Why The Charge of Racism Is One Helluva Way to Cut Off Political Debate
Disclaimer 1: I am not a member of the Tea Party
Disclaimer 2: I am African American and I do not hide my libertarian politics.
Update: The President’s silence as a black conservative speaks out
Democratic Shill Posing as a Neo-Nazi at a TPM event.
For the past two years, my political views have gone through a bit of a transformation. Attending and having graduated a white liberal Protestant seminary in TX, as well as being a registered Democrat, at first I chose not to challenge the policy preferences being exchanged in the conversations in the academy. I was, in high school, a fan of Jimmy Carter and a pro-life Democrat (they are basically extinct now). Yet, I had never had my politics challenged until I got to college. The first libertarian I met was an African American, and our debates were provocative, but I remained a conservative Dem throughout undergrad. I did read both conservative and liberal political blogs, watched Fox News and MSNBC (as I still do) just to see what the talking points are for both sides. Yet recently, I have been discovering my anti-statist, pro-liberty streak that was always there, but I never paid attention to it. Philosophically and theologically, I have gone through somewhat of a makeover. I posted about my journey on my first blog posts: here;here;here; and here.
Well, the past couple of years have been quite interesting to see people’s reactions to having their truth claims challenged. I have been accused of being an “anarchist” and “supporting racism” after so called progressives have heard that I have libertarian leanings. But the funny thing is, I did not become a libertarian reading libertarian works or Enlightenment classics. I see it as a natural consequence of reading anti-imperial scholarship that protests racial, gender, cultural, and religious hegemony.
As one cognizant of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s history, of course it makes me upset when conservatives use the “reverse racist argument”, when they ask themselves “what if there was a NAAWP?” as if there was no history of racism or prejudice at all. The irony is that the NAACP was founded by white liberals with one lone founding member who was black: W.E. B. DuBois initially. But white conservatives don’t want to tell you that; neither do the black liberals now in charge of the NAACP. I respect the large body of work historically that the NAACP has done, particularly in the 1950s.
However, I must respectfully dissent from the latest resolution, that essentially labeled the Tea Party as racist. It sounds like it comes from MSNBC’s coverage of tea party protests and candidates. The truth is: real philosophical debate is dead. No one wants to argue on the merits of libertarianism versus statism anymore because they would rather resort to name calling such as “communists,”"Marxists,” “racists,” “bigots”; this type of conversation really is detrimental to US American politics. It’s the “I gotcha” approach to policy making that makes Washington D.C. so disgusting to many folks. It is easy to call me a “race traitor” or “uncle tom” rather than engage in dialogue with the reasons why I believe in libertarianism. It’s easier for Johnnie to call Joel a baby-killing Red without having listened to why he is a pro-life Democrat (extinct as they are). By merely paying lip service to the First Amendment rights of the Tea Partiers, without showing any evidence of the shouting of racial epitaphs of the Healthcare protest, the NAACP does a disservice to the heterogeneity of the African American community as well as the political diversity of the US. It is only a sign of the looming demise of a cultural politics that relies on racial essentialism as well as federal government patronage rather than constructive solutions to the nation’s problems. I can only hope and pray that one day persons will be judged by the content and praxis of their ideas and philosophy (character) rather than their skin color and past histories.
Truth and Peace,
Rod
Great thoughts Rod. I agree, dialog is dead. We have become a nation of mud slingers!
Thank you Brian. yea, Political debate just does not exist anymore. People are just too lazy to think through the issues.
I think you’re taking the easy way right now, by distorting what the NAACP is actually saying.
Have the courtesy to engage their own words: “The proposed resolution had generated controversy on conservative blogs, where in some cases the language has been misconstrued to imply that the NAACP was condemning the entire Tea Party movement itself as racist.”
Do you deny that there are racist elements within the Tea Party? Wouldn’t the movement be better off with a frank discussion of these problems? Believe me, the rest of us would be a lot less nervous if we saw an open discussion of what constitutes racism, instead of this hyper-defensive denial that one’s allies could be using language that promotes violence or racial animosity.
Actually,
If you had engaged the contents of this post, I did condemn the racist elements of conservative circles, especially its historic misinformation of the NAACP.
