« The Latest Scandalous Discovery About Michelle Obama
Germany Finally Acknowledges Civil War in Afghanistan: Frankfurter Rundschau, Germany »
If This Is CPAC, Get Ready for the Racist Stereotypes
Kate Zernike reports that it’s already begun:
How can conservatives win the youth vote that overwhelmingly went for Barack Obama in 2008? At the Conservative Political Action Conference, apparently, some are betting on using racial stereotypes.
In a panel appealing to conservatives under 30, Jason Mattera, author of a forthcoming book called “Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation,” likened the gathering to “our Woodstock.”
“Except that unlike the last gathering, our women are beautiful, we speak in complete sentences and our notion of freedom doesn’t consist of snorting cocaine,” he said, “which is certainly one thing that separates us from Barack Obama.”
After the laughing died down, he added, “Actually, on the cocaine front, I do believe many people in America viewed Barack as they do drugs: it was a substance to experiment with.”
[...]
Can we save our generation from Obama zombies, he asked. He answered himself by borrowing the president’s campaign slogan: “Yes, my brothahs and sistahs. Yes we can!”
39 Responses to “If This Is CPAC, Get Ready for the Racist Stereotypes”
“Our tribe's womenfolk have better birthing hips!”
When I learn there are men like that in the US I wish the Atlantic was wider.
I also understand why so many of you are hot on this “walking around with guns” thing.
Yes indeed, Axel. Because only the US harbors “men like that”…
/sarcasm
When in doubt … Play the 'race card'!
We have those, sure. But they know their place. People like Palin, Bachmann, Falwell and that Mattera would be shouted down, harassed, dismissed and made anathema here in Sweden, and that's the way we all like it.
The far-left party has like a twentieth of the polling, as do the nativist/fear-mongering/”Eurabia”-peddling/anti-feminist/identity politics “Sweden-Democrats”. In America, the latter category have entire newspapers to themselves, like the WaPo or the OC Register.
Where is the racist stereotype? Insulting cocaine-snorting boomers is racist?
Exactly, Steve. That was Kate Zernike's point, in the first paragraph I quoted.
Cocaine-snorting boomers? Where do you see that?
ie. reference to woodstock and how the “woodstock” of his generation doesn't involve snoring cocaine. But regardless, I don't see any racism even though I would agree that attacking the President and the tone of what's described isn't likely to attract young people, assuming it's an accurate portrayal.
I fail to see any racism. Not idea what Kathy is referring to.
“Can we save our generation from Obama zombies, he asked. He answered himself by borrowing the president’s campaign slogan: “Yes, my brothahs and sistahs. Yes we can!””
Maybe the above is the racist reference.
I've seen better points on a circle.
Andy,
There is certainly plenty of room in the invective for aging hippies, sixties anti-war protesters, and Woodstock attenders, but the speaker also clearly connects the druggie reference to Obama, and if you are not aware that racial stereotyping of blacks in this country includes the view or the implication that “black” and “drug addict” or “drug dealer” are synonymous, then I would say your cultural-historical awareness on these matters is on the low side.
And just as obviously, that is far from the only racially loaded reference in that diatribe.
That does not surprise me at all.
That's certainly one of them.
Mattera reminds me of one of those little ankle biter dogs. . . but without the sincerity. You don't have to research the guy very deeply to discover he's not exactly a well person. I understand he shows up on FOX every now and then… which seems appropriate enough.
Well Kathy, I guess if you go digging in the hills for racism long enough, you'll eventually find something that looks shiny.
I'm aware of the racial stereotyping about drug dealers, but that connection isn't here unless you want to stretch the connection to include any mention of drugs in the same sentence with any person who happens to be black. It seems to me in doing so you are setting the bar for racial stereotyping so absurdly low as to be meaningless.
The opposite is true as well. If you don't believe racism exists, and/or define racism in extremely literal and narrow terms, and/or do not understand and are not inclined to take seriously the way racist stereotypes and references operate in a society where it's no longer socially acceptable to express these sentiments openly, or all of the above, then you will never see, recognize, or acknowledge racism, racial stereotyping, or racist intent even if it shines like a mountain of radioactive waste.
