« Six Teenage Girls Beat Up Girl For MySpace Posting And Video It
Big Pharma & A Killer Ruling Expected From George Bush’s Activist Supreme Court »



Sir Elton John: Racist

April 10th, 2008
By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor

Print Print

Too provocative of a title? I’ll let you be the judge, but it calls attention to the unending rhetorical frenzy engendered by the Democratic primary race. The latest example came at a fundraising concert for Hillary Clinton put on by Sir Elton John. Some of his comments caught the attention of the media quickly.

“I never cease to be amazed at the misogynist attitude of some of the people in this country,” he said. “I say to hell with them.”

This was yet another reference to the all too common meme that anyone not supporting or disagreeing with Hillary Clinton is biased against women. So if that is fair game, then clearly we should be able to say that Sir Elton’s lack of support for Barack Obama means he’s a racist, yes? Both arguments fall on their face under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The problem we seem to have in the commentariat class is that we all decry accusations of either racism or sexism when they are levied at us, but many seem to give at least a tentative nod when such accusations are levied at supporters of the other candidate. As I browsed some of the responses to this event, for example, I noticed Diane Dees at The Democratic Daily posing one of the usual questions.

And bloggers and those who comment on blogs have already begun screaming that not wanting to vote for Hillary does not equal misogyny. Whoever said it did?

Well, Diane, let me think for a moment here. Oh yes, I seem to recall a very recent article about Cokie Roberts and some comments she made. It included the following:

I am not here to say whether superdelegates should or should not be the deciding factor, but I am here to say that, once again, we are being told that it is essential not to give the appearance of racism, but it does not seem to matter if those involved in the process give the appearance of sexism and/or misogyny.

…The Roberts’ rhetoric is no different from the rhetoric of almost all politicians, elected officials, writers, and commentators: Racism is a blot on the society, while sexism and misogyny are “less important” issues, and therefore do not merit the same amount of attention, if indeed, they merit any at all.

That was posted by … let me think now… oh, that’s right. It was written by Diane Dees at The Democratic Daily less than a week ago.

This situation also speaks to the “double reverse” version of these claims, where we find assumptions that while opponents of Barack Obama must be racists his supporters must be supporting him because he is black. (As opposed to thinking he is simply the better of the two candidates to take the nomination.) I support Senator Obama, but I am also quite clearly a member of the MOWG class. (That would be “Middle-class Old White Guys” as opposed to the ROWGs, or “Rich Old White Guys” club.) Surely, even in the midst of the silly season, we can leave this behind.

The point is that while racism and misogyny clearly still exist in pockets around our country, they hardly seem to be the prevalent, driving force in our major political campaigns. Otherwise it would be quite difficult to explain the growing numbers of minorities and women filling the ranks of Congress and state governments. There is virtually no daylight to be found between the policy positions of Clinton and Obama and the race truly has become a contest between two opposing cults of personality. Supporters on both sides, however, would be wise to steer clear of (and condemn, Ms. Clinton) these types of blanket accusations when used in their support.

(EDITED because the first post failed to include the second to last paragraph from my original draft.)



This entry was posted on Thursday, April 10th, 2008 at 4:43 am and is filed under Celebrities, Democratic Party, Newsweek Blogitics, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    “I never cease to be amazed at the misogynist attitude of some of the people in this country,” he said. “I say to hell with them.”

    SOME of the people in this country DO have a misogynist attitude toward Hillary, just as others have underlying resentment toward Obama because he's black. Others choose more deeper issues. But this was a Hillary fundraiser for crying out loud! Play to the home crowd...

    That said, while I think you picked a poor example to highlight, I thoroughly agree with what you've written. I've encountered enough situations where someone put on the hot seat for some reason or another claims persecution because they are <insert woman/gay/black/Arab/Jewish etc. here> when in fact it's because of something more universal such as <mean/lazy/incompetent/malignant>.

    But you know, liberals are particularly fond of hauling out the gender/race and other PC stuff on a regular basis (sometimes when it's inappropriate), so I'd be lying if I said I didn't have at least touch of Schadenfreude in seeing these characteristics be used make the Democratic Party short circuit a bit :-) Even if I'm bound to vote for one of these candidates.
    • ^
    • v
    Idiosyncrat, I see what you're saying and understand it. However, one of the points I was trying to highlight is how our own perceptions about both ourselves and others are often colored by who we may be supporting in a hotly contested contest. While not making any assumptions about your personal preference of candidates, I notice that you freely used the word "misogynist" when talking about opponents of Senator Clinton, you pulled back from the edge and chose "underlying resentment" regarding Senator Obama rather than pulling the trigger and using the "R word" regarding his opponents. I've been guilty of the same thing, I'm sure, so I find myself wondering if this says more about us than we might want to conciously acknowlege?
    • ^
    • v
    JazzShaw...you have failed to note "homophobia" in your accout, which I suspect plays a significant role in Elton John's favouring HRC here.

