« An Eminent Historian Looks at Obama—and at Us.
China Won’t Allow Itself to Be ‘Hijacked’ By the West or Iran: Global Times, China »
Keith Olbermann Commentary (updated)
Feb 16th, 2010 | 18 responses
I had previously posted a statement on Keith Olbermann’s latest commentary about the Tea Party movement. Although I felt my basic criticism of his stand was fair I also thought some of the language was less than precise so I am offering this newer and somewhat broader version.
Just to make my own views clear, I have both agreements and disagreements with the movement. I think they are on many levels too conservative and that in other areas they press the idealistic over the practical. But I also think they have legitimate concerns about the growth of government.
The basic thrust of his commentary was that while there might well be minorties who were supportive of some or all of the goals of the movement, it was too racist for them to join.
On that subject, I would suggest to Mr. Olbermann look to some of the videos from his own network which has shown that there are in fact non white members of the movement.
But a deeper theme of his statement was the idea that somehow people who are opposed to bigger government are really upset that we have a *gasp* black President.
The whole of the “anger at government” movement is predicated on this. Times are tough, the future is confusing, the threat from those who would dismantle our way of life is real (as if we weren’t to some extent doing it for them). And the president is black. But you can’t come out and say that’s why you are scared.
I find this general theme to be both confusing and insulting, that only someone who is dumb or racist can possibly oppose the administration and/or be concerned about these issues. If the goal is a color blind society then does that not mean that someone can oppose the President without being racist ?
Or if Mr. Olbermann admits that there are Black, Hispanic or Asian citizens who could agree with the concerns of the movement then are they racist for those views ?
The main charge of racism in the movement seems to be that many support the idea of requiring people to speak English in the United States. Does this mean that anyone who requires a person to speak French in France is a racist ? Does it mean that the previously mentioned minorities who also support such these kinds of goals are somehow biased too ?
Are there racist members of the movement ? Of course there are, just as there are racist members of the Democratic party, the Republican party, etc. But to say that because some people in a movement are racist means the entire movement is prejudiced is simply wrong.
Furthermore, if there are people of all colors, all genders and all economic strata who have similar concerns does that not mean their views have the right to be heard without the scream of racist ?
Keith does not think that any of the things that the movement is concerned about are valid and he is certainly entitled to his views and even to his thinly veiled contempt for anyone with an opposing opinion. But those with different viewpoints are also entitled to their opinions, even if he doesn’t like that.
Seems to me when you can’t answer a question with anything but name calling that it suggests you don’t want to respond to the question itself
18 Responses to “Keith Olbermann Commentary (updated)”
I think the main charge of racism more so stems from the outright racist posters shown at tea party events not just the requirement to speak English. and Language requirements are a staple of right wing movements around the world “Russia for Russians” or the “Hungarian Magyar Garda” or the french far right or other nationalist styled organizations. That and you look at the crowds it's not very mixed if at all.
When the first speaker at the Tea Party Convention starts suggesting that civic-literacy test should be given to people prior to letting them vote, and when you know how such test have been used in the past what else are you supposed to think?
Three guys go to vote, two whites, one black. First white guy gets asked “who was the leader of Germany during WWII?”, Guy answers Hitler, he is allowed to vote. Second white guy gets asked “How many Jews did Hitler kill? Second guy answers 6 million, he is allowed to vote. Now it's the black guy turn to be asked a question: “Name, Address and Phone Number of all the murdered Jews?”…
I believe that Obama's color is a bit of a supercharger for the tea party. These people didn't suddenly wake up and hate big government because a black guy is leading it. They were pushed into the spot light by Fox News. I just don't see racism as a driving force in the party.
My feeling is that the tea party most likely has a serious racism problem. I don't have numbers to back that up…just personal experience from growing up in a border state.
Hatred of big government is often the result of the “I'd rather eat sh*t than give a Negro a nickel” syndrome…
Don,
In your case, you're supposed to think what you thought before Tom Tancredo ever spoke and what you would have thought regardless of what he said.
SteveInch,
While I have a very low opinion of the “Tea Party”, it's not my fault that they go out of their way to confirm my opinion… Couldn't they find a speaker who is not a confirmed racist to open their convention? Couldn't they find a speaker who had a far better grasp of the issues than Sarah Palin?
But you see that's just the point. From your pov, anyone who believes that as a matter of the Constitution and as a matter of what's right that the government has massively overstepped is almost by definition not very smart.
I happen to believe both and I also consider myself of above average intelligence.
As to the speakers at conventions, I rather doubt you would have changed your point of view regardless of who had spoken at the convention. Picking on Palin and Tancredo is just another way for you to criticize something of which you are already critical.
To the main point, the proposition, frequently repeated by people like Mr Olbermann, that anyone who opposes the current President's policy agenda is a racist is a silly argument and it would be nice if people would just cut it out.
Obama's skin color is has little impact on whether or not tea partiers agree with his policies. To claim they are racist because they dislike big government, or because they believe English should be the primary accepted language in America is rather adolescent. There is ample evidence that people who do not speak English well do not prosper beyond the lowest economic levels in society. A casual study of history and the constitution reveal our government has overstepped it's authority on many levels. Whether one is left, right or center, keeping government in check is paramount to liberty for all. An over sized government encroaches on everyone's liberty. Let us not confuse the issue by focusing on the diatribes of the Tancredo's or Olberman's.
