demonazis-they all fear ANYTHING REMOTELY SOCIALIZED> And McCarthy’s ghost looms over all of them like a specter of Cold war terror. They’d let us go back to serfdom before socializing medicine, which is excatly what they are doing. We have to keep supporting the President on this. He is trying as hard as he can.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 3:38 am ¶

26. Super Amanda wrote:

    Joe Wilson? Oh yeah that guy that sells imported Rebel Flags from China.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 3:40 am ¶

27. ashlynn wrote:

    Watching these people cheerfully resign to the fact that they “guess” they are racists (you guess? if you have to guess, then you probably ARE, yup) reminds me of that smirk that bratty kids will give you like they think they can pull one over on you(yes, I had a bad day at work). Except no, you will NOT derail me from the fact that prejudice is a key factor behind much of the health care opposition, and no, you most certainly will not derail me by throwing in a couple of tokens as if that qualifies your whole argument. I truly despise these tactics of trying to play the victim, subsequently leaving many lives hanging in the balance…this ad sickens me, and I absolutely cannot wait until we can wipe that proverbial (and literal) smirk off of a lot of faces.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 4:00 am ¶

28. Tristan wrote:

    @octogalore,

    “And I don’t see a problem with including POC in the ad. I know and am related to POC who disagree with the public option and would say so publicly. To suggest they are being used as objects rather than independently acting as subjects seems quite problematic.”

    I imagine Michelle Malkin thought she was exercising her agency when she wrote a book defending the internment of the Japanese during WWII and promoting racial profiling (Malkin is Filipina, and for all intents and purposes, her opinion as an Asian American particularly flies in the face of history). Malkin is a tool and a mouthpiece for the talking heads she apes: Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Whether or not she actually believes what she wrote is irrelevant; she was used to further a political agenda because she was a token voice on the wrong side of an important issue.

    I’m not directing my anger at the POC in this idiotic ad; rather, I’m angry at the people who concocted this thing and did so knowing full well that including POC in this ad was nothing more than a (lazy) attempt to deflect charges of racism.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 4:42 am ¶

29. PatrickInBeijing wrote:

    The whole thing is scary. In order to defeat health care reform, a certain segment of the wealthy in society (who do we think pays for ads) has the idea of saying “I guess I’m a racist” in a way which indicates that this is okay….

    The subtext, is that for a certain period of time, even the KKK had to insist it wasn’t racist, but now people seem to think that it is socially okay to say “I guess I’m a racist” in an unapologetic manner.

    I dunno, I find this scary. It suggests that the advocates of racism are no longer on the defensive.

    @SuperAmanda, why is it okay to China bash?

    @Manju….. first of all, Harry Reid is not on the “left”. There is only maybe one or two members of the US senate who are left of center. And Harry Reid isn’t one of them. So, when he uses what you consider racism in the debate, he is doing so as a conservative, and it should be no surprise to anyone.

    There is very little to no evidence that racism is a significant concern for almost anyone in the US Senate.

    Race plays a part in the health care debate. I saw a poll which suggested that most Americans with health care didn’t really care if the poor (and presumably, in their minds POC) had access to health care or not. I believe that race is a big part of that lack of caring.

    Do I love the health care bill? As a relatively poor overseas American, I suspect I will get nothing out of it…. So, personally, it doesn’t seem to do anything for me, I prefer a single payer plan, or nationalized health insurance.

    Latoya is right, this is another attempt to portray the vicitimizers as victims. And what scares me the most is that there must be some big corporate money behind this.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 8:29 am ¶

30. MoonCat wrote:

    this ad is truly awful and makes my stomach hurt. public health issues aside, i hate how this article downplays the presence of effect of racism.

    racism is real, nothing to be glib or dismissive about and is hurtful. some of racist thought and culture is subtle and many people don’t realize it’s even there until pointed out and explained thoroughly.

    yuck, glad i don’t own a tv.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 11:12 am ¶

31. Manju wrote:

    “but now people seem to think that it is socially okay to say “I guess I’m a racist” in an unapologetic manner.”

    Look, its like Obama supporters responding to Teabaggers by saying “I guess I’m a Fascist.” Irony.

