Sever the Link Between Populism and Racism

David Brooks is a very clever and gifted writer. But his latest New York Times piece repudiating the role of race in the vitriolic backlash against Obama just doesn't pass muster.

At the core of Brooks's argument, which attempts to draw lessons from American history, is a false dichotomy between racism and populism. The backlash to Obama, he asserts, falls within a "populist tendency" ("for the ordinary people and against the fat cats and the educated class; for the small towns and against the financial centers") with roots in Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy.

While there may be some truth to this, in no way does this negate race as a factor. Jeffersonian democracy involved slavery. Jacksonian democracy involved anti-black racism and Indian "removal." We could add that FDR's New Deal coalition bound together white supremacists and civil rights advocates.

In fact, Brooks's core idea in support of a non-racial reading of the Obama backlash -- "free labor is the essence of Americanism" -- is itself bound to the history of racism. The writings of Theodore Allen, Alexander Saxton, David Roediger and a whole slew of others make this more than clear.

Throughout history, white workers and other non-elites have defined "freedom" in racial terms. When African American, Asian American, and Latino workers -- be they enslaved or free, immigrant or American-born -- were waging their struggles for freedom, did these white "free laborers" find common cause with them? Sadly, white workers and small farmers could be found far too often on the wrong side of history. They believed that the only way they could remain free was to exclude and degrade people of color they associated with savagery and dependency. Their pursuit of democracy in America sought to narrow and confine the scope of citizenship based on race. As a result, the historical concept of "free labor" is scarcely more race-neutral than is the idea of "states' rights."

Did elites play a major role in using racism and nativism to divide the working class? Of course. Did white workers choose the wrong course in every case? Certainly not. There are heroic tales of cross-racial solidarity readily found in books like Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. But there's no question that regressive forms of white populism played a substantial role in maintaining Jim Crow, bans on Asian immigration and naturalized citizenship, and ongoing xenophobic reactions to Latino immigrants.

Now let's recognize that overt forms of racial hatred and knee-jerk antipathy based solely on skin color have dramatically diminished in the aftermath of the civil rights movement. (Brooks makes this point via an anecdote about white tea party protestors listening to rap music at a black family reunion.) If that level and form of white racism still existed in America, Barack Obama would have never been a serious candidate in the Democratic primary let alone the general election. So old screeds protesting racism won't suffice.

But there remain within American culture a wide variety of fears, anxieties, and prejudices that intersect with conscious and unconscious forms of bias and xenophobia. We won't be able to move towards a truer concept of freedom until we overcome the contradictions inherent in the American populist tendency. We can't have a united effort to contest entrenched corporate power, when some Americans victimized by the oligopoly banks see bailouts as the expedient response of a progressive president taking what appears (wrongfully, IMHO) to be a pragmatic step while others see bailouts as an Obama scheme to impose Nazi fascism upon "real" Americans.

One need not look hard to see these types of contradictions flaring up within the right-wing backlash. Many of the policy positions are downright incoherent -- e.g. "don't let a government takeover of health care destroy Medicare." Beyond that, the backlash continues to be fueled more by fears than fact (death panels, birthers). These resemble less measured political responses and more spastic responses to cultural change -- what Glenn Beck calls, a fear of losing "the America I know and love."

We could poke further holes in Brooks's reasoning. He calls "hard work" "the moral backbone of the country." But for many up in arms about immigration, respect for "hard work" never translates into respect for the humanity of undocumented janitors, dishwashers, and gardeners.

And was Glenn Beck's attack on Van Jones mainly about stirring up populist resentment of the urban elite? Did Beck focus more on Jones being a Yale Law School graduate or a "black nationalist," "revolutionary," and "ex-con"?

Brooks is smart enough to know the right, or I should say, correct answers to these questions. But the real matter before those of us working to build a better future is getting beyond the rear-guard fights with rump members of a party tied to a dying social order. The old racial populism can't claim the allegiance of anything close to a majority today.