” . . we speak in complete sentences and our notion of freedom doesn’t consist of snorting cocaine.”
And this from the party of President Dubya whose staff were convinced he suffered from presenile dementia and couldn't be left unguarded by an inquiring press or Washington politician. The “big secret” was his heavy drug use in his early and middle aged years which impacted his memory and tolerance levels. A secrecy so well guarded that FDR's wheel chair's concealment pales in comparison. In both cases the press were co-conspirators.
“..our women are beautiful, we speak in complete sentences and our notion of freedom doesn’t consist of snorting cocaine…”
Yup, those beautiful women are from Argentina and how quickly people forget that Dubya, who they followed blindly into the Iraq war, snorted cocaine and there's no need for me to mention Bush's inability to speak in complete sentences.
Unfortunately and at the expense of the country Bush, just like cocaine, was a substance to be experimented with.
Yesterday, Elrod wondered why middle class minorities rarely move towards the Rep Party. My response was
“Maybe they believe that Reps are racists? I am not saying they are, but I am saying minorities believe it to be true.”
Mattera's statements do not appear racist to some of the conservatives on TMV. Ask any minority if they feel those statements are racist and I believe 95% of the minorities polled would say yes. I bet black people would poll at 99%.
What is your point here Kathy? I don't see any blatant racism in this case so I must not believe racism exists and am incapable of discerning it? Resorting to such baseless ad hominem is the last refuge of those who cannot provide a convincing argument on the merits. Suggesting that disagreement with you = inability to recognize racism isn't a very compelling position to take. Since you don't know me, I would appreciate it if you stuck to legitimate arguments and not engage in bogus speculation about what you believe I do or do not know about racism. Thanks.
“When I learn there are men like that in the US I wish the Atlantic was wider.”
I absolutely LOVED that statement, Axel.
“I also understand why so many of you are hot on this “walking around with guns” thing.”
Hey guns are cool! (LOL). But seriously… my view: having a gun is to the second amendment as reading a newspaper is to the first amendment. Love both rights.
Good article, Kat.
Although, I have seen much more racism on the left in Washington, than I have ever seen on the right. Racism is a natural effect of Elitism. When you think you're better than those below you, you are more likely to put them in classes, races, or stereotypes. Yes, there are Elitists on the right. But they aren't in charge right now (And never will be if I have anything to say about it).
I would think there would be more general bigots on the left and racist bigots on the right.
The rest of the speach is littered with racist crap as well. Yay fun!
What an interesting reaction, Andy. I was merely responding to your suggestion that I was seeing racism where there was none, and flipping it over to suggest that perhaps you were failing to see racism where it was very obvious.
It seems from this latest comment of yours, above, that you are very thin-skinned about that kind of table-turning.
Left or right, JD, when I see it, I call it. And I do see much more of it on the right. I think that, objectively, that's a very easy case to make.
Kathy,
Ok, then let's explore this: Is it possible for people to disagree with you on racism in this case and not be racist and/or ignorant in some manner? The way you've framed your comments here gives the perception that anyone who can't see the “obvious” racism in this instance is either racist or ignorant. In that regard your comments stuck me as quite a bit more than simply “flipping” an argument.
The fact of the matter is that I run across the “you don't agree with me or my position, therefore you're a racist/nutjob/radical/idiot/whatever” argument all too frequently and I don't have much tolerance for it.
Perhaps we should admit that the victims of racism are more sensitive to it than we whiteys. Since I supported Obama, am of the Woodstock era, and can speak in complete sentences just fine, thank you, the dig is obviously at someone else. Look at the ravings of Pat Buchanan, all the Fox creeps and Lou Dobbs. Factor in the “conservative” opposition to equal rights and affirmative action and the anti-Mexican fuming of the nativists and it's easy to see why the GOP has no minority support. As shannonlee points out, who cares what we think? Minorities think the right is racist. And they vote.
Is it possible for people to disagree with you on racism in this case and not be racist and/or ignorant in some manner?
That is a very peculiar way to frame the question, given that it was you who flatly dismissed the idea that there was any racism, racial stereotyping, or any racist undertone at all in the speaker's remarks.