And whenever I hear this argument:
“Believe me, the rest of us would be a lot less nervous if we saw an open discussion of what constitutes racism, instead of this hyper-defensive denial that one’s allies could be using language that promotes violence or racial animosity.”
I always wonder whose terms we are going to discuss race on, since conservatives and liberals much of the time, have differing definitions of racism. And the resolution does nothing to have an open discussion on race; rather it closes the convo by using the typical progressive line “libertarians/conservatives are racist” rather than dealing with ideas and policy preferences. The NAACP is being dishonest with itself, to be honest. It is a political collusion in the strongest sense. It is not shocking that the NAACP can now call the Tea Party racist and then later on this year, join a similar astro-turf political grass roots movement the “One Nation” movement or whatever.
Again, do you deny that there are racist elements within the Tea Party?
I read your post. Sorry if I neglected to give you the praise and admiration you feel you deserve for occasionally reminding oblivious white folks that history exists and there used to be something called racism way back in the 1950s.
Good for you! But one random blogger doesn’t dispel my worries when in my daily life I regularly meet people who outright reject the legitimate election of a black president.
Whose terms should you discuss race on? While I find typical conservative definitions lacking, I would still be tremendously relieved to see conservatives using conservative definitions to explain to other conservatives what’s wrong with signs like “Obama’s plan: white slavery.” But currently the detachment from reality is so widespread that Senators court the Birther vote.
Your title says “The NAACP thinks that I am a racist.” I just linked to the NAACP’s website where they make clear they’re not saying you’re a racist. You want to talk about honesty?
“Your title says “The NAACP thinks that I am a racist.” I just linked to the NAACP’s website where they make clear they’re not saying you’re a racist. You want to talk about honesty?”
It’s just a title. That’s what blogs do. Get people’s attention.
“Whose terms should you discuss race on?”
I think it is difficult to have an open and honest discussion when persons are not willing to recognize that they are using different terminology and definitions in order to discuss race and racism. As far as the birther comment, people have first amendment rights. It’s just like liberals and progressives who tried to legitimize George W Bush’s war presidency by time and again, questioning his time in the National Guard (btw, I never voted for Bush or his opponents in an election). People in politics work all the time to try to undermine the powers that be. Plus, the birthers in the Senate are on the verge of political extinction and this is their last ditch effort: David Vitter for example, who certainly does not have a good record ethics wise, especially with his choice of staffers. I think until both liberals and conservatives come to a consensus understanding about their vocabulary concerning racial issues, then cannot be an open and honest discussion.
Lastly:
“Again, do you deny that there are racist elements within the Tea Party?”
I never denied that there have probably been Tea Partiers who have had racist signs, consciously or unconsciously. On one level though, there is not one political movement that does not have its bigoted elements. Liberals like to think they get off scot free from being racist; but far from it, even in the progressive academic circles, racism still exists.
Trying to send this comment again:
So your title is inaccurate and inflammatory, you admit it’s just for attention, and yet you complain that “people would rather resort to name calling.” You’re doing exactly what you’re complaining about. You would rather resort to putting words in the NAACP’s mouths and pretending that they were calling you names.
“I think it is difficult to have an open and honest discussion when persons are not willing to recognize that they are using different terminology and definitions in order to discuss race and racism.”
I hardly care if conservatives use typical conservative definitions, and it would be a relief to see a serious discussion within the Tea Party, using conservative definitions, about how racism hurts the Tea Party and hurts America. Instead there is only a circling of the wagons.
“As far as the birther comment, people have first amendment rights.”
What makes you offer this as a reply? Of course people have First Amendment rights. Of course that includes white supremacists. Of course they can chant their white power slogans and march on Washington. My point has been that if the Tea Party do not want to be seen as racists, then they have to confront the racists. Honestly, if that’s a task you take seriously, I don’t think it helps to prop up an “us versus them” mindset regarding the NAACP, a favorite conservative boogeyman group that so often stands in for the weirdest and most paranoid ideas about black people.
Swiftboaters are the equivalent of questioning Bush’s service in the National Guard. I disagreed with the Swiftboaters, but neither dodging the draft nor receiving undeserved medals causes a candidate to be constitutionally ineligible for the presidency. The premise of the Birthers is that no matter what Barack Obama ever did, no matter the content of his character, he can never be president because of who he was born. Of course the xenophobia and racism comes out when the black son of an African man is elected.