The long-term solution -- beyond the immediate policy debates over the merits of split the difference bipartisanship or what to do about blue dog moderates -- is to construct a new coherent political majority that will correspond to an already emerging multicultural majority. This means resisting self-righteous excesses, struggling to transcend narrow partisan interests, and finding some way to mold common values even with those whose sincere populist concerns are surfacing through highly warped expressions.

This was the promise and hope of candidate Obama that inspired the "yes, we can" millions to take grassroots action. He said true change would require difficult struggle. He said no one person could do it alone. He said real transformation comes not from Washington but from the bottom-up.

Those realities ought to be sinking in pretty deeply by now.

 

 

Comments

[capitaldysfunction]

Racism is a mental disease like major depression. Like those afflicted with depression it affects a person's understanding and ability to make good decisions. It is difficult for one to recognize and identify their own racism without counseling or some special insight. Conservitives and Republicans see themselves as members of a virtually white elitist party that differentiates them from the threatening riff-raff of skin color. They choose obstructionism because it allows them to not interact with the Democratic party of colored people. By not backing social legislation they continue in their own mind this separation. Regaining power through elections becomes the goal not to affect change or to improve humanity but to maintain a status quo of corporate ruling power. Racism is the vehicle that marries the Rethugs to corporatists and the status quo.

[katmeyster]

This is one of the best articles I have read on HuffPost. Thank you.

[majii]

As a well-educated AA who worked 34 years before retiring, was raised in a 2 parent household, pays all taxes, owns a nice house, pays less than $110/mo for health insurance, had a child only after marriage, put that child through college, has never been on welfare, has never been arrested for anything-not even a parking ticket---I abhor the sterotypes used by some politicians, some of those in the media, and some of those in the general population. It's a clear message to me that my accomplishments mean nothing to them, and that they have no interest in moving beyond the stereotypes.

I'm always going to be looked at as someone who takes from the society and as a welfare queen.

Thank goodness I don't depend on these folk to define who I am. They are so far off the mark, it's pitiful. I would feel sorry for them, but I don't because it's their problem. Not mine.

[henryberry]

David Brooks' recent NY Times column is weak too for other reasons besides the relatively involved ones given in this article. For Brooks presents the divison between Jeffersonians and Jacksonites in early 1800s America as if it has been perpetuated little changed since then. But after two centuries of American history, the division is no longer as clear-cut as it was originally and as Brooks describes it.

One of the main themes and realities Brooks glosses over is that slavery was a large factor in Southern culture long into the 1800s, and it took a titanic Civil War to end it; and decades of Reconstruction only partly managed to eradicate slavery's legacy. Before and after the Civil War, the identities of Southerners of all classes, education levels, political leanings, and social activity were formed considerably from the presence of slavery. This is practically a genetic fact Brooks doesn't even allude to. For many--mostly Southerners--there is no difference--no palpable difference--between political perspectives and ideas and an attitude toward blacks which has come to be called racism. Just because racism can't be specified, won't be admitted to, isn't realized, or is disguised doesn't mean it isn't present. At this time in American society, racism can't not be present. Most of the time, it's not worth naming or blaming because its effects are not threatening or are incidental.

[lipai]

Just to add to this argument, Brooks also glosses over the number of Indian treaties that were negotiated at that time, between the Jeffersonian era to the Jackson era. And one of Jackson's greatest crimes is what Brooks never talks about: the Trail of Tears.

[kiwiman122]

I'm confused.....so all legal citizens are racist?

I wish they weren't.

[lipai]

no, the attempt here that the article describes, is that there is a Systematic attempt to "clean" America's history of racism by David Brooks. no citizen is a racist, but some (i.e. neo-nazis, kkk, etc.) have made statements that they are, and their actions have solidified their statements. but also that our view of history does not include the warts of US history. this is what mr. brooks whitewash.
one can say that "why does this matter?". history is not just something that (unfortunately in our education system does not bring to the forefront) we learn and forget, but that our actions today, no matter the generation, has roots in a past that has not been well-explained to us. our idea of citizenship is wrapped up along racial, economic, social, educational, and communal lines. a lot of these public institutions that we have known for so long do have some footing in times of social conflict along racial lines and only now at this time we realize, they must be redefined.