It seems that the author of the post, as well as many of the commenters, didn't listen to Olberman's piece very closely. He didn't say that everyone who is against Obama's policies is a racist. He said that the Tea Party movement is racist, or at least extremely hostile to people of color. When you've got your keynote speaker up there boo-hooing that Jim Crow literacy tests are gone — what self-respecting black person would listen to that drivel, whether ze is anti-big-government or not? How comfortable is a conservative-leaning Mexican or Asian going to be in a crowd of angry white people holding racist signs? Whether the racism of the movement is central and overt or merely coincidental, Tea Partiers definitely do not seem to care whether they're developing a movement that people of color will want to align with.
If you're part of a movement where white people are a disproportionate majority, it's not a bad idea to think about why no people of color are aligning with you. For example, in my work against Prop 8, it became extremely clear after the election that we had done a poor job of reaching out to people of color — even members of the gay community who were black, latin@, asian, were overly aware that the leaders of the movement were all white gay men who weren't particularly interested in how LGBT issues intersected with race issues, and how the issues kind of take on a different tint when viewed in light of racial issues. People of color were largely ignored by all those creating the messages and those providing the leadership, even though communities of color are just as affected by LGBT issues. The message is not that people of color are homophobic; the message is that if the leaders of a movement view their causes only through a white frame, people of color will have no reason to align with that movement. Feminism, particularly the second wave feminism of the 60s and 70s, had very similar problems, at best being unconcerned with problems specific to women of color, and at worst being openly hostile to those problems.
If the Tea Partiers aren't “really” racists, but are actually interested in strengthening their movement by encorporating people of color, perhaps they should take a lesson from the failures of their foes on the left and stop being openly hostile to those groups.
“The message is not that people of color are homophobic; the message is that if the leaders of a movement view their causes only through a white frame, people of color will have no reason to align with that movement. “
This kind of thinking makes me ill. Yes, many people of color are homophobic. You must not hang out with a lot of black men or have ever attended a black church. Homophobia is alive and well in black culture. It is a fact that black people will openly admit to.
The people of color that voted…I believe 60% against gay marriage need to be called out and must take responsibility for their vote…the vote they casted the same day Obama was elected President.
And yours is the kind of thinking that makes me ill, too, shannonlee. Worse than that, at least from the point of view of someone who actually wants to win rights, it is also extremely counter-productive. Why should people of color care about the LGBT movement when the movement is very clearly uninterested in how LGBT issues affect communities of color? The issue was framed as a white issue, the advertisements were targeted to upper middle class white people, the leaders of the movement were white people. All this, while those campaigning were co-opting the language of the black civil rights movement, with very little credit given. No attempt was made to bridge with the leaders of the civil rights movement, who have a great deal more experience. It was a poorly run campaign that both erased and ignored communities of color, which skew heavily Christian. The Prop 8 crowd reached out to on-the-fence people of color, through fear and through church. The anti-Prop 8 activists did not even make an attempt to do so. I'm sure you realize that I am strongly pro-LGBT, and am an activist for equality under the law; understanding why we lost that particular battle is extremely important to winning future battles. Boiling it down to “Black people are homophobic” is desperately oversimplifying, racist, and counterproductive.
“You must not hang out with a lot of black men or have ever attended a black church. Homophobia is alive and well in black culture.”
I do, I have, I know. It's also alive and well in white culture — in American culture as a whole. The point of a campaign before an election involving gay rights is to lessen that homophobia (unless you're on the other side, in which case the point is to strengthen that homophobia). The anti-prop 8 activists did a fair job of doing that within white communities, and an abysmal job of doing so within communities of color. In California, having only white allies is a recipe for losing elections.
Again, and to bring it around to the original post: if you only have white people aligning with you, it's a good idea to ask yourself why that might be. Is it just that people of color are homophobic/sexist/love big government? Or could it be that your movement is being in some way actively hostile or indifferent to communities of color? If you find that you're doing the latter, stop doing that! Sure, there will be those individuals who will never budge on their views, but that's not at all specific to people of color.
“videos from his own network which has shown that there are in fact non white members of the movement.”
Come now, Patrick. Using Google Images, search “tea party crowd”. There are about 3.4 million photos. Needless to say, they're not all taken by MSM or Dems, but the crowds are strikingly homogeneous, don't you think? A picture is worth a thousand words, so 3.4 million pictures ought to do it. Now Google “tea party signs” and see if you can find any hateful or racist signs.
I know you're smarter than this. The “movement” has defined itself. I'm not fond of calling people (other than Tancredo) racist, but you have to admit, there seems to be more of it in the tea party, or at least more overtly, than most gatherings.
What happened to my comment? I posted it last night; it was the second comment in the queue then.
“videos from his own network which has shown that there are in fact non white members of the movement.”
I agree with GD Patrick, bringing out the token black guy does not prove that the Tea Party movement isn't -at least- partly racist? I don't believe that all people who'd attend a tea party are racist, but looking at their own convention, the leaders seem to be. Juding by the signs held at tea parties some who attend are willing to pose with posters that are racist.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck what should we call it?
“I agree with GD Patrick, bringing out the token black guy does not prove that the Tea Party movement isn't -at least- partly racist?”
Pat Buchanan can't be simply be called racist — though he is by the “challenged” — but the group around Buchanan includes the “nativists” and others who are social conservatives, and who are at least are seen as exclusionary (not limited to their positions on immigration reform details).
The Tea Party phenemenon is, on a scale between Perot and Buchanan, shifted rightward (socially) toward Buchanan.
If Pat ain't racist, there's no such thing as a racist…
Olbermann made a good point. There are few to NO people of color in the tea party movement.
I have yet to see any. If you find one in a video, be sure to publish it. I've been to these events and they are very, very hostile. The signs are against the President and the democratic party.
The signs most hostile are those that depict our President as a Nazi, or as a Pimp. They are truly despicable.
The tea partiers are just to embarrassed to admit the truth.