“I think until both liberals and conservatives come to a consensus understanding about their vocabulary concerning racial issues, then cannot be an open and honest discussion.”
You’re basically giving up. We are not going to come to a consensus use of vocabulary. It’s not just a political divide. That’s just not how human language works. Individuals can learn what others mean, and that can be sufficient. However, none of this is necessary for conservatives, who may already be closer to consensus understanding with other conservatives, to confront racism within the Tea Party.
Imagine if when someone showed up with a racist sign, dozens of Tea Partiers said “not cool, dude, you should put that back in your trunk now and don’t bring it next time.” Even that would be an improvement.
“On one level though, there is not one political movement that does not have its bigoted elements. Liberals like to think they get off scot free from being racist; but far from it, even in the progressive academic circles, racism still exists.”
That’s an interesting topic, and coincidentally I was just blogging about it. But a major difference is that there’s a decades-running discussion on the left about how to deal with reactionary racist tendencies, how to identify one’s own privilege, etc. It’s a famously recurring topic and nearly all liberals are dragged into the discussion at some point.
It would be refreshing to see similar processes occuring on the right.
PS don’t kid yourself about Vitter, he is going to win.
“So your title is inaccurate and inflammatory, you admit it’s just for attention, and yet you complain that “people would rather resort to name calling.” You’re doing exactly what you’re complaining about. You would rather resort to putting words in the NAACP’s mouths and pretending that they were calling you names.”
I did not call the NAACP names. I just made a statement. It got your attention so it worked. Stop your whining. This is our blog. Get off your moral high horse.
“What makes you offer this as a reply? Of course people have First Amendment rights. Of course that includes white supremacists. Of course they can chant their white power slogans and march on Washington. My point has been that if the Tea Party do not want to be seen as racists, then they have to confront the racists. Honestly, if that’s a task you take seriously, I don’t think it helps to prop up an “us versus them” mindset regarding the NAACP, a favorite conservative boogeyman group that so often stands in for the weirdest and most paranoid ideas about black people.”
Here comes the politcally correct thought police. Look, I am not a birther, but just because a group of people have a set of doctrines that I disagree with, I am not going to try to take away their first amendment rights; or do we want to give a get out of jail free card for the Black Panthers who want to kill babies? You disagree with the Swiftboaters and I disagree with the Birthers. We can leave it at that. Yes, there is xenophobia and racism everywhere, as the immigration debate shows but at the same time we have laws that protects people’s freedom to think and express themselves for the most part. It’s called the U S Constitution.
“You’re basically giving up. We are not going to come to a consensus use of vocabulary. It’s not just a political divide. That’s just not how human language works. Individuals can learn what others mean, and that can be sufficient. However, none of this is necessary for conservatives, who may already be closer to consensus understanding with other conservatives, to confront racism within the Tea Party.”
Me, give up? What are you talking about? Thats just a ridiculous claim. I dont have to answer to you about how anti-racist I am. Ridiculous. Why can’t liberals work with Tea Party members, try to have a dialogue, rather than go to a convention, hide in the name of racial hegemony, and work to cut off conversation. Unhelpful. Your approach has it where we all just go to our little tribes and speak our own little languages without any interaction with others who believe differently. I think that is just unworkable in the long run. We are all Americans. We should be accountable to one another. There is no Red America or Blue America…..
“That’s an interesting topic, and coincidentally I was just blogging about it. But a major difference is that there’s a decades-running discussion on the left about how to deal with reactionary racist tendencies, how to identify one’s own privilege, etc. It’s a famously recurring topic and nearly all liberals are dragged into the discussion at some point.
It would be refreshing to see similar processes occuring on the right.”
Good for you. But we cannot impose our beliefs about the interconnectedness of race, gender, and class on others on “the right.” What we have to do is stay in conversation with them, and how that we can all be mutually changed by the discussion that occurs, rather than one group dominating the conversation over the other.
Rod, I have a question for you. I consider myself an independent. I feel uncomfortable (given my background) choosing a label for myself that either a) lumps me in with a group of people whose beliefs I cannot be responsible for, or b) identifies me with an “earthly kingdom”. I prefer to stand apart from parties (or countries, or states, or whatever) in order that I can retain my prophetic voice. And believe me, it is leveled against empire.