“Left or right, JD, when I see it, I call it. And I do see much more of it on the right.”
I agree with the left or right comment, Kat.
But I seem to see more on the left, where you seem to see more on the right. One of us isn't looking correctly.
“Not idea what Kathy is referring to.”
It was in her title. Get ready (for her).
“Look at the ravings of Pat Buchanan, all the Fox creeps and Lou Dobbs.”
Turn them and their devoted fans loose in a granola neighborhood. Shock and awe!
[grin]
JD, as I noted, it really doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what WE think. The GOP fought against civil rights, filibustered it. Fought against affirmative action. It's filled with racist voices, and not just those I mentioned. Look at the tea party with it's monkey posters. The Republicans with the watermelon post card, etc. Minorities aren't confused about who opposes them. Call it “racist” or not (I do, maybe you don't), but it really doesn't matter. Minorities KNOW who opposes them. Their votes are not now and will likely never be with the GOP.
Kathy,
Read my comments again. I did not “flatly deny” anything. I said I didn't see any racism in the comments. You disagreed and said the drug reference was clearly racist. I disagreed it was clearly racist – IOW your argument didn't convince me it was racist. That is far different from “flatly denying” anything. One would think it obvious that such things are open to a certain amount of interpretation. Are they? What is the standard for racist speech? My question remains: Is my disagreement with you evidence, in your view, of racism or ignorance on my part?
I wouldn't say your disagreement is evidence that you yourself are racist, or that you're ignorant. I do think it's evidence that you have (or may have, if you prefer) a very narrow, literalistic definition of racist language, and that you don't take context, intent, or historical factors (i.e., the history of how words and images have been used to degrade black people in this country) into account when asking yourself if an incident like this one reveals racism.
Put differently, I wouldn't say you are either racist or ignorant based on this discussion, but I would say you are on the insensitive side with regard to racial stereotyping.
The blanket statement that republicans fought against civil rights is false. MLK himself was a republican – lest we forget. The dixiecrats fought much harder against civil rights (and resorted to murder of many) than the GOP has EVER done. Let's not forget that Lincoln was also republican.
I'm not trying to espouse the glory of republicans here, since I think they suck for entirely different reasons. But the DNC has put forth more class warfare, racial division, etc; than any other party – for the most part. They even divised the welfare system that kept minorities in a perpetual circle of poverty for generations.
Oh, you are a history buff, JD. Yes, 140 years ago, the GOP was quite different than now. In fact, even 40 years ago, when Dixiecrats filibustered the civil rights act, there were ELEMENTS (aforementioned Dixiecrats) in the Dem party who were white racists. But the Dem party left them, or they it, and the Dixiecrats joined the racist party, oh, sorry, the Republican party. The party of rich white men. As I noted, it doesn't matter what you believe, or me. Minorities know very well who opposes them.
Oh, friend, you're nuts about welfare and that very very tired old GOP saw about “perpetual circle of poverty” supposedly caused by helping needy families. But that's all right, that is EXACTLY the kind of right-wing talking point that makes sure those in need are fully aware who gave them a safety net and who derides that with “get a job, loser” rhetoric. JD, we may never again have a job for everyone. The Republican idea was if we could buy ANYTHING cheaper in some slave wage hell hole then we'd both allow and encourage them to kick Americans out of their jobs and hire a Chinese peasant for $4 a day. Now the GOP wants to take away the pathetic government cheese and give another tax break for the rich.
Selfishness and greed, The GOP mantra.
“Minorities know very well who opposes them.”
Yes they do. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (etc) have done a very good job at telling them how the “rich white evil Republicans” don't like them because they're minorities. Come on, Green….. you know the tactics. And you hit on the answer to my entire comment. You are right that GOP is about the capitalist buck and the utilization of labor at any cost. But the racis tactics still belong to the Democrats. The Democratic party was also a very different party through history, as you correctly pointed out about the Republicans. However, the Dems today are not of the party I joined so long ago. They continue in the racial/class warfare strategy, and are bought and paid for by social liberalism, just like the GOP is bought and paid for by corporatism.