The R Word

With the furor of the town halls around health care, shouting traitor whenever Obama's name was mentioned during the campaign, the increased hate crimes, and finally, the elevated number of death threats against President Obama, there has been some explicit naming of the r word, yes, racism, as a factor in this behavior. The right wing (some would argue fringe) insists racism is not the primary culprit, it is just real upset about Obama's policies. After all, racism became less of a factor the minute the U.S. elected Obama.

Enter Jimmy Carter, stage right. Last night he tells Brian Williams that he thinks that, as a Southern White Man who is familiar with the thought processes around racism, racism is at the core of the animosity being displayed.

I know this will surprise you, but I agree with President Carter. However, I want to discuss how the right tries to diffuse the issue, because their noise is confusing, at best. My poster boy for these conversations (if they really could be called that) is an exchange I saw last night on Anderson Cooper's show between Mark Williams (one of the primary organizers of the Tea Parties) and Roland Martin.

What concerns me is that when members of a target group points out a pattern of behavior that is racist, sexist, homophobic, and the list goes on, they are accused of being racist, sexist, etc. Why? Because people who are trying to handle race (I'm not sure about handling) don't talk about race at all. Those of you who engage in race baiting need racism because you would not be able to earn your keep. Then the comparison is made between the person pointing out the racist behavior and either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. When specific instances of racist behavior are listed that are not explicit, e.g. the use of the N-word or something like that, then Black people are just looking too hard for racism which no longer exists. Hence, it is the Black/Latino/group of the month who is really racist. By the way, racist speech is protected by the first amendment!

Well well! I guess women wouldn't be raped if we didn't walk outside either. My point is that they try to evade the charge of racism by blaming the victim (stop looking for it and then it won't exist). By the way, whether or not you agree with them, the reason that Sharpton and Jackson are such targets around race is because they dare to take a stand against it and call it when it is seen. Finally, I thought there was some understanding that not all incidents of racism require explicit insults invoking race, that much more subtle behaviors can certainly have a racist impact, hence institutionalized racism. Our own constitution supports that position to a limited extent.

My suspicion is that opponents feel shut down when they are told their behaviors are racist. They go on the attack to deflect that issue. I must say, it does not make sense to let the non-target group define what is racist, sexist, etc. because they feel too bad if their behavior is implicated - why would you want to feel that bad? It's easier to pretend it doesn't exist. I don't think the discussion of racism in the policy context is done with the aim of shutting down dissent. Indeed, as many on the right do, one criticism about the policies being implemented is the growing size of the federal budget; what is the role we want government to play, etc. While I don't agree with their positions, we need to have these discussions to continue a thriving democracy. This is doable without pictures of Obama as a witch doctor, scrimmaging about his place of birth, and other questionable attacks.

Ultimately, the spate of name calling, etc. does more to shut down the conversation than to reach consensus. In order to have real discussions with each other as Americans, we should avoid name-calling, even if that speech is constitutionally protected.

There's my attempt at civility and the r word!