But you know I respect you and would appreciate you unpacking why you would self-label as a libertarian (and thus potentially with the tea party), as opposed to independent or another self-defined nomenclature. Good post.
I’m enjoying boondocks.
Hey Chad,
Did you get to read my posts on “limited government” that i linked to this post? I start with a discussion of my theological changes, prioritizing the Incarnation not just as an event, but as part of the revelation of who God actually is and how God, king of the world governs in weakness. If the God of the Hebrew Bible is the King of the Universe, my logic goes, then God reigns by limiting Godself, particularly in the Incarnation and Crucifixion of the Word. I know, it’s complicated to make claims about God as a model for governmental structures (or at least political behavior) but I do truly believe that Jesus’s ministry makes this possible.
I’m unclear what your problem is with the NAACP resolution that is to be voted on. They don’t call the Tea Party movement racist. They do say there is a racist element in the Tea Party movement and call on the leaders to not tolerate it. Further, are you actually arguing that they have no real concern for the alleged racism but instead are just using that charge as a way to stop political debate?
Also I think your defense of your blog title by saying it’s a blog title that’s what they’re for is unfortunate. It’s ok to have titles like that, even if you don’t believe them, just to get people to read what you have to say?
El Bryan Libre,
To claim that the Tea Party movement’s goals (libertarian vision) is to take us back to the pre-Civil Rights era, is to condemn the TPM as racist, closet segregationist no doubt.
“Further, are you actually arguing that they have no real concern for the alleged racism but instead are just using that charge as a way to stop political debate? ”
Yes. In my experience as an African American raised in both conservative black Southern Baptist churches and liberal progressive black baptist churches, libertarian political philosophy is an anathema among the black liberal elite (the likes of the NAACP for example). The NAACP does not speak for all black people, and it should not claim to be. Racial essentialism is wrong and surpresses diversity in political and religious thinking. That is what the NAACP is doing with this resolution.
“Also I think your defense of your blog title by saying it’s a blog title that’s what they’re for is unfortunate. It’s ok to have titles like that, even if you don’t believe them, just to get people to read what you have to say?”
Yes, it got your attention.
“To claim that the Tea Party movement’s goals (libertarian vision) is to take us back to the pre-Civil Rights era, is to condemn the TPM as racist, closet segregationist no doubt.”
I wonder if FOX News’ writing confused you. The NAACP does not claim that the Tea Party movement is trying to take us back to the pre-Civil Rights era. In fact the resolution says something quite different. Here’s the quote you’re relying on:
Any individual delegate at the convention can introduce a resolution. This means one member of the NAACP wanted to say that the Tea Party is taking us back to the pre-Civil Rights era, and the NAACP as a whole was not comfortable with that wording, so they changed it. They got rid of the part you’re complaining about!
Racial essentialism (there’s a term you might want to define before you throw it around) is wrong, so it’s good that the NAACP doesn’t practice it. You might as well condemn a Facebook group of black libertarians for racial essentialism if you’re going to stretch that label for the NAACP. The NAACP does take political stances, as they always have, as any advocacy group will. If there’s something essentialist about this, a Facebook group is just as essentialist. But you’ll have to support your assertion that the NAACP claims to “speak for” all black people.
Blogging,
“Any individual delegate at the convention can introduce a resolution. This means one member of the NAACP wanted to say that the Tea Party is taking us back to the pre-Civil Rights era, and the NAACP as a whole was not comfortable with that wording, so they changed it. They got rid of the part you’re complaining about!”
While they did get rid of this part that I am complaining about, it shows that this was part of the attitude aimed at the TPM. As for your Fox comment, Im just going to ignore it since I have already explained before that I watch both Fox and MSNBC. I got the comment from both sources.
“The NAACP does take political stances, as they always have, as any advocacy group will. If there’s something essentialist about this, a Facebook group is just as essentialist. But you’ll have to support your assertion that the NAACP claims to “speak for” all black people.”
