Frank Rich, the New York Times, and Yet More Lefty Soft Bigotry

It's not that white guys shouldn't be allowed to engage in discussions on race in America. But there's nothing more exhausting than white male liberals' dogmatisms on race that were clearly formed during a conversation they had with that one black guy they met back in college.

Frank Rich's all too typical pablum on Barack Obama from Sunday's New York Times is a prime exemplar.

Frank's piece begins mundanely enough by delivering the newsflash that the presidential election is not yet over and anyone could potentially take the nomination including some fellow named Obama who's apparently been flying under the radar.

Thanks for the update, Frank.

The piece could have ended there -- in a perfect world -- but Frank couldn't let go without bringing to bare some paternalistic liberalism as the column inexplicably -- or should I say predictably -- turned to the topic of race. And like a great, white father compelled to protect the black man, Frank veers from the subject at hand to note skin color hasn't really been a factor in the primaries to this point. It is, as he puts it, "the dog that hasn't barked." And there by he interjects into the dialogue that which he claims is not part of the election. And to prove how much a non-factor race is, Frank then goes on to use the qualifiers race, racist, racial, white, black and African-American 18 times in the next 13 sentences.

Sounds like a lot of barking to me.

As with most faux liberals who pretend to be race-transcended, when dealing with a person of color, color is all Frank really sees. He reminds me of the type I meet at cocktail parties who proudly declare they are color blind. However, by their third apple martini the topics of conversation haven't much strayed beyond Tiger Woods, Lebron James and my opinions on OJ.

Or Jayson Blair.

In his Sunday piece Frank brings up the non-barking dog purely to bash the Republicans who are "out of touch" with black America. As I've previously noted both here and here, the Republicans certainly have a diversity issue they need to deal with.

But Frank selectively uses the lack of black Republicans in Congress as "proof" that unless the Right is exchanging fire with Al Sharpton and hip-hop moguls they are strangers to the mainstream multiracial and multicultural America exemplified by an Obama or an Oprah.

This statement is, of course, in total disregard of the likes of Condi Rice and Colin Powell, Rod Paige and Clarence Thomas. Or perhaps Frank believes -- as far too many of the left do -- that if a person of color doesn't subscribe to a hard liberal ideology they aren't truly black anymore. I can't speak to the mindset of other softly bigoted liberals, but the fact that Frank's perception of "multicultural America" is apparently shaped by his takeaway from watching Oprah on afternoon TV speaks to the depth of his contact with blacks.

And yet it's Frank who says that unless Republicans are hectoring old school activists and rappers "they don't know how to speak to or about them." This implies that there is nothing within the standard message of any Republican candidate that would resonate with people of color.

How odd that a liberal cannot conceive that a candidate speaking about foreign policy, jobs, immigration, tax cuts, or the loan crisis isn't really speaking to us. How odd that a liberal believes that there is a secret language that must be used when speaking to or about "them."

If faux liberal white guys want to support and defend Obama, by all means please do so. But I would suggest they try to limit that support to matters of policy and not perspectives on race. When the likes of Frank Rich bring forth their ham-fisted liberalism all they tend to do is trip over it.

Comments

[marcusau2]

I think that Ridley was trying to highlight a larger issue that when certain white liberals talk to blacks it generally has to do with matters of race. True, this is a matter that is of deep importance to black people, but it's not the only thing that we're interested in discussing and for many like myself it isn't always on our minds as some might believe. Ridley expressed dismay before at the fact that when he is a panelist or guest on a show it usually always has to do with racial issues. His inherent value as a commentator is measurable by his race and his race alone.

For me as a black citizen I would prefer it if whites never talked to me again if they couldn't find something to talk about other than race, or issues they think I should think are important. If you tried you'd find that I just might be capable of talking about things that you might be inclined to only bring up with white people. Not only capable but also longing for the conversation. This isn't hypersensitivity but is a real observation that I've noticed and apparently I'm not alone.

[nyboomer]

"without bringing to bare" ???????

What does nudity have to do with this topic?

[MacBruce]

What the f.... John, what's going on here? Are you honestly concluding that Frank Rich is a "bigot" because he takes a stance that suggests that Obama's race might be an issue next year? Do you honestly believe that every voter from Bangor to Biloxi is so truly color blind that they're going to view him as just another candidate? Or worse, do you expect Rich to write such nonsense in his column? All he's is suggesting is that yes, race IS still an issue in this country. We all agree that it shouldn't be, but it is.

The sad thing about what you've written here is that you've exposed yourself as being hypersensitive to race, and therefore, not credible on the subject. If some "white guy" walks up and discusses the weather with you, he's no doubt enlightened. But if he dares to mention basketball, Denzel Washington, or suggest that Barack Obama has a real possibility of winning the presidency; America's history of apartheid not withstanding, you get your panties in a bunch and accuse him of being a racist.

Get a clue buddy, and stop playing this insipid game. If this keeps up, you'll find yourself back on Morning Joe in your former microphone-hogging role.

[Roxanna]

Good post John Riley!!!
Although I personally have not decided for whom I am voting and tend to lean towards candidates like Mike Gravel and Denise Kunich who do not get corporate coverage... I like Obama...

I personally believe Obama comes from a varied and somewhat "international background" which would a positive thing for this country!
Experience is not necessarily the best criteria to determine who should be President... as we have all seen Vice President Cheney with a long history in Congress work a system for himself.

As far as race, it makes no difference personally in my voting ... However I am well aware that in many states in the mid west and the south this may not be the case as some people can even get past Obama's last name...

