Identity Politics: The Real Monster

National Review Online: Race And Gender Comments Lead To Labeling

(National Review Online)  This colum was written by Kathleen Parker

---

Race and gender, once the courted darlings of the Democrats, are becoming party poopers. In the always-quotable words of the Wicked Witch of the West: “These things must be done dehhhhhh-licately.”

Lately, Democrats - specifically female Democrats - have been cast into the outer darkness for speaking their minds in ways that have been interpreted as racist or sexist. Free speech, it seems, is no longer so free in the political arena.

As the aforementioned woman, whose primary mode of transport is a broom, might sketch in today’s mud-slung sky: Surrogates beware.

Most recently rapped by the rulers of acceptable speech was Geraldine Ferraro, former vice-presidential candidate and, until her resignation Wednesday, fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.

Ferraro committed that most egregious foul in the game of identity politics. She spoke of race and gender - but especially race - in an unapproved way.

“If BarackObama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she said. “And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position.”

Was her comment racist and deserving of denunciation? Or was she partially, if clumsily, right?

Hold that thought while we visit Adelfa Callejo, a revered 84-year-old lawyer/activist and Clinton supporter in Texas, who said last month that Obama would have trouble with Latino voters because he is African-American.

“When blacks had the numbers, they didn’t do anything to support us,” Callejo said. “They always used our numbers to fulfill their goals and objectives, but they never really supported us, and there’s a lot of hard feelings about that.”

True or false? Racist or observant?

In fact, Clinton leads among Hispanic voters, winning by a 2-to-1 margin in large states such as New York, California and New Jersey. In Texas, Clinton did the same, winning among Latinos by 66 percent to 32 percent. Callejo wasn’t wrong about the end result. And even if some condemned her statement, her reasoning - based on experience and observation - was sound.

In both cases, Clinton was asked to “denounce and reject” these remarks. Clinton said she disagreed with Ferraro, but at first she gave Callejo more slack. “People get to express their opinions,” she said of Callejo, adding that “a lot of folks have said really unpleasant things about me over the course of this campaign.”

And more unpleasantness was coming her way. Soon thereafter, Samantha Power, Obama’s foreign-policy adviser, resigned after telling a Scottish reporter than Clinton was a “monster” who would do anything to get elected.

Sexist or true? Monster isn’t really such a bad word. In French, monstre is a compliment meaning “raving success.” Its meanings in English include: “one that is highly successful.” Of course, it can also mean ugly, wicked, cruel or terrifying.

But we quibble. Whatever Power meant, her intemperate word choice shouldn’t have been a firing - or a resigning - offense for a Harvard scholar, who is also the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of a book about genocide.

No, Power was sacrificed on the altar of a nice politics that exists only in the rhetoric of the presidential candidates. As for Ferraro, her statement wasn’t racist so much as it was racial. It is, in fact, unlikely that anyone else with Obama’s experience - just two years in the U.S. Senate before he began running for president - would get this close to the White House.

There are lots of reasons for Obama’s success that have nothing to do with race. But there’s also this: You can’t separate race from who Obama is. He is the biracial man. Although he self-identifies as African-American, it is precisely his dual race - and his own personal work toward identity integration and transcendence - that allows him to speak effectively of racial reconciliation and national unity in ways that a white male, or another black male for that matter, could not.

So, yes, Ferraro was partly right. If Obama were white, he probably wouldn’t be where he is. And Callejo was at least partly right - to the extent she called the election. And, just maybe, Power was a little bit right. The Clintons are well-known for political ruthlessness that some would describe as monstrous.

What’s clearly wrong is the convenient labeling - and silencing - of people as racist or sexist for expressing opinions that run counter to acceptable speech codes as determined by the minders of outrage.

Thus distracted, we ignore the real monster, whose name is Identity Politics.

It has two faces - and always bites the hand that feeds it.

[rowdytexan2]

Well said!

[paris1969]

"hat allows him to speak effectively of racial reconciliation and national unity in ways that a white male, or another black male for that matter, could not."
... I don''t think so ... his participation in Rev. Wright''s church tells us so much more than his words.

[samthetvcat]

pt2

This to me does NOT make one racist - there''s a survival mechanism that makes all of us sometimes wary of anything that''s ''new''. And Conservative people by their very definition tend to like things the way they are, and seem to feel apprehensive about anything which messes with their comfort zone.

