Michelle Obama and the Poison of National Review
The cover of the just-out April 21st issue of that sophomoric rag National Review has a close-up photograph of Michelle Obama looking angry -- with the headline: Mrs. Grievance: Michelle Obama and Her Discontent.
The obvious aim of the article is to ridicule Michelle Obama.
Before I go on to consider some of the details of the article, I want to make it clear what National Review is all about. It's the late William Buckley's hobby magazine, a place where conservatives foam at the mouth in their hatred of progressives, liberals, Democrats, non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, and anyone who struggles to survive in our free-market paradise. For example, a few years ago, when National Review celebrated its 50th anniversary, the senior editor Richard Brookhiser decided it was time to enlighten the American public with his views about "Happy Darkies". Here's what Brookhiser told us (National Review September 19, 2005):
Happy darkies are most of the world: people with skins generally darker than mine, who live in Africa, most of Asia, and much of the Americas. Sometimes they start at Calais. These days they certainly inhabit every restaurant kitchen in New York. It seems paradoxical to call them happy. They are poor, numerous, and pregnant; if they work, it is to little purpose; their religions span a simple spectrum from witchcraft to wrath, and their societies alternate between tyranny and chaos; they beat their wives, scarify their daughters, and occasionally eat their enemies; they have never read (if they can read) a book that was not holy, or heard a piece of music unrelated to copulation.
What a tragedy that Brookhiser seems so proud of his ideas, so unaware how un-American he is.
The piece in National Review about Michelle Obama is so badly written and incoherent that it's difficult to make sense out of anything but its vitriol. But here are a few pearls:
The author, Mark Steyn, says, "There's something pitiful about a political culture that has no use for Mitt Romney, a hugely successful businessman, but venerates a woman who gets more than 300 grand for running a 'neighborhood outreach' and 'staff diversity' program.
Now, pray, what the hell is this? Are we expected to make Mitt Romney president of the United States because he's a "hugely successful" businessman? Was Mitt Romney rejected by the same people that "venerate" Michelle Obama? Romney was rejected by his fellow Republicans, and if anyone is venerating Michelle Obama, I assure you it's not Republicans. The quoted sentence is so fatuous it jangles one's eyeballs.
In discussing Michelle Obama's Princeton education and undergraduate thesis, Mark Steyn says, "Ah, the benefits of an elite education. The thesis is dopey, illiterate, and bizarrely punctuated, but so are the maunderings of many American students."
Of course, given such a personal attack on a college student's talents, we hunger to read Mark Steyn's undergraduate thesis. No maunderings or bizarre punctuations?
Mark Steyn says Michelle Obama "embodies a peculiar mix of privilege and victimology, which is not where most Americans live."
Yes, indeed, most Americans don't live there, and they also don't live where Mitt Romney lives. But there's no inherited privilege in Michelle Obama, only achievement through intelligence and education, and the "victimology" is that of a black woman living in a thoroughly racist society. Is the mix "peculiar" or merely natural? Does Mark Steyn really believe that if a black woman finds success in America she ought to abandon any resentment at the many years of idiot prejudice thrown at her by the likes of the editors of National Review?
Thanks for the piece, Mark. Here's a toast to you and Richard and perspicacity.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Why give the chicken hawk gazette this attention? NRO is simply a cesspool of writings authored by insecure elitist reprobates.
I cut out the first part of the paragraph that I quoted from Brookhiser, but given the arguments here about what Brookhiser meant, here is the first part:
Brookhiser says, "Waugh the anthropologist taught me, or confirmed in me, a belief in happy darkies. Who are they? Happy darkies are most of the world: people with skins generally darker than mine..."
And so on. These are Brookhiser's words, and since he's a writer, a see no reason to assume that he did not choose his words carefully for publication in NR.
Enough said.
"a see no reason" should be "I see no reason" -- and I sign this post Dan Agin.
Yet another reason that I am bitter.It'
Let's just tiptoe around the sensitivities of these people because we can't wake them up to the fact that they keep voting against their own interests, and in doing so, screw the rest of us with people like Bush and McSame.