[Beca]

What?

[Mas]

We either have a lot of people that didn't fully understand or want
to understand for themselves what the subject definitions are, instead
they opted for the news media's host personalities to defined it for
them.

[natturnerx]

a section of the white working class has always been easily distracted from their apparent class interests with appeals to racism. poor southern whites of the civil war era were kept poor by the slave system, since they obviously couldnt compete with free labor. yet they fought & died so that rich white men could own slaves. after the civil war it would have been in the best interests of white sharecroppers to unite with black sharecroppers to oppose the system which oppressed them both. but the poor whites werent interested in that. they didnt mind being poor, as long as black people were poorer. now working class whites are organizing into a "tea party" movement, protesting against their own tax cuts & health care, in the service of white millionaires & insurance companies, because a black man is president. progressives have been telling the white working class for generations that their racism is holding them back, & for generations they've ignored the advice. its hopeless - they're stuck on stoopid.

[230AL]

well said. anger and ignorance ,the breeding ground of extremist.

[factmaster]

When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you don't, pound the table. Do any of you really have the capacity to intelligently discuss an issue without trying to demonize someone?

Guess not.

[Decipherer]

Read much?

[Romulus]

"But for many up in arms about immigration, respect for "hard work" never translates into respect for the humanity of undocumented janitors, dishwashers, and gardeners."

What are you saying here? Are you saying that just because undocumented workers are human and work hard they should be allowed to stay and be given all the same rights as legal immigrants?

If that's what you're saying then you've lost all credibility with me.

[lipai]

no. he's talking about human respect. they too maybe working towards the day when they become citizens, just like you and me. it's not that we need to give them rights, we need to respect what they do and pay and treat them decently.

[Romulus]

Huh? We're talking about UNdocumented immigrants here...ILLEGAL immigrants. Lawbreakers. We need to respect what they do? And pay them decently? Give me a good reason why we should do either?

[CentralVA]

The debate this nation is having right now is about policy, not race. It concerns the proper size and role of government at all levels: federal, state, and local.

We have had these debates before, and they tend to be contentious. To suggest that race plays any significant role is to derail the productive exchange of ideas.

Note that until it became clear that President Obama was planning to govern as a "divider" -- never mind that he ran as a "uniter" who would heal the nation's psychic wounds suffered under Bush/Cheney --- did his poll ratings begin to drop from a stratospheric 70%. And even now he is doing a lot better than Nancy Pelosi, who is also pushing the left wing agenda.

[Decipherer]

The core of this debate is not about the "proper size and role of government" no matter how you wish to style your argument.

The issue is whether we as a country have the basic decency to look after one another and keep a rapacious and monopolistic insurance industry from killing us (report: 45,000 people die each year due to some form of insurance company denial of medical care), AFTER they have bankrupted us.

Race does indeed play a major role in the debate because the very economic interests playing the anti-Obama race card are the very ones seeking to kill or emasculate reform, and you are doing exactly their bidding.

And please, spare us the sanctimonious garbage about this being a "productive exchange of ideas." Baloney! Dick Armey, the Lewin Group, Big Pharma, and the insurance industry simply want to defeat health care reform. They have no interest in "debate."

What's the matter with you?

And stop with that "uniter vs. divider" nonsense. From 2001 - 09, Sock Puppet claimed to govern as a uniter and what we see today is the legacy of how he has totally divided us. Obama is left to clean up and make sense out of that ungodly mess.

But what do you care?

[DasBoot]

You nailed it.

