The GOP Is Too Crazy To Be Racist
Not to go all Maureen Dowd on you, but today's Republican Party is a lot like the line from that old Brando movie, The Wild One. Somebody asks Brando, "What're you rebelling against, Johnny?" And he says, "Whaddya got?"
With all due respect to former President Carter, he is wrong when he says that "an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man... that he's African American."
Perhaps someone who grew up in the rural South as Carter did is more likely to see race as the basis for the Republicans' outrageous behavior over the last few months. It is undeniable -- undeniable -- that people like Matt Drudge and Glenn Beck are consciously stoking racial fears.
And yet, the color of the President's skin does not matter to the lunatics dictating the direction of the Republican Party. I mean, it matters in that it's icing on the cake -- but they were baking regardless of all that.
Scores of Republican activists would've accused President Hillary Clinton of setting up "death panels." Rallies would've been filled with Hitler mustaches painted on the portrait of President John Edwards. A grandstanding GOP congressman would've shouted "You lie!" at President Bill Richardson.
Why? Think back to the fall of 2007 (even earlier than that, maybe). Hillary Clinton was the Democratic front-runner, staking out a cautious path to the White House. And what did we see on what seemed like every Republican website? Big ads for black t-shirts showing Hillary with a red slash over her neck, sandwiched between the words, "RE-DEFEAT COMMUNISM; 2008."
The point is that there is no method to their madness. The hardcore whatever-they-are's at these rallies would be there no matter what. How did anyone ever get the idea that these protests are actually about something? And I don't just mean policies or race, I mean anything.
It just goes to show that if you say something loud enough and long enough, you will drown out the truth. Remember how these rallies started organizing during President Obama's first month in office? It was so very clear that they were about nothing -- that they were parties for sore losers and extremists. Yay! Bring some crazy signs! Wrap yourself in the flag and call everyone else a traitor! Woo-hoo! The media, politicians, people in general saw all that for what it was: a bunch of loonies who were bummed that the guy they hate won.
That's one thing. People like that have always been around. They will always be around. What's different is that a political party has never adopted them before.
Because as the rallies met again and again, the Republican Party and their echo chamber got even more into it each time. This was, they said, proof of grassroots opposition to the President's policies. Wrong. It got bigger because Republican bigwigs realized they couldn't compete with Democrats on ideas; that Americans will reject the Bush-Cheney portfolio they continue to use today. So, they figured out something not-so-secret: policy discussions make for boring TV; loud anti-everything rallies make for great TV!... Who needs ideas, anyway?
So they're putting everything they've got into feeding this beast of boisterousness. Are there some racists out among the crowd? Absolutely. Is race an overtone? You bet. But -- and it's a big 'but' -- is "the overwhelming portion" of it based on race as President Carter contends? No.
Follow John R. Bohrer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JRBwrites
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
I think you got it backwards. The lunatics you talk about are not the ones leading the Republicans, they are the ones being led and used by the rich and powerful elite that controls the Republican Party. The elite are feeding them lies calculated to get them stirred up in an attempt to prevent rational debate on the issues. This is classic fascism. I do think racism is involved, but the loss of power is the prime motivation of the elite; racism and religion are just some of the tools being used to manipulate the lunatics.
It may be true that the Democratic president would be demonized no matter who they are, what color, what gender, etc. Look what they did to Clinton. But the tone of it, the substance of the vitriol and perhaps the number of people joining the fringe simply because they couldn't abide a black president has made this fight particularly ugly and racist. And the racist element are the ones I'm afraid will go off and do something horrible. The others are brainless jerks who watch Fox News to get their reality fed to them.
Sorry repubs, I got no respect for any of you. Especially the racists, of which there are many.
Comparing the gop to Marlon Brando? In an attempt to be, I dont know what, this writer, is saying the gop are rebels. Right off the top, I know this guy is trying to sound hip. It's all in the former presidents head,"with all due respect". I invite Mr. Boher to take a look at the "Lying african" sign someone brought to the 9/12 farce. Or how about an official curious george obama t-shirt that was being sold at a recent republican conference, and for the first time in HISTORY a United States President was called a liar on the house floor. OUR FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT. Last weekend a march was supposed to bring the feeling of 9/12 back to bring people together. It became an Obama hate parade. Mr. Boher willful ignorance is one of the things that keeps people from talking about the very obvious fact that racism is alive and well. This moring on "Morning Joe" the two hosts talked about President Carter's comments. Joe stated that the former president was wrong. No debate. No disscussion. With no other race but two white people on screen the answer was: the president is wrong. To say that the gop is too crazy to be racist is a pretty stupid thing to say, then right after to say that the gop is like MARLON BRANDO? A backwards insult follwed by an upside down comparison. It's like you are writing for Liberals, while winking at Conservatives.