    If you deploy important labels with a wide net and politically convenient way like Joe McCarthy used Communism, don’t be surprised if the term loses it meaning.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶

32. Manju wrote:

    “Harry Reid is not on the “left”. There is only maybe one or two members of the US senate who are left of center. And Harry Reid isn’t one of them. So, when he uses what you consider racism in the debate, he is doing so as a conservative, and it should be no surprise to anyone”

    So now conservatives are the ones who are trying to reform healthcare? Okaaaaay.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶

33. G wrote:

    “…statistic from the Rassumen reports, stating that 12% of voters believe that opponents of Barack Obama’s health care plan are racist”

    As a data person, i have to ask, does basing the ad on what only 12% of people might think make any sense to begin with? How about “88% of voters DON’T believe that opponents of Barack Obama’s health care plan are racist?” Which makes the ad completely pointless to begin with. They’re basing it on nothing.

    Seeing mostly white people in it does kind of make it look like maybe they ARE racist though. I mean, really. And I agree with whoever mentioned that the POC in the ad look victimized, especially the black guy at the end.

    The whole thing disgusts me.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 1:26 pm ¶

34. octogalore wrote:

    Tristan: I’m not sure how Malkin is relevant here. I haven’t read her discussion of internment and cannot conclude as to her motivations. But even if your assessment of her is accurate, are you really claiming that conservative POCs can all be painted with one brush, that you in your wisdom can assess their motivations and agency?

    As to “including POC in this ad was nothing more than a (lazy) attempt to deflect charges of racism.” All advertising is lazy in that it tries to make a complicated point in a soundbite. The fact that there are POC who take a position against the public option does, in fact, militate against that position being per se racist, unless you can articulate why you know these POC are sellouts who were any more coerced to do the ad than the white speakers. Is that a bit simplistic? Sure, but most ads are.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 1:30 pm ¶

35. ztastz wrote:

    Every PoC in that ad is a deluded, ignorant, patsy—emphasis on patsy.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 1:38 pm ¶

36. Manju wrote:

    How could I forget. Jesse Jackson’s recent comments also lend credence to the video’s thesis and counter Sullivan’s “strawman” accusation:

    “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 2:35 pm ¶

37. jvansteppes wrote:

    @Octagalore: I don’t think it’s unfair to trash the teabaggers as I’ve seen them represented by Beck, Hannity and Michelle Bachman. I’ve seen a wide variety of teabagger images, usually on Fox where they are portrayed in a positive light, and they have never included left libertarians. I also follow lots of left libertarian media and have never found mention of alliances with the teabaggers.

    At this point I have to admit though that I’m Canadian, and while I follow your politics down south I haven’t been to a teabagger rally myself.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 6:09 pm ¶

38. Tristan wrote:

    @octogalore,

    “But even if your assessment of her is accurate, are you really claiming that conservative POCs can all be painted with one brush, that you in your wisdom can assess their motivations and agency?”

    Who said that? I did not imply, much less state, as much. I was assessing the motivations of ONE conservative POC: Malkin. She’s an egregious personality, but regardless of whether or not I personally agree with her opinions, her shaky scholarship on racial profiling was definitely used to great effect specifically because she is Asian American.

    “All advertising is lazy in that it tries to make a complicated point in a soundbite. ”

    No, it’s lazy because it doesn’t address racism at all. In fact, it belittles those who would make claims that there are elements out there who are indeed racist and fundamentally opposed to healthcare reform. This point has already been expounded upon by many others on this board.

    The ad assumes that the left’s position stands as “if you’re against healthcare, you’re racist.” That’s reductionist and idiotic. It’s also highly irresponsible.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 7:55 pm ¶

39. octogalore wrote:

    Jvansteppes — if you watch a lot of Fox, you’ll find that many on the hard right identify as tea partiers — that hardly means all tea partiers come from the far right. See this article. Reason.org authors like Shikha Dalmia, who has numerous critiques of the far right (eg, gay marriage, choice) and identifies as libertarian, have spoken positively of the tea parties’ libertarian message.

    Also, there are various Democrats, such as Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO), who credit tea parties with raising attention for various initiatives, such as transparency of the Fed’s dealings with foreign banks and operations of the Federal Open Market Committee.