What I would like to see in Obama is coming out stronger on issues regarding leaving Iraq, or going to war with Iran, Nafta and universal health care badly needed in this country. I would like to see top tier candidates being more specific instead of walking fences for votes.

[tod1way]

I really get sick of hearing that Democrats are "soft racists". It's utter nonsense! Discussing the topic of race does not make one a racist, soft or otherwise.

Mr. Rich was making an observation that, in the primaries which are among members of the same party as apposed to the general election, Mr. Obama's race isn't an issue at all. He also is noting that it will be if Obama gets to the nationwide election. And he, as well as the rest of us, knows who will make it an issue.

Perhaps Mr. Ridley is taking umbrage with Mr. Rich's column because deep down he knows he has allied himself with a group that is clearly becoming more and more racist over the years. Either that, or he secretly doesn't want white people to care about other races. Either way, Mr. Ridley is way off base calling people "soft racists" for actually caring.

[professor]

The best answer for white racism against blacks is black racism against whites.

[TIMLHOWE]

Rich is a privledged punk insider candy-assed nancy who slimed Gore over and over and over in 2000 and helped elect bush - but to some know nothings hes a liberal hero.

These are the same kind of phoney pino pretenders who enjoyed him trashing gore in 2000 are now enjoying him do it to hillary this year.

same insider dowd-esque crap - this time different target - quesin is will it have tthe same effect.

can you say president huckabee?

[realpolitic]

Mr. Ridley receives a grade of 'F' for accuracy anf 'A' for repetitiveness. The 'F' grade reflects the fact that Mr. Ridley's comments do not even accurately describe what Rich wrote. Rich based his editorial zeal for Obama on policy reasons. The 'A' grade for repetitiveness reflects the fact that this is the same tired argument Mr. Ridley has made on several occasions. Perhaps if Mr. Ridley is running out of things to say he should take a break. Here he is making things up and then casting judgement using his own bogus argument. Mr. Ridley is tiresome, I am afraid.

[naijaman]

lol

[flydoghead]

I don't think the writer understands what Frank Rich
was saying. I on the other had don't understand what he is saying.

The first column I read every Sunday morning is Rich.

[rnerio]

Condoleeza Rice was shopping at Prada in New York City three days after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Frank Rich is not the problem.

[arks]

Evidently a comment I made last night was not approved, but I will try one more time to make the point that the first sentence of the first paragraph contradicts the second sentence, and things go downhill from there.

Since my post last night, in which I expressed bafflement at Ridley's offense over Frank Rich's Sunday column, I have myself become offended at this individual labeling a whole group of people as applying "soft bigotry," because they dare address the issue of race in public policy and in an election which, for the first time in American history, includes a black candidate in the top tier of a major party. In addition he makes general insulting stereotypical remarks to support his non-point.

The entire article is so much ado about nothing, I should have ignored it to begin with; but after having a post rejected and then stopping to think about the offense of Ridley's article (and reading some other excellent posts noting its offensiveness) I felt compelled to try once more. Maybe since this post doesn't start with a pejorative remark about the quality of the article, as the rejected one did, it will get through. Not that it matters in the midst of almost 400 posts, many of which are very good, but I will feel better.

[chamberslee]

As a black man, I do not believe the Republican party has a positive message for me or most black Americans.

I hear and read things written by Republicans that are at best indifferent to the welfare of blacks. Ronald Reagan, for instance, joked that hungry children in America were on a diet. When confronted with the need to improve school lunch by providing a more nutritious menu that included fruit and vegetables, he stated that ketchup is a vegetable.

Condi Rice is no better; she did not think Katrina was important enough to cut her vacation short. That is the clearest message in recent years that I have gotten from the GOP.

There are blacks who feel the GOP is speaking to them, but I do not know them. Moreover, I am dumbfounded by poor working class blacks who support the GOP, because the GOP does not speak to poor working class people.

Sure, they would love your vote; they just rather not attend a debate held by blacks at a historically black college. They do not want to hear blacks complain about health care, education, healthy and affordable housing, employment. Their base does not have to deal with these issues, so they do not care about them.

[vbond]

What did Frank Rich ever do to deserve being the lightning rod for Mr. Ridley's incoherence?

Except perhaps being a vastly more successful pundit, better writer and, oh yeah, supporter of Barack Obama.

Unfortunately for Mr. Ridley, this post does more to marginalize him than it does Mr. Rich.

I know that blogging is a somewhat less rigorous medium than column writing for The New York Times, but the only rigorous thing about this piece is the clear political intentions of its writer.

Which are I am sure unintentionally undermined by intellectual and rhetorical sloppiness.

Try... harder, Mr. Ridley.

Your new rigor may shift your allegiance.

Try harder.

[Bobleblah1]

Believe it or not
George W. Bush had the most diverse Administration in US history. Thats right! George SATAN Bush had the most diverse in American history. You can bash these appointments as cynical republican politics all you want, but It just underscores Mr Ridley's point.
Liberals of fashion like Frank Rich seem to identify with things black only when those black folks are liberals. But if you are black and conservative, then you are "angry" or "misguided"?.........misguided by who? Because of these liberals of fashion's desire to remain in fashion, they stop short of saying what everyone knows they mean....
(conservative blacks must not truly understand our political reality, otherwise they would be democrats)

There goes that soft bigotry.

But of course the Frank Rich's of the world are liberals of fashion, not real purpose driven liberals. Its always been about the "liberal scene" to these folks. A real liberal would embrace the fact that folks have the right to align themselves with whatever political ideology they ascribe to.
But then again, if these folks were real liberals we wouldn't even need to have a thread talking about this kind of shit.