Lynching is an ugly word. It's ugly precisely because what it refers to is both deeply horrific and utterly counter to what it means to be an American. The history of lynching in this country is, sadly, a long and brutal one. Uncountable human beings -- mostly black males in the South -- were grabbed by what can only be called an angry mob, and summarily executed without benefit of a trial by a jury of their peers for their perceived wrongdoing. In many cases (if not most), this wrongdoing was fictional, it bears pointing out. The history of such lynchings is a sad and shameful chapter in America's story. Lynchings didn't happen in a vacuum, of course, since the broader (and more shameful) history of racial relations formed the backdrop in which such lynchings took place.
All of us should be aware (and ashamed) of this history. That such things took place in our country is something all Americans should know. This almost goes without saying. But what apparently does need saying is the reverse -- that the history of lynching should not be abused and belittled by politicians in hyperbolic fashion to make a much smaller point. Even if -- or perhaps especially if -- the politician in question is an African-American.
Here is how the Huffington Post reported this story:
A leading voice in the Congressional Black Caucus told supporters last week that Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers are devastating the black community economically and would be happy to see black people "hanging on a tree."
Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), the CBC whip, told attendees at the CBC's Job Tour visit to Miami that the Tea Party is actively taking steps to keep down the black community and other vulnerable populations.
"This is the effort that we're seeing of Jim Crow," Carson said. "Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens."
"Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree."
A spokesman for Carson, later in the article, actually defended his boss' "strong language," saying:
"A child without basic nutrition, secure housing, and quality education has no real chance at a meaningful and productive life. So, yes, the Congressman used strong language because the Tea Party agenda jeopardizes our most vulnerable and leaves them without the ability to improve their economic standing."
Being without the ability to improve one's economic standing is indeed a dire situation. But it is not the same thing as being strung up by an angry mob from the nearest tree. It just isn't.
The accusation that the Tea Party harbors racism or racist elements has been around since soon after the Tea Party appeared on the American political scene. It is a subject for intense debate. Strong language is often used in this debate. But Congressman Carson's remarks have taken this language to an entirely different level -- a level where he really shouldn't have gone.
Because whether you believe the Tea Party is a pure-hearted organization which occasionally has problems of policing its own ranks at rallies to weed out racists who are using the public nature of the Tea Party events to spew their hatred, or whether you believe the Tea Party itself is actually racist to the core -- either way, Carson's remarks cannot be condoned. No matter what view you have of the Tea Party, to equate anti-minority political policies with applauding lynching should be seen as simply unacceptable.
Unless Carson has proof that Tea Partiers have actually suggested killing African-Americans, planned to kill African-Americans, or even considered killing African-Americans in this fashion, then he is just wrong to say what he said. To say nothing of his assertion that Tea Partiers would "love" to see such lynchings take place.
I say this even though I don't agree with pretty much of anything the Tea Party folks say they stand for, I should mention. I actually largely agree with the statement made by Carson's spokesman, that "The Tea Party is protecting its millionaire and oil company friends while gutting critical services that they know protect the livelihood of African-Americans, as well as Latinos and other disadvantaged minorities." The Tea Party platform, if fully enacted, would doubtlessly harm minorities disproportionately. So I fully understand where Carson is coming from on this issue.
But that doesn't mean I agree with the way he chose to make his argument. Far from it. I don't often enjoy defending the Tea Party, but in this particular case, I feel I must. I understand completely why the sole Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus (in which Carson holds a leadership position) is thinking of quitting the caucus over Carson's remark. I don't blame him a bit.
The politics of victimhood has been refined over the past 30 or 40 years in America. Democrats, in particular, have almost made it an art form. "We're oppressed!" is the cry, and woe to a Democratic politician who didn't respond to it. On the subject of race, it even has its own terminology now: "playing the race card." Republicans, over about the past five years or so, have developed their own strategy for playing the victimhood game (you could even make the case that the Tea Party phenomenon is a good example of this). On the race issue, Republicans now rush to play their own version of the "race card" first, before Democrats can even get theirs out of the deck. This Republican tactic consists of accusing Democrats of unfairly playing their own race card where no racism exists -- thus turning the "victim" label on its head.
All of this lies within the boundaries of acceptable political discourse, though. Even Representative Maxine Waters recently telling the Tea Party they could go "straight to Hell" has to be seen as nothing more than sharp words in a media and political climate that encourages such statements. But telling your political opponents to go to the Devil is one thing -- accusing them of outright deviltry is quite another.
On the level of political effectiveness alone, Carson is not doing his cause any good, and is in fact detracting from the argument he's trying to make. By "becoming the story" himself, Carson's bigger point is all but lost in the fray. Outrageous statements may get your face in the news, to put it another way, but when the story focuses solely on the outrageousness of your language, then you are turning off the very people you're trying to convince.
Carson should have stopped at: "Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens," and his comparisons to the Jim Crow era. Whether you agree with this or not, Carson is making what he feels to be a very valid and urgent point. But Carson didn't stop there. He followed it up with: "Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree." He crossed the line into nothing more than a very ugly ad hominem attack by doing so.