I am sorry for ranting...
Glad you brought up the name of Richard Brookhiser. Ah yes, another Condescending Whitey who takes Whitey Education for granted, goes to Whitey Clubs with Other Whiteys, has an Overeducated Whitey Wife he porks once a year like clockwork, and shows disdain for anyone who doesn't look and act just like him. The kind of Whitey who thinks all people who believe in progress and compassion are air-headed liberal drug dealers. But then, when Mr. Brookhiser is diagnosed with testicular cancer (oh, now and then nature has a sense of humor) he suffers the agony of real life just like a real person, and relieves his nausea by smoking marijuana! He even testifies before Congress about its benefits! Yes, pain brought Whitey Brookhiser to his knees, then it brought him to marijuana. And being poor would bring him to socially just programs. And being a person of color? Who knows. Maybe that would actually make him human.
Hillary '08
Dan, is that disgusting rhetoric about "happy darkies" all that much different from Mr. Obama's thoughts on the dumb bitter people of PA?
I got a feeling that there is plenty more amo to be used against Obama's wife. Best you Obama supports put on your flack jackets.
Hillary '08
I wear a flack jacket all the time, in case of sniper fire. Yours just bounced right off.
Brilliant! Ultra Classic's remarks are ultra offensive. Way to go Hillary supporters. Thanks for the great comeback Cindy...
I keep asking this, but none of the Obama-haters will respond: when did he say anyone was dumb? And since when is 'bitter' an offensive term?
In the last weeks Obama has used the words 'bitter' and 'typical' and purportedly many white Americans have gotten upset. I have been called a n*gger about a hundred times in my life, in varying circumstances, from the benignly stupid to the dangerously homicidal.
I never was a fan of William Buckley, and I will not indulge in lampooning someone who is no longer around. Especially since ,unlike his conservative followers, he didn't resort to despicable tactics such as shouting and questionable editing in his tv shows.
My understanding is that he did not like what the "Review" had become, i.e. "....a place where conservatives foam at the mouth in their hatred ... ".
It is a shame. There is place in the political debate for a conservative magazine. Something that would play the same role "The Nation" and "Reason" play for liberals and libertarians respectively.
I have never read Reason, how it it?
Dan -
Interesting article. I have been quite distressed by the bashing of Michelle Obama that I've seen in a lot of places, including the comments at HuffPo, so I'm glad you are taking the National Review to task for this. It reminds me in many ways of how the right wing bashed HIllary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Elizabeth Edwards and Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Granted, I believe Clinton took the brunt of that bashing, but the other candidate wives (and VP candidate wives) were abused as well.
I think this behaviour by the right wing is really appalling. However, the left wing is not pure either (Laura Bush and Cindy McCain as "Stepford Wives"). Interestingly though, the only right-wing spouses in recent memory to have been powerful women on their own (Lynne Cheney and Liddy Dole), weren't subject to these sorts of attacks.
I will also say Dan, that I appreciate the fact that you are reading and responding to the comments.
One of the saddest things about America is Rage. The Rage takes many forms, but it is always stupid and self-defeating. When I (male catching up to 60) was growing up, there were many street fights. Usually, the kid with the rage LOST, even if he were stronger and the better fighter. Rage always seems to destroy who carries it.
Republican Rage, which is the rage of the wealthy and powerful against 95% of the people, is often expressed so pointedly that the 95% think they are part of the 5%.
I think the absurd word "Rethugican" is part of that same stupid rage, as is National Review. When Buckley was not Raging, he was hanging around with Liberals and devoting his life to Culture and Pleasure.
Our American Culture is so pointlessly stupid, and it is no surprise that so many of the Canadiens who do well here, like Pam Anderson and Mark Steyn and David Frum, master the stupidity first.
The Statue of Liberty should say, "Send me your stupid, your right wing Rage Boys, your pompous, longing to cancel out decency."
