Using code words in political attacks is how the Republicans get votes from their racist supporters and from their broad middle. In a country that is ostensibly against racism, the code word has become a way to keep racism alive and well on the right.
A few recent examples.
“Community organizer:” It connotes city, urbane, upper-class guilt, and black empowerment. Used to deride Barack Obama, it’s intended to bring up his connection to his ‘community.’ You can connect the dots on that. It also attacks the very idea of racial harmony at the core of Obama’s message by deriding the coalitions of organizers - white, black, latino, asian, Jewish, and all the rest of God’s children.
“Uppity:” Recently used by Georgian Congressman Lynn Westmoreland. He’s sticking to it and thinks it has no racist connotations. As if the image of an uppity black man getting too big for his britches isn’t a serious and dangerous cultural trope in the South.
I’m all for having a debate about how is best equipped to assume the Presidency and for that discussion to get pretty nasty at times. The debate is healthy.
And I see a role for a conservative political party in our society. But what I don’t understand - and won’t tolerate - is why the Republican party continues to offer up old, dark ideas like racism to sway voters. It’s an embarrassment to the American idea.
Did you like it? Was it useful? Bookmark or share this post:
I hope I live to see the day when the following double standards are a thing of the past.
A Republican Presidential candidate has a Dr. Strangelove style freak-out about some small country in Eastern Europe that did something incredibly stupid, was probably egged on by one of his chief foreign policy advisors, and “widens his National Security credibility gap.”
A Republican Presidential campaign responds to allegations of their candidate cheating during a Presidential forum by hearing the questions beforehand by saying, “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” and, afterwards, the story dies.
What would have happened if a Democratic campaign had done this?
Did you like it? Was it useful? Bookmark or share this post:
He’s been my favorite for a long-time, and way before it become popular to join the Obama camp, I’ve been claiming he’ll win the nomination, hands down. Friends out there, I hope you’ll back me up as I make you sick by bragging about it on my personal blog - ;).
The moment when I realized Hillary couldn’t win the nomination was the Coretta Scott King Funeral on February 8, 2006. Her husband, clearly one of the best speakers of a generation gave a speech. He was interrupted by standing ovations, amen-ed, and welcomed back to Atlanta like a hero. At one point, while he thanked the various former and current Presidents, an audience member yelled that he was also joined by “our future President,” meaning Hillary. Watch it happen here around 2:35.
There are few moments like these. With an entire Democratic nation sitting on the edge of their seats, ready for a reason to believe that the legacy of the Civil Rights movement lives on in today’s Democratic leaders, and primed by the best speaker of a generation, Hillary Clinton struck out. No jokes. No bold statements. No turns of phrase. Nothing. By the end, I think most of the audience was asleep. (I’m having trouble finding footage online. If you find it, please put it in the comments and I’ll update this post.) I remember thinking to myself just after her speech that Hillary is not an inspiring campaigner. She’s not a barnstormer. She doesn’t persuade with public speaking. She persuades through boring political bullshit.
Enter Obama. He’s the one who should have been invited to the Coretta Scott King funeral. He’s a campaigner. The man can persuade. He’s the next great communicator. He’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity. He can convince you, even if you’re not a self-identifying Democrat, that the Democratic legacy still lives, that we’re still working on making the American values of freedom and opportunity available for each one of our citizens, and that we’ve got fresh ideas to make it happen in a new world.
That’s when I realized that Obama would win. That moment.
Did you like it? Was it useful? Bookmark or share this post:
Barack Obama is set to go through the Support for Israel ringer, like every Presidential candidate and many Congressional candidates, early in March. With Hillary pandering fast to right-wing lobbying group, it will be interesting to see how Obama addresses the crowd. Unfortunately, Democratic (with a big D) political thinking on Israel is rarely about the best policy the United States can pursue, but about how to secure Jewish money for your campaign.
AIPAC’s rise to power in the past 20 years has been metoric. They claim today that this Congress is the most pro-Israel Congress ever. For all their claimed success and power, I’m definitely not their biggest fan. Here’s hoping that this new pro-peace organization started by pro-Israel activists takes off. A little healthy competition would be great for the debate over Israel policy amongst Jews and Americans.
Did you like it? Was it useful? Bookmark or share this post:
February 22, 2007 at 4:15 pm
· Filed under Politics
A close friend of mine just finished the interview process with GreenCorps - an elite environmental internship - and wasn’t offered the job. Now - you’ll have to take my word for it - she was SUPREMELY qualified for the position.
I’m disappointed that GreenCorp blew an opportunity to have one of the best. Yes, I am mouthing off because a close friend didn’t get what she applied for. But I’m still convinced that her rejection is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems the progressive movement has in training, and retaining, our most dedicated young people. For my friend - who will remain intentionally anonymous - it’s only a matter of time before she finds a position in the progressive movement. But for those who aren’t as dedicated, we need to rope them in early when they are young and impressionable.
Faith in Public Life offers a succinct calendar on the latest round of the ‘religion in politics cage-match.’ If you’re wondering, the cage is the Internet.
Did you like it? Was it useful? Bookmark or share this post:
Bill Donahue hates her. Well, one point for you Mara. Any enemy of Bill Donahue is a friend of mine.
She is an evangelical.
She joined an evangelical Bible-study group at Earlham College, a Quaker school in Indiana, and says she was born again one day while singing the hymn “Here I Am, Lord.”
Not a Methodist, Unitarian, or United Church of Christ member. A biblical literalist. Not my cup of tea, but hey, folks can believe what they want.
Party strategists and nonpartisan pollsters credit the operative, Mara Vanderslice, and her two-year-old consulting firm, Common Good Strategies, with helping a handful of Democratic candidates make deep inroads among white evangelical Protestants and churchgoing Roman Catholic voters in Kansas, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Atrios was right to call out Mara Vanderslice, Kerry’s campaign director of religious outreach in 2004, for suggesting that
atheists and agnostics lack a conscience and a sense of values, and these things only come from religion and the religious.
Kos agreed with Atrios, and took the opportunity to digest recent electoral victories - like Jim Webb’s in VA and Jon Tester’s in MT - have restored a sense of strong values to Democratic candidates without vacuous references to religion.
Then, in rides Jim Wallis on his white horse, to slap everyone’s wrist for classic secular leftism that leaves no room for religion. But he missed the point — it’s not that religion can’t be the source of progressive values, it just can’t be the ONLY source. And if we’re going to take our country back from the people that are convinced there’s only one way, we have to be the torch bearers of multiple ways to infuse values in our politics. I think, as a religious lefty who was raised by religious lefties, that there is more than one way to have values.
So Mr. Wallis, let’s make [a deal]. How about if you realize that there are other people in the religious grassroots working carefully and productively to make common cause with secular progressives - they’ve been doing it long before you came on the scene, and they’ll be doing long after we’re both gone - and how about if you save your patronizing lectures. In return, we won’t call you a horse’s ass. How about it?
Booyakasha, Pastor Dan. You got it.
But wait, how did this all start again? Someone is taking John Kerry’s religious outreach chair seriously. Taking her seriously is like taking Neville Chamberlain’s chief negotiator seriously. I say we blame her for the whole thing and move on.
Did you like it? Was it useful? Bookmark or share this post:
Digg This!
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Furl
Blinklist
Ma.gnolia
Yahoo! My Web