[Beca]

If it were about policy, these people spilling the vitriol would make more sense, but they don't even know what they are protesting! Government spending? where were they when the Bush Administration spent the surplus and crated a 9.2 trillion dollar deficit? where were they when all our tax dollars were being used to fund two ill conceived wars? where were they when former President Bush decided to ignore our Constitution and many of our rights? You talk about a "divider", you seem to forget that during the Bush administration, there was no discussion, it was his way or you were labeled anti-American. There was absolutely no effort to work with the Democrats in Congress, they were just ignored and he had his Repugs barrel through passing all these laws and legislation that got us where we are now. Where were they all when our financial market was collapsing and our then President said that we should just go out and spend, that will fix everything. You forget that the financial bailouts began during the Bush administration. You also forget that the Obama administration was left to fix two out of control wars, a collapsed economy, a collapsed health care system, and a totaly detroyed international repuation.
Race does have a role in the vitriol of many of these people who latch onto whatever and claim that is why they are pissed--the birthers, those who accuse him of 'oh gosh' a socialist, a fascist,

[tessleaf]

Fanned and faved.

[jsgaetano]

Conservatives hate, above everything else, the concept of populism. In their mind, it's taking power away from the people who "deserve it" (aka the far right churches, hate groups, and fraudsters), and distributing it among the great unwashed masses.

That's why they are working so hard in the media to tie the concept of populism so tightly to racism. They wouldn't get rid of the hate speech even if they could... but they can use it to destroy populism.

[hoosier96]

No, conservatives hate populism because it is all about group mentality. Conservatives are about individuals. Individual thought and freedom.

Which is what makes all of the townhall meetings and the Washington rally so amazing. If liberals do it, no big deal. They are all about group think and group mentality. For conservatives to get together usually means they have serious problems with their governments course of actions because it is against their very nature to do this.

[lipai]

if it's about individuals, and individual thought and freedom, then what's with them repeating GOP talking points?

[jsgaetano]

Conservatives are like zombies- mindless automatons of the far right.

What's so individualistic about rabidly repeating everything Rush and Beck say? It's hilarious you think the sea of lockstepping, dittoheading white people who believe the same things and say the same things are "individuals".

[leftflank]

Davis Brooks is an appallingly negative force in the media. He has what could almost be descibed as a gift for couching deeply offensive ideas in gentle rhetoric. He always moves the responsibilty for an issue from the right to the left, while using loaded words to denigrate lefties such as "elites". He and George Will are two right wing columnists who have managed to convince a large segment of the right that bloated vocabulary is a substitute for intellect.

As to the racism issue, my personal belief is it's a huge part of the craziness we see coming from the south, but only 30-50% of the craziness seen in other parts of the country. Remember, even up here in the Northwest we see pickups (alway pickups) with confederate flags.

[lipai]

David Brooks used to be on the Jim Lehrer news hour. I always thought that he was bats**t crazy, considering that he kept blathering away, where there was barely a coherent sentence or two. now I know that it's not he's personality, but a technique. I think the person who wields that technique very effectively, better than Brooks, is Glenn Beck.

[yankees]

When nothing else works use the Race Card, way to go! A lot of us voted for President Obama and disagree with him on SOME of his policies and programs, so we are labeled Racist. What happens when an Afro-American disagrees with OUR, (key word is OUR), President?

[valkyrie607]

Dude. I also voted for Obama. I also have disagreed with many of his policies, vocally and vehemently, on a wide array of comment threads.

Yet nobody has "played the race card" on me, that is, I haven't been accused of basing my opposition to Obama's policies in racism.

I'm confident that if I can do this, you can too. The trick is using well-documented fact to back up your arguments rather than vague accusations and hysterical fears.

[Anne Johnson]

I don't think that all opposition to Obama is racism but there was that whole birther thing. And Limbaugh calling for segregated buses because two black kids beat up a white kid because that's the way it is in "Obama's America."

[xenofile]

Thanks, Scott.

"But the real matter before those of us working to build a better future is getting beyond the rear-guard fights with rump members of a party tied to a dying social order.

A new party, perhaps? Certainly, the Democrats cannot be trusted either.