My grandmother, who was of American native and African ancestry, had a saying for the likes of this cat: Ignore the ignorant. I have throughout the years tried to embellish the phrase when written to: Ignore the RANTS of the ignoRANTS. As one can see, my phrasing is somewhat lacking and forced. I’m willing to bet, and i’m a Black man who does not gamble (to spite Bill Clinton’s claim of dice rolling); i’m willing to bet this idiot’s grandmother was much more of a decent person than he.
When i was growing up in the South Bronx of New York City, we had this phrase:
Take care of my lightweight.
I really hope Sister Michelle uses the phrase so that women like Alice Walker, Randi Rhodes, Whoopie Goldberg with Joy Behar et al, and even Chelsea Clinton do what his mama didn’t do…
She is pissed. No doubt about that. But she's pretty hot.
But, of course, the reality is; Michelle Obama is angry. Perhaps she got that from the Rev. Wright - but she is a very angry and bitter woman.
Please tell us how you became acquainted with the woman. Surely you are not so stupid that you would come to this conclusion without having ever met the woman.
I just had cocktails with several white people of varying ethic backgrounds, and most of the women and men were angry. They went to school here in the USA as did Michelle Obama, they heard the ideal that anyone can become president; they learned about the land of opportunity, they memorized all of the Amendments to the Constitution, they learned about equality, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and lynchings. They are as angry as Michelle Obama. The as*****s at the national review, Fox (Faux) News, CBS, and other propagandists don't understand how angry everybody in the USA is. Michelle Obama looks like them in every way except skin color. Her anger is somewhat different in origin, and stems from slavery and its after effects, but it is an understandable anger. I suspect that she is also angry about the many of the same things as what those whose company I enjoyed are angry about. There is a unity in anger. BTW, we all have moved from Hillary to Obama in our loyalty. If Hillary gets the nomination, we will be voting for her. McCain garnered on overarching comment: same as Bush. No more Bush.
GH, I think you need to wake up, because if you are not angry, you've been asleep.
Not first lady material.
Who really cares what the national review thinks, only the small minds that try to read it!
In principle you're right. But the magazine sits on newsstands with Michelle Obama's face large on the cover and a nasty ridiculing headline. No one needs to open the magazine to see the cover. It's the cover that will stick in the minds of people who pass it in the supermarket. Nasty cover and nasty media manipulation.
Dan Agin
Spot on. As we all know by reading the posts here and elsewhere, there are a lot of headline readers among us. The National Enquirer made millions from just the cover and the headlines.
So you are suggesting that they're doing what the rest of the magazines and national mainstream media do and are doing to the Repubicans?
It would help if the world knew that the CIA paid for half of the start-up funds for the National Review. (Saunders, "The Cultural Cold War") They made a conscious effort to support the culture and arts of Europe in the Marshall plan and the Cultural Cold War but when they came home they made a cynical strategy to muddy the waters and keep Americans as stupid, racist, provincial and manipulatable as possible. How else can you explain Jonah Goldberg. Digoweli
The National Review is the last refuge of scoundrel right wingers who fancy themselves intellectuals, more or less openly disdain the millions of blue collar workers on whose votes their livelihoods depend, and who are pissed that you can't say these kinds of things openly in this country anymore.
Their pretense makes Brookhiser, Goldberg, Steyn, DeSouza etc. even more laughable than their incoherent ideas.
The day we drummed Mark Steyn out of Canada is looking better and better.
I want to preface my comments by saying that this is a generalization. What do Republican
Michelle Obama isn't attacked for attending Princeton, she is attacked for her stupid comments.
- Telling people we have had it hard paying back loans while bringing in $1 million plus a year
- Not proud of my country comment
- Don't go into corporate America comment
- Weird view of the economy how if one person is successful another has to fail
Overall her comments seem to have a socialistic touch to them.
Just to be clear she did not say she was not proud of her county. She said for the first time she is proud of her country. Since I totally feel the same way her comment resonates with me. For the first time in my 45 years I have a hope that I live in a country where a person is no longer judged by their race. To be honest unless you are a minority I think its hard to appreciate the importance of living to see this day.
Tell us about Michelle Obama earning $1,000,000
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