    Unfortunately, the way political issues are grouped, many people (myself included) aren’t able to find a party that we can completely or even mostly identify with. There’s often a lot of cringing involved, and it becomes a question of lesser evil. So it’s very dicey to surmise that a bunch of people are similar who agree on certain elements A and B, also agree on X and Y.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 9:10 pm ¶

40. octogalore wrote:

    @Tristan, you said “I was assessing the motivations of ONE conservative POC: Malkin.” Since nobody had mentioned Malkin, I didn’t understand why you would be assessing her motivations if this was not meant to be relevant re the larger issue of POC motivations. Otherwise, why go there?

    The fact that POC are featured in discussions of whether somethign is racist shouldn’t be surprising. There cannot be any reasonable claim that something isn’t racist if it’s made solely by non-POC.

    I agree that the ad would have been stronger if it had acknowledged that there is racism out there and that some opposition to Obama stems from it. And if it had stated that the ad’s critique was not of the left generally but of statements such as those of Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson (noted above). But most one-minute messages are indeed reductionist.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 9:33 pm ¶

41. Tristan wrote:

    @octogalore,

    Since the politics of race exist in a spectrum, Michelle Malkin simply represents the worst of the worst: she is an opportunist that will say regressive things at the expense of herself and groups of people of which she appears to be representative.

    Do I think that all, or even most, POC that oppose healthcare reform or any aspect of the Obama administration’s political agenda are like Malkin? No. The point I was making is that regardless of whether you are an opportunist or a genuinely concerned POC who is “inconveniently” on the wrong side of the color line, racist people are going to utilize your dissenting opinion in perverted ways.

    In this instance, it was to qualify this ad as inclusive and thus not remotely itself an instrument of race-baiting, when in actuality, it is exactly that.

    Posted 08 Dec 2009 at 9:59 pm ¶

42. octogalore wrote:

    Tristan — I agree with you up to a point. And that point is “regardless of whether you are an opportunist or a genuinely concerned POC who is “inconveniently” on the wrong side of the color line, racist people are going to utilize your dissenting opinion in perverted ways.”

    I don’t agree that this particular instance is race baiting beyond a reasonable doubt. I can see it fitting one of two paradigms. One: what you are suggesting, namely that a bunch of racist people get together and decide they will take advantage of the fact that some POC agree with them to put across a point of view that they, although not the POC, support for reasons that are partially or fully racist. Two: people who are oppose the health plan on the table and are hearing from folks like Carter and Jackson implications of racism, and decide: we cannot, as non-POC, make a full argument about what’s not racist without the participation of POC who are allied with us in our view of the health care plan.

    I don’t think one can state whether the motivation is #1 or #2.

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 1:09 am ¶

43. octogalore wrote:

    Tristan — reading the comment above, one clarification: I do agree wholeheartedly with the quote in the first para. “up to that point” means “up to and including.” Sorry for the poor wording!

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 1:10 am ¶

44. PatrickInBeijing wrote:

    @Manju – Good point!! Except that I don’t think the so-called health care reform is that great or that far left!! Now, if the Democrats announced their support for socialized medicine, THEN you could call them left (grin).
    And hearing today that they are “folding” on what was already a weak public option just confirms my opinion (which is just that, my opinion!) (smile).

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 1:36 am ¶

45. RJG wrote:

    Fixed a typo…

    @Manju “Look, its like Obama supporters responding to Teabaggers by saying “I guess I’m a Fascist.” Irony.”

    Except nothing the administration supports right now, especially health care, remotely resembles fascism.

    Meanwhile, a lot of the means used to dispute health care via the right come from racist intentions. You can’t have notable portions of people at your rallies holding pictures of the President as a voodoo witch doctor and/or demanding his birth certificate and/or declaring he’s a secret Kenyan Muslim out to destroy everything, not call those people out for it, and then claim there isn’t a notable undertone of xenophobia and racism at play in your campaign against a proposal.

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 12:11 pm ¶

46. octogalore wrote:

    RJG, that makes no sense. People can arrive at an opinion for different reasons. Because the wacko fringe (not “notable portions”) is on the same side, the opposition must necessarily come with an undertone of racism? It’s not possible to be pro health care reform but disagree with this mechanism for doing it, without some bigotry involved? I think if you look at respected libertarian or fiscal-conservative journals, you will see arguments that are not racist in the slightest.