I think what''s at the heart of the excessive airtime devoted to Barack''s pastor is a tacit acknowledgement from people that on some level the discomfort they feel with change like having a black President for the first time is irrational, and thus they can''t really articulate their discomfort in a way that doesn''t make them look like a loon. Instead they just keep playing more clips of this pastor as like a manifestation of what might appear to be reason to be fearful of ''blacks''.

I contrast this with Ferraro because she wasn''t just talking about race and gender, she was actually seeking to attribute Barack''s success to solely his race while simultaneously saying Hillary''s success is attributable to merit. Maybe it wasn''t racism which led her to be so dismissive of Barack, but most of us feel she was wrong in her assessment and that her view is insulting and inflammatory. When I see her whining about the hate mail she''s receiving, I get the sense that she''s not just seeking to be able to say anything she wants, she expects everybody to agree with her when we don''t. She''s free to discuss it all she wants, but she needs to be willing to accept the fall-out imo

[samthetvcat]

pt2

This to me does NOT make one racist - there''s a survival mechanism that makes all of us sometimes wary of anything that''s ''new''. And Conservative people by their very definition tend to like things the way they are, and seem to feel apprehensive about anything which messes with their comfort zone.

I think what''s at the heart of the excessive airtime devoted to Barack''s pastor is a tacit acknowledgement from people that on some level the discomfort they feel with change like having a black President for the first time is irrational, and thus they can''t really articulate their discomfort in a way that doesn''t make them look like a loon. Instead they just keep playing more clips of this pastor as like a manifestation of what might appear to be reason to be fearful of ''blacks''.

I contrast this with Ferraro because she wasn''t just talking about race and gender, she was actually seeking to attribute Barack''s success to solely his race while simultaneously saying Hillary''s success is attributable to merit. Maybe it wasn''t racism which led her to be so dismissive of Barack, but most of us feel she was wrong in her assessment and that her view is insulting and inflammatory. When I see her whining about the hate mail she''s receiving, I get the sense that she''s not just seeking to be able to say anything she wants, she expects everybody to agree with her when we don''t. She''s free to discuss it all she wants, but she needs to be willing to accept the fall-out imo

[samthetvcat]

pt2

This to me does NOT make one racist - there''s a survival mechanism that makes all of us sometimes wary of anything that''s ''new''. And Conservative people by their very definition tend to like things the way they are, and seem to feel apprehensive about anything which messes with their comfort zone.

I think what''s at the heart of the excessive airtime devoted to Barack''s pastor is a tacit acknowledgement from people that on some level the discomfort they feel with change like having a black President for the first time is irrational, and thus they can''t really articulate their discomfort in a way that doesn''t make them look like a loon. Instead they just keep playing more clips of this pastor as like a manifestation of what might appear to be reason to be fearful of ''blacks''.

I contrast this with Ferraro because she wasn''t just talking about race and gender, she was actually seeking to attribute Barack''s success to solely his race while simultaneously saying Hillary''s success is attributable to merit. Maybe it wasn''t racism which led her to be so dismissive of Barack, but most of us feel she was wrong in her assessment and that her view is insulting and inflammatory. When I see her whining about the hate mail she''s receiving, I get the sense that she''s not just seeking to be able to say anything she wants, she expects everybody to agree with her when we don''t. She''s free to discuss it all she wants, but she needs to be willing to accept the fall-out imo

[samthetvcat]

pt2

This to me does NOT make one racist - there''s a survival mechanism that makes all of us sometimes wary of anything that''s ''new''. And Conservative people by their very definition tend to like things the way they are, and seem to feel apprehensive about anything which messes with their comfort zone.

I think what''s at the heart of the excessive airtime devoted to Barack''s pastor is a tacit acknowledgement from people that on some level the discomfort they feel with change like having a black President for the first time is irrational, and thus they can''t really articulate their discomfort in a way that doesn''t make them look like a loon. Instead they just keep playing more clips of this pastor as like a manifestation of what might appear to be reason to be fearful of ''blacks''.