    Obama's ties with US gay and lesbian communities are frayed:
    ...beginning with his refusal to be in a picture with SF Mayor Newson for fear of being associated with gay marriage (the Obama campaign has a different take, but I suspect Newsom is right and Obama is fudging on this one)...
    ...his refusual to meet with gay press (except one interview in the Advocate)...
    ...his associations with people with a long history of provocative homophobia rhetoric...

    To many gays and lesbians, this is the SOP of the GOP...not the Dems. I suspect this is informs Elton's take on HRC more than concern over misogyny.
    • ^
    • v
    An interesting take on it, Marlowecan. I am aware of the buzz going around regarding Obama's bona fides with the LGBT community, particularly the recent Politico article regarding his campaigns failure to schedule an availabilty with the chief Philedelphia gay newspaper. Two things to note about my coverage of the Elton John incident, however: First, I had honestly forgotten that Elton John was gay / bisexual. (My apologies if I got that wrong, but I seem to recall he was married to a woman for a while so I'm never sure.) Second, and i think more importantly, what I was responding to were the comments made by Sir Elton himself. He did not say that he was shocked by the homophobia of people not supporting Senator Clinton. He very specifically said misogynist, so that was the angle I took.

    I will leave Obama's viability in the LGBT community for others to cover for now. I know that he has come out in support of the full, unconditional repeal of the DOMA, given an interview to the Advocate and written some editorials in other gay press outlets. Then again, he has missed other opportunities and a couple of things, such as the Newsome photo op, raise questions for people.

    As to the press, though, I will cut some slack to candidates who have to make constant choices between their varios press availabilties and opt for the most bang for the buck. I know that their campaigns receive so many requests for interviews that they could never possibly grant them all, even if they did nothing else 24/7. I'd love to have Obama or Clinton on our radio show, but it only reaches a couple of thousand people, and if they chose to go on Meet the Press rather than talk to little old me, it would be hard for me to criticize them over it.
    • ^
    • v
    I think that the comments of a british national so who is not an american voter , but who is a member of the LGTC has not that much weight , becaue he has never been really a political activist for political causes. Now the Colin Powell comments on Obama are going to be very helpful for the Land of Lincolner....
    • ^
    • v
    Jazz, interesting... the R word never occurred to me. The N word did, though! I used misogynist because that was your word.... Dispositions towards both race and gender can run the spectrum between overt and covert. There are blatant racists and shielded ones. Frankly, I think the latter is more dangerous. But the whole concept of "liking"/"disliking" is phenomenally complex, and characteristics such as race and gender have more of an impact (even if it's only a partial impact) on creating an overall impression than many people would like to admit -- so yes, I would agree with you that the subconscious is powerfully at work here.

    In terms of my personal preference on Hillary or Obama, I have no problem being up front with you -- at this point I have no idea. I used to be very pro-Hillary, then I kinda got sick of some of the stuff I was seeing. No frothing hatred, but just kinda soured. I love the idea of Obama in theory, and as something of a student of leadership am awed by his oratory charisma, but his choice in political and spiritual advisers plus a healthy skepticism of Chicago politicians and people entranced like sheep by the very rhetoric that I admire give me significant pause. So at this point I'd say I'm schizophrenic :-) Like Warren Buffett, a man whose instincts I trust, I'd like to think (or for all you Obamaniacs out there, hope! :-) ) that either of them are perfectly capable of doing the job, but if I had to go into a voting booth tomorrow and pick a primary candidate, I have no idea who I'd choose.

    Ask me this afternoon, though, Jazz, and I'm sure I'll have a different answer for you ;-)
    • ^
    • v
    And by the way, Jazz, although I'm a big fan of his music, who the hell cares what Elton John -- or any entertainer for that matter -- thinks about politics? :-)
    • ^
    • v
    Ididsyncrat, in terms of the subconsicence at work as we make our choices and form our opinions over these various campaign "incidents" may I recommend a really good read for you? Barbara Oakley is a clinical psychologist who wrote a book called "Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend." I interviewed her a couple of times on our radio show and she discussed a fascinating theory called "Emote Control." The basic gist of this is that we are hardwired to accept positive news about ideas or people we support, but are naturally wired to filter out or minimize the importance of bad news about those concepts or people. The reverse, of course, is also true. We are inclined to accept negative things about people we oppose while minimizing good things we hear about them. It's interesting stuff and has really led me to double check some of my own thought processes in political matters.
    • ^
    • v
    Jazz, I must say I disagree, strongly, to most of what you're saying. One need not be a Hillary supporter to see the sexist bs that has been thrown at her during this campaign, any more than it takes an Obama supporter to see the racism in the recent comments by Geraldine Ferraro. Misogyny is something taken very seriously by the gay community as well, for reasons that should be obvious.

    "The point is that while racism and misogyny clearly still exist in pockets around our country, they hardly seem to be the prevalent, driving force in our major political campaigns."

    This statement just seems so patently false to me. Are things getting better? Sure -- but the "growing number of minorities and women" you site as proof that racism and sexism are so insignificant is, frankly, pitiful compared to the respective groups' population. Obama's race speech centered on the fact that racial unrest for past hurts and present doings does exsist, and that ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. I think the same is absolutely true for sexism and misogyny.