There's a modern convention in political discussions (especially online) that calling someone a "Nazi" or comparing them to Hitler is completely unacceptable. The word Nazi should be reserved for speaking of Germans in World War II, to put it another way. It is seen as a heinous term that refers to inhumane brutality, and thus is placed outside the boundaries of proper discussion. Nazi comparisons weaken your argument, because it is so unreasonable to equate any contemporary political position with the stark reality of Nazi Germany.
But we're not Germany. Here in America, one of the ugliest accusations to be made is that of racism, because of our own history. Calling someone a racist is to use one of the strongest terms of disapproval possible in American discourse. But Carson went beyond even this strong language. He used the specific example of the lynch mob to paint his opponents in the worst possible light imaginable -- all on merely a hyperbolic level. But unless Andre Carson has some sort of evidence he hasn't yet made public that a Tea Party gathering not only lynched someone, but actually loved doing it, then he simply went too far in his rhetoric. What he said actually belittles and disrespects the memory of every lynching victim in our history, in fact. Even a Tea Partier who advocated cutting off every single penny of government help to minorities doesn't deserve to be smeared as someone who would "love" to see black bodies hanging from the trees. The two just are not the same thing.
Whenever any politician crosses such a line, I feel the need to admonish them. Because (full disclosure) I am more sympathetic to the Democratic point of view, it is always easier for me to do so when the transgressor is a Republican. When the Tea Parties were just getting started, I advised them to police their own ranks to weed out the crazies who showed up, because doing so would help them get their message out without such distractions. But Democrats need to do the same thing, at times. Which is why it pains me to say it, but it still needs saying: Andre Carson should apologize to the Tea Party. Because what he said was just wrong.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
It is also true that even cutting off every single cent of government spending to just about every meaningful (or meaningless) cause would still not be racism. And even if the sole purpose for why it happened was enriching billionaires (some of which don't want to be thusly enriched) and sending the economy off another cliff, so as to make the existence of investement opportunities originating in distressed firms more likely, it would still not be racism.
But would it happen if a republican were president? Would it be fashionable to short the US when a republican was in the White House? Maybe.
But it's more likely that it happens because some voters are susceptible to fairly dark modes of manipulation.
Normally, Chris posts every week day over there but he's been working on a new writing project that has us all quite excited and so, lately, he's just publishing at his site and here on Mon/Wed/Fri ... when HP has their act together, that is. :)
It would be nice if the rest of what you say was true about the Republican leadership in Washington but I don't think that it is. At least, that is not the impression I have been getting by how they have been acting over the course of the last few years, particularly with regard to the disastrous debt ceiling "debate", given the already fragile economic environment it took place in and that it was a completely unnecessary distraction. The Republican presidential candidates have not exactly been offering up a responsible brand of leadership, either.
Unfortunately, the most polarizing element of the Republican party has appeared to be its leadership. Which has been demonstrated by how willing they have been to put politics and party above governing in the best interests of the country. How else can you define a party if not by how its own leadership acts?
Example; I joke once awhile my dog is a "socialist". My dog is mellow and friendly/social. Is he a socialist?
If there's going to be anything accomplished to help our country we need to begin to: BRING THE RHETORIC DOWN A FEW NOTCHES.
I said almost the exact same thing yesterday...if you don't have proof of such an incendiary comment, then DO NOT MAKE IT. Doing so makes you no better than the people you're trying to demonize with your comments.
It pains me to agree with the outrage by TP supporters, but they are correct...those comments are WAY over the top, and I cannot defend them. Like you said, I agree with his overall point, but sometimes TACT goes a long way. Unlike many TP folks who always suggest 'sticks and stones will break my bones...', I'll stick to my convictions and say that words DO matter...and this is one instance where it becomes painfully obvious.
Well said.
I called his office, and the spokesperson dodged the question.
OK, I have to salute you, sir, for calling them up. Well done!
-CW
quote "There is indeed a certain racist element within Tea Party rallies, as there is a certain element of wackadoodle-ism."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/tea-party-excess_b_517877.html
Read any of his Friday Talking point memo columns and you will see just what a Progressive he is. I disagree with him politically on just about every issue but he is an excellent columnist.
'I say this even though I don't agree with pretty much of anything the Tea Party folks say they stand for, I should mention. I actually largely agree with the statement made by Carson's spokesman, that "The Tea Party is protecting its millionaire and oil company friends while gutting critical services that they know protect the livelihood of African-Americans, as well as Latinos and other disadvantaged minorities." The Tea Party platform, if fully enacted, would doubtlessly harm minorities disproportionately.'
Bachmann’s press secretary said that Bachmann was “saying it in jest†to prove a point.
On Monday the congresswoman insisted that she was joking, The Hill reported. “Of course I was being humorous when I said that. It would be absurd to think it was anything else,†Bachmann said, adding: “I am a person who loves humor. I have a great sense of humor.â€
'The Tea Party wants to see blacks hanging from trees' is hate speech.
'God sent the hurricane' is not hate speech.
It is a model of nature that is largely accepted by a significant fraction of our population. And their belief in it is not only acceptable, it is considered by many people as admirable. One cannot say the same for hateful references to lynching.
By the way, there are quite a few progressives who would jump right behind the idea that 'Oil companies sent the hurricane'.
There is a related debate about whether we live in a sinful society or not; whether our irresponsible behavior is going to be punished by God or nature. Those are completely different discussions than one that attributes vile motives on individuals, and delivers the verdict in a clearly hateful way.