I contrast this with Ferraro because she wasn''t just talking about race and gender, she was actually seeking to attribute Barack''s success to solely his race while simultaneously saying Hillary''s success is attributable to merit. Maybe it wasn''t racism which led her to be so dismissive of Barack, but most of us feel she was wrong in her assessment and that her view is insulting and inflammatory. When I see her whining about the hate mail she''s receiving, I get the sense that she''s not just seeking to be able to say anything she wants, she expects everybody to agree with her when we don''t. She''s free to discuss it all she wants, but she needs to be willing to accept the fall-out imo

[samthetvcat]

pt 1
I love how NRO always trots out the token bimbo to play the race and gender cards - apparently there''s a whiny white guy card to be played as well.

Let''s look at the situation from the perspective of the amount of airtime devoted Barack''s pastor. What exactly do people want Barack to say or do about this pastor? Isn''t it true there''s nothing he could say or do that would make Sean Hannity stop trying to raise the alarm about him on a daily basis? Why not bring up that Hillary accepted money from anti=gay pastors, a firm with a history of sexual harassment, and a holocaust denier? Why not bring up that McCain has accepted the endorsements of two guys who want to start an ''armageddon'' by invading Iran to cleanse the earth of muslims?

This pastor''s a real extremist and I found some of his comments offensive, but if the NRO were really interested in ''getting real'' this isn''t an argument about guilt by association is it? I think the argument is instead that a lot of us actually find change hard, and for many having a black president is change that''s hard.

[samthetvcat]

PS Sorry for the repeat posts! Comment section was acting funny again :(

[samthetvcat]

PPS Like isn''t airplay of the pastor people trying to say that Barack is ''scary'' and not to be trusted because he probably secretly shares his pastors'' values . . . that''s the link people seem to be seeking to make.

That would be like trying to argue that Hillary is ''scary'' and not to be trusted because she''s got a secret anti-gay, pro-corporate anti-lawsuit, anti-Jewish agenda.

That would also be like trying to argue that McCain is ''scary'' and not to be trusted because he''s got a secret genocide agenda against muslims.

I would guess if anybody who wasn''t white tried to point out the analogous claims against Hillary or McCain, they''d be called racist just as fast by Hannity and the NRO, so I''m not buying that they''re being censored any more than anybody else. Ugh, so whiny!

[rowdytexan2]

I would guess if anybody who wasn''''t white tried to point out the analogous claims against Hillary or McCain, they''''d be called racist just as fast by Hannity and the NRO, so I''''m not buying that they''''re being censored any more than anybody else. Ugh, so whiny!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 04:52 PM : Mar 14, 2008

Oh, if you want to see whiney, go over to the Obama article. :) Poor guy, ROFL!

[dmgenet]

NRO repeating truisms known through out the decades, like, there is no free speech in politics. No kidding. The political correct versus the plain speaker. As usual NRO has moved to the mundane in their opinions simply repeating what most electorate already know.

It is sad that William F Buckley is gone. I did not always agree with him but he always said it with calm, style and wit. NRO appears to lack both at this juncture.

[dmgenet]

...and people still voted for Bush even after Falwell made his comments about 9/11? Why is this an issue? Because it''s politics. There are jackasses on all sides of the issues and that includes religion.

[samthetvcat]

The same pundits who were predicting that there were wmd''s, who were claiming that Iraq would be a cakewalk, and that Hillary would be unstoppable, are now scoffing about how this pastor is going to be Barack''s undoing. It''s so strange how they never seem to take note of how they''re always wrong about everything and that it''s because the discount the opinions of others who disagree with them.

More Clinton supports disagreed with Ferraro''s remarks than supported them. Same is probably true of Independents such as myself probably disagreeing that a candidate''s pastor or the pastors who endorse them are relevant to the question of values or character of a candidate.

[sharncedar]

If Obama were white and could speak that well he would be president already, or a hedge fund manager making $400 million a year. Like elvis. He would be in the top echelon of whatver he did.

Geraldine Ferraro make a very racist comment, she did it on purpose, and she did it cynically since I doubt she really cares about race as an issue personally. she just wants to rile up the poor white racist voters in rural Pennsylvania.

[rational_1]

Judging by that hairdo, maybe Ferraro is thinking of a run at the Presidency as a white man (she might have a better shot at it than running as a bitter old woman). She looks unsettlingly like my retirement adviser, Phil.