I think they meant they're rebels without a clue rather than the famous rebel without a cause.
What is unfortunate about this article is that it (and most of the comments) misses the point. People need to get over the idea of whether or not these personal attacks constitute racism. What really matters is looking at the policies and who is effected.
Republicans don't hate Obama because he is black. It's more racism 2.0 in that because he is a success he has in someway transcended his blackness (according to them). Those who say "he's not black, his mother is white." For years we have had policies that classified bi-racial people as black. Intermarriage was against the law. This disproportionately impacts a minority group.
So republicans aren't necessarily racist at President Obama, or think that a black man can't run the country. It isn't personal racism, but THEY DO SUPPORT POLICIES THAT HAVE A RACIAL IMPACT!!!! This makes them racist. By not supporting healthcare out of concern for finances, they are denying the people who need the help most (poor people of color), therefore they are taking a stance on an issue which is racist in its foundation. While they might not personally hate black people, they sure are supporting policies which ruin many of their lives.
Wait a minute. Isn't insisting the poorest people in the country, and those who need help most, are always likely to be people of color kind of...racist?
I tend to agree with John Bohrer's main point, which is that any Dem president would have brought out the crazies, and that this may be the first time in history that fanatics have taken over an American political party.
Frank Schaeffer made a similar point on Rachel's show last night.
Of course, there certainly are many bigots in the group, but that would seem to go with the territory.
If racism doesn't fuel the overwhelming majority of these "protesters" then why all the confederate flags? I would question whether the author has experienced the South. All that malarkey about support of confederate symbols being a part of "our heritage" means what exactly? That they venerate traitors who took up arms against the United States? They are the political sons and daughters of Bull Connor, Byron de la Beckwith, and George Wallace. They understood the message Reagan sent when his first campaign appearance was held in Philadelphia Mississippi where Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner were murdered. The GOP has been going to this well for years, the election of a Black man as President was the last straw for this racist element, their world turned upside down moment. They will not accept being LED by a Black man, period. All the so called issues they raise are just window dressing for their white supremacist "heritage."
Remember, using racism for political expediency is scarcely any better than being racist. Worst, the person using it thus may be so stuck on their own agendas (or self-righteousness), they may miss the clear, inconvenient truth of who’s really causing the racial divide. For the simple fact is (ahem, Mr. Carter), Obama got more votes from whites in America than any president since, well, Mr. Carter. As much as keeping racism alive for the sake of advancing agendas might work, and as much as we can easily find the wackos and extremists in any ideology or group (9/11 truthers anyone? Who ever heard of fire melting steel anyone??), it’s amazing how resilient we are at actually finding most people who know to stay on the subjects at hand - and that’s reforming the broken elements of our healthcare system.
I've been to a few of the tea bag events (to check them out). I've seen the signs of some of the protesters...It is racism, I have no doubt
it's socio-economic ethnic culturalism fueled by racial animus.Obama has become the embodiment of all things they hate and fear.being black is just the wrapping paper.it's what's inside that really scares them.
Correct - it's not the skin (which is as much white as black) - it's the socialism that the conservatives hate... government control of major portions of the economy, a la Chavez in Venezuela, is the socialism that is hated, not the ones pushing it...
Most of the people at the tea party even does not know where Venezuela is...
we need to stop making excuses for these Racist.
what do you call it when we have a public school system, a public library system, a social security system, a system of laws that protect people civil rights. we call it democratic socialism...
Why then is it a problem to get Health Care out of the hands of corporations.
it is strange and totally illogical that in on breath the republicans are saying don't touch Medicare because we need it, while saying in the same breath that government run health care is socialism...
when are we gonna start putting these crazies in loon house.
What you call socialism is in fact populism, government for the people, by the people, etc...not for the corporations, by the corporations, see where I'm going with this? Because Chavez rejects rich people having all the wealth and poor people having none, he is for using the natural resourses of his country, including oil to operate the country, including social programs to help everyone, you and Bush call him a socialist. Nonsense.