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 12:41 pm ¶

47. CDF wrote:

    This is about as bad as those anti-junk food tax commercials…

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 1:01 pm ¶

48. Manju wrote:

    RJG & Octogalaore: I can see both sides here. Teabagger need to own up to the bigotry in their own movement and leftist need to stop practicing racial McCarthyism, like Reid and Jackson are, by painting with too broad a brush.

    Teaparties got into trouble b/c of their racist signs, conspiracy theories (birtherism), and unhinged often violent rhetoric aimed at he president. But we have an interesting analogy that might help both sides see the others point: antiwar rallies. For 8 years conservatives undermined the antiwar movement by exposing thier antisemitism, conspiracy theories (911 denialism, which is not unrelated to antisemitism), and pro left wing totalitarian views. You can see some of it here:

    http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816

    The lack of regard the movement had for human rights was highlighted by the organizer themselves, as even leftist David Corn concurs: ” the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro‘s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s ”socialist system,“ which, according to the party‘s newspaper, has kept North Korea ”from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.“ The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, ”Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.“”

    The response from liberals was along the lines of Octogalore’s argument: don’t paint with too brad a brush, they don’t represent us, you can’t control everyone who attends, etc. All this is surely true but that doesn’t negate the dark underbelly of both movements.

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 1:41 pm ¶

49. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Good responses, Manju and Octogalore. So let’s bring this back around to the video:

    1. We can argue that all movements can be guilty of tolerating/nurturing biogted elements. So…

    2. It would make sense to have those who feel a part of that movement, but not aligned with that bigotry, to feel unjustly scapegoated. However, if that is the case –

    3. Shouldn’t conservatives feel *more* offended at a video that tries to reclaim the term “racist” instead of spending the two minutes saying something like “racism isn’t why I’m against health care reform – I’m against out of control public spending. I’m against mandatory insurance coverage. I’m against trying to solve problems with subsidizes. I’m against going into more debt when jobs and our economy should come first. I’m against government intrusion so I don’t support this.”

    Why would anyone think that reclaiming the word racist was a good idea?

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 1:55 pm ¶

50. octogalore wrote:

    Latoya — good point. I see the ad as being sarcastic in a way to refute the statement, rather than reclaimingthe word “racist.” But as it does fall prey to misinterpretation, and IMO even sarcastically owning the term is not appropriate.

    Your suggestion as to a better message is right on, and part of my frustration about stupid communication on the right. There is a populist fiscal conservative message, but it isn’t being articulated well, and the more colorful (but for the wrong reasons) bigoted elements seize more attention. And yes, that is offensive.

    But it’s possible to feel that the execution is offensive at the same time as feeling that the scapegoating is as well. After all, most economic conservatives (and I make that distinction because some in that group are socially liberal) are not active teapartiers, and therefore do not have to “own” something about events one doesn’t have any control or affiliation with. It’s perfectly legit to expect criticism of the bigoted participants to be appropriately limited to the actual guilty parties, and not used to smear those with substnative opposing arguments.

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 5:33 pm ¶

51. RJG wrote:

    @Manju: “The response from liberals was along the lines of Octogalore’s argument: don’t paint with too brad a brush, they don’t represent us, you can’t control everyone who attends, etc. All this is surely true but that doesn’t negate the dark underbelly of both movements.”

    The problem in the health care debates and tea party movement being that those who run the campaigns don’t openly dispute the images of Obama as a witch doctor, for example.

    In fact, the image was distributed by David McKalip, a Florida doctor who functioned as a consultant for the Tea Party movement and then moved to working with the GOP against health care reform.

    So while both sides of the political spectrum have our own crazies, I generally see the right as the ones embracing those people at worst, and remaining silent on them at best.

    Now, the next natural response I expect will be something about Al Sharpton, because generally anytime I hear a discussion about how the right is acting improperly, it somehow turns into how the left doesn’t continually flagellate Al anytime he says something against the grain.

    The problem is, I fail to see the relation. Beyond that, it’s a tired trope that Al Sharpton speaks for all people of color and/or that anytime Al Sharpton says something, everyone who leans left has to dispute it in order to maintain impartiality.

    There’s a difference between not being proactive enough to call your own political allies out on things and not being proactive enough to call out your own political allies when they’re standing there right in front of you doing highly questionable shit.

    Posted 09 Dec 2009 at 6:04 pm ¶