Blogging, I really do not think you get what I mean by racial essentialim. The NAACP is operating under the pre-supposition that all Black people support Obama and have a problem with the libertarian message of the Tea Party. The resolution is an overt act in persuading American society that Blacks are political homogenous. Also, you keep forgetting the fact that this resolution coincides with the NAACP’s decision to join the “One Nation” movement as a counter to the Tea Party. I do not think it is a coincidence; it is part in parcel to their objective to label the TPM (and therefore most libertarians as racist) while at the same time working for Barack Obama’s and the Democrats re-election as part of “One Nation.”
if it’s any consolation to you, i think you are too.
Hahaha. Oh Jim. Nice to see you again.
“I am not going to try to take away their first amendment rights”
What makes you offer this as a reply? Here’s the First Amendment for reference:
So what if when someone brings a racist sign like “Obama’s plan: white slavery” to a Tea Party rally, individuals at that rally tell them “it’s morally wrong to use racist signs, you shouldn’t do that.” What would be wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong to tell people that it’s immoral to be a race war-mongerer. It is wrong to delicately and collaboratively work to censor and ostracize a group of people whose ideas that you will not even listen to [the NAACP's politics to the TPM].
The problem is that the NAACP plays itself up as non-partisan. They should just come clean as party of the center-left progressive political spectrum. All I am asking for is honesty. That’s the difference between the black libertarian facebook group you pointed to and the NAACP–the BLFG is open and honest about who they are, therefore they are not being essentialist. The NAACP is using a rhetorical form of violence, claiming non-partisanship and objectivity when that’s all bull. There is a large difference.
So why are you hiding behind the First Amendment?
Remember, this is how the exchange went. Emphasis added to what I see as the breakdown in communication:
So if there’s nothing wrong with telling someone it’s immoral to wave a racist sign, then there wouldn’t be anything wrong with Tea Party attendees confronting another attendee and saying “that sign is racist, you shouldn’t have brought it.”
On this we appear to be agreed, so then why did you try to divert the conversation over to the First Amendment? Nothing we’ve been discussing here would be a violation of the First Amendment. What makes you think “but the First Amendment” is a reply to “this is immoral”? It’s a reply to “this should be illegal,” but no one here has said that.
I am an American citizen and I am worried about racist sloganeering by Tea Party attendees.
I’m allowed to say that I’m worried, right?
As long as I’m not a member of the NAACP?
Blogging,
Puleeeezze.
I am not hiding behind the 1st amendment. It is just the law of the land. I suggest we go persecute the TPM since they have different beliefs than others in the mainstream (supposedly).
I am worried about the racial and essentialist politics of the NAACP. So there, we are even.
Yes, it is the law of the land. Now, I am asking you to please speak clearly so you are not misunderstood. I am trying to do the same.
I have not once in this conversation brought up anything which would be a violation of the First Amendment.
So why have you kept bringing up the First Amendment like it is a counter to something I’m saying?
“So why have you kept bringing up the First Amendment like it is a counter to something I’m saying?”
Blogging,
What I am trying and been saying, and I am not going to repeat myself:
The resolution =s Veiled form of censorship from a group that supports the President against a group that does not. Rather than censoring by law like Woodrow Wilson, a politician’s supporters, through a publicly displayed resolution suits much better for the 24 hour news cycle. The problem=s the NAACP should come clean as a partisan organization, nothing more nothing less, otherwise they are lying to themselves and the nation. Nowadays, the best way to suppress freedom of speech and expression is to align a movement as morally reprehensible like Hitler or the Klan (racist).
The name calling is a form of censorship. That is all I have been saying.
This is my interpretation of the situation, here I stand. I can do no more.
http://politicaljesus.com/2010/07/16/commentpolicyagai/
My response to your latest comments (the ones I did not approve via wordpress).
As for me being afraid to take on the Tea Party, try looking up my critical posts on Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Itll prove that you do not have any idea what you are talking about and goes to show you are more interested in throwing insults at me (as well as the TPM) rather than engaging in a conversation.
little bit of a hornet’s nest, eh Rod?
I’m used to defending what I believe. people are just offended by my stances. I can’t help that.
Great posts! I still disagree with your tweet though that Glenn Beck’s “Enlightenment” ideas are more troubling than his Mormon ones…
Well, I said specifically, his Enlightenment Deism, which goes hand in hand with his belief in a God who runs a meritocracy. His mormon christology may also be at work with the meritocracy thing too. He does not discuss grace at all.