Unless you are filthy rich and CEO of a corporation, I fail to see why you would support the side that is for the filthy rich CEOs and not the group of which you are a member.
The author is absolutely right. In order to be 'ist,' someone has to have a defined set of principles. The only principle that the Republicans have is identity -- they are pro "us" and anti "them." But the "us" and "them" are defined by arbitrary labels, not a unified set of ideals or beliefs. That's why they attack Obama for doing some of the same things that Bush did, even when they supported Bush's actions. It's because Obama is one of "them." Does his skin color help to clearly define him as "them?" Of course. But as Michael Steele and Alan Keyes have shown, black men can prove that they are "us" if they literally lose their minds in favor of right wing extremism.
I think the pure identity issue is, in sum, the nail in the GOP's coffin. Calling people RINOs and telling them to get out of the party will, inevitably, produce results. Arlen Specter left, and how much longer for Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe? How long before every educated Republican feels so intimidated by the hillbilly noise machine that they leave the party? Not long at all.
Sorry Charley, it's racism.
Even George Wallace knew you can't say the N word and have MSM legitimacy.......so they do the dog-whistle.
Socialism ...Code word, Nazi, Code word.
the truth is that we all agree with what these people are doing...let me prove my point
lets say the President was Jewish.
would anyone anywhere sit by as Glen beck and this throngs of racist call that Jewish president a Nazi, or walk around with pictures of gas chambers of ovens on signs. No we would not. The truth of the matter is we are sitting back and we are letting it happen.
because deep down we know we all love it it excites us. We are just waiting for the N word to be the cool hip thing to call the president. notice Glen Back never says President Obama...think about all the times you just say Obama...it is all a sign of de-humanization.
Note to the United States Of America
the world and HISTORY is watching.
There are probably more ways than I can think of to fight racism but I can think of only these two: Fight it head on, have protests, change laws, confront it directly every time OR Live your life as you will and refuse to allow the attacks on you to define you. But either way, as a white woman, I have heard the N word more than I would like, seen it here on HP before it was removed but it was here, heard the comments of "those people" refering to those of color, traveled to northern Fla and was shocked that while blacks and whites live in the same neighborhoods would never dare to enter a church of another color. Segregation now, segregation forever in the "christian" churches of the South.
You can refuse to admit racism motivates those opposed to Pres. Obama but why would they use a monkey as a symbol rather than a penguin?
I think that the story here makes a great point as to the boisterousness of the radical right...It makes for great TV. The business of news agencies is not to present an unbiased account of major national or world events. It is to get ratings, which help boost advertising revenues. In this case, this business of news agencies is business.
What is being lost is the voice of the moderate in an increasing number of news outlets and consequently in its representation in local, state, and federal government. Politicians of both parties are scrambling to secure their base at the cost of middle ground. Hard core conservatives will continue to vote republican. Devout liberals will continue to vote democrat. There are no other viable political parties and both sides fear the "Nader Effect" if they issue a protest vote for a third party. Which party is recruiting me (a middle-class, suburban moderate)? Apparently neither.
I don't think the racial elements, clearly present, are anything but a subset of much broader set of phobias turned to anger and hatred - xenophobia, chief among them.
Assume for a moment that Bohrer’s argument is correct, and that only a minority of the protesters are racists. Why would any normal person join a protest where a significant and vocal minority were openly racists? And what does this say about the rest of the Republican party?
See John R. Bohrer's Profile
Great point. As others have said in this comment thread, and as I said in a column a week or two back, by embracing the fringe, you surrender yourself to their whims.
I would love to back you up on this one, but I think it is a simple case of: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" And I think it is pretty clear who the enemy is.
Thank you Steven. This has been a main contention of mine, as well.
I have no doubt that there are presumably well-intentioned people with legitimate policy concerns or disagreements with the President who are not motivated by the color of his skin.
But why would they march and sit and share a platform with people who are avowed r@cists. Why would a well-intentioned person want to voice his message with the same megaphone that the r@cists are using.
At some point, the messages become blurred and the two people become indistinguishable. As my mother used to tell me, we are no better than the company we keep. Those who make a conscious choice to walk with the r@cists, but insist that they're not one themselves, are fooling themselves!
See, the logical fallicy in your statement is that the masses of "normal" people are joining the "signifigant and vocal minority" of open racists. The masses never join the minority, it's the other way around.
Re: The masses never join the minority, it's the other way around.
And here I thought each person showed up on their own.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
