What happens when you look for racism under every rock?
You find some, even when it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately this garbage has been passed on by the otherwise excellent Andrew Sullivan.
Arnold Kling, who I disagree with in many ways, wrote a post where he stated:
Most of the bill makes no sense from a stimulus perspective. But all of it makes sense from a reparations perspective.
To which some greasy fuck and author of Attack Poodles and Other Media Mutants(!!) named James Wolcott objected saying that Kling’s use of “reparations” is clearly an example of race-baiting. The fact that just above this Kling had used the term with in the context of World War I (”To the Democrats, the Bush tax cuts were a heinous evil, comparable to Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality in World War I”) doesn’t seem to phase him. Indeed Wolcott thinks it irrelevant. To defend his thesis that Kling is a Klansman Wolcott states,
Oh dear me no, protested Kling. No coded race talk was intended. He was actually thinking of the Treaty of Versailles….Idiotically hyperbolic and baseless as Kling’s caricaturing is (seriously, name me one frigging Democrat who invoked violations of Belgian neutrality in railing against the Bush tax cuts), it did open the door ajar to possible acquittal on the racebaiting charge. To cool things down, Kling…closed off comments before the mosh pit got any gnarlier.
So let’s see, this explanation is only a “possible acquittal”, because Mr. Wolcott has reasoning skills of a small child. Even then these (non-racist) comments are still “idiotically hyperbolic and baseless” just cuz. And let’s be clear, Kling did not argue that the Democrats were literally arguing it was like violating Belgian neutrality, he was saying some people were treating as though it were the same moral level. That is only mildly hyperbolic. As for the closing down the comments, that’s pretty rich coming from someone who blogs without a comment section.
So why was Kling’s WWI defence only a possible acquittal? Well because Mr. Wolcott found the smoking gun! At an event about the stimulus at the Heritage Foundation Kling stated,
I think about the stimulus as an economist but I feel it as a father. … [The Obama Administration] is destroying my daughters’ future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs. That’s how I feel, now back to how I think.
To a rational reader it might seem like a bit much, but the logic is sound. This continued indebitness will be placed upon future generations who will be forced to pay for it. It’s a sense of helplessness. So what’s racist about it? He said thugs!
Now if Kling can’t comprehend the implication of racial menace encoded in daughter-gang-thugs/home invasion, he’s either fatuously clueless–too innocent for this wicked world–or weaselly disingenuous, and a drama queen either way.
Yes of course, if someone mentions “thug” it must be a slight at Obama. Because Obama’s black you see! Racism! Racist!
Sorry, people, you don’t get to unilaterally decide that a term is racist in every single context. It helps absolutely no one–black or white–to go around data mining for racism where it just doesn’t exist. In fact such things set the world back and do not work at forwarding understanding and dialogue.
What I really see here is linguistic prescriptivism. That is, a certain subsect of the Obama supporters have decided that they get to decide what is or is not a racist way of speech. To them reparations and the word “thug” can only be used one way. The fact that in general reparations refers to World War I and that “thugs” is a general, not black, term doesn’t seem to occur to them. (Also the fact that Obama’s economic team is almost exclusively white–Geithner, Romer, Orszag, Summers, Goolsbee–doesn’t also seem to be a clue) I’m sorry, language doesn’t work this way.
If every time someone disagrees with the Obama administration and uses a term that is one way or another is tangentally related to a racial term, it’s going to be a long four (eight?) years.
And just for good measure Kling co-blogger David Henderson digs up some of Wolcott’s anti-Semitism:
The photo on Cato’s website of Senators Jim Bunning and Roger Wicker holding up the ad as if it were an encyclical issued from Milton Friedman’s crypt was irrefutable proof that nothing hits the G-spot of white-haired guys with thin lips and mean glasses quite like a dose of free-market fundamentalism first thing after coffee.
If Wolcott can’t see how this is anti-Semitic he’s either fatuously clueless or weaselly disingenuous.
Edit: I see Sullivan linked to anti-Kling hackery earlier.
A pretty embarrassing take-down of a CATO economist.
First, there was no “take-down” since it was 9 fucking years ago and secondly, Cato is not a goddamn acronym. From now on Sullivan works for the ATLANTIC.
Reading only what you have provided here, and none of the links or backstory, I think you’re dismissing the racial undertones of his statements a little too quickly. The reparations one may be defensible, but the context of his “thug” comment does make it suspect. It’s equally hasty to immediately presume he refers to race, particularly with the supplementary context of WWI, but I don’t think people can be faulted for reading the term “reparations” and having a red flag go off.
The thug comment is bad not simply because of the single isolated term, but the material that surrounds it: home invasion for one, but the big one is the mention of his daughter, and immediately relating his daughter to thugs. Again, that he may only have one daughter and no sons could provide some justification for the unfortunate analogy that alludes to a historically enduring fear of the black male’s theft of the innocent white female, but there’s more to his illustration than a single term.
My point is that I agree with you that those jumping to racial conclusions are exercising poor (if any) analysis of the comments; however, those who dismiss such allegations just as quickly are, in my view, equally at a logical and rational fault.
Comment by Darren — February 12, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
To me this is as ridiculous as the issue with the Obama supporter in Illinois who happened to describe some black kids climbing a tree as monkeys which we disagreed about almost a year ago. 100% non issue.
I think people, absolutely, can be faulted for red flags going off. Or at the very least they can be faulted for calling attention to the fact without just cause. The word reparations is primarily associated with WWI, not slavery. And given the WWI reference in the piece there is absolutely no cause for complaint. Context, context, context.
As for the thug comment, I just think it’s a stretch to automatically hear thug, home invasion and think HE MUST BE TALKING ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE. Indeed I think it is this assumption which is part of the remaining race problem within the United States. Presuming such an association only confounds the problem, rather than helping eliminating it.
And Arnold Kling maintains that he was misquoted. His reference was to the Obama administration, not Obama. Wolcotts quoting further muddles the issue. And Arnold Kling is married with three daughters so he only has females to refer to in his family. Kling’s illustration is logically consistant and needn’t be racial. Additionally Kling says that he first refered to Hank Paulson’s stimulus bill then Obama’s. In that case he is racist againt Bush and Obama.
Comment by Robert S. Porter — February 12, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
And to further his case Kling has been bemoaning the power and force that has been used by people to push the stimulus bill through. Back before Obama took office Kling was complaining about Paulson:
“Now, there are rumors that the Democrats plan to re-appoint Paulson as Treasury Secretary. This American Mussolini has captivated Washington by demonstrating the exercise of raw power.”
Comment by Robert S. Porter — February 12, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I’m not the one condemning Kling, so there’s no need to defend him any further. What I’m saying is that there are initial reasons to believe there can be racial undertones in what he said. When these are analyzed more closely, it’s likely that he is more even-handed, though I would still argue the thug comment was ill-conceived at best. You have failed to either recognize or address the role the mentioning of his daughter played in the image.
Race problems aren’t a result of people being hyper-aware of possible racism. Problems arise when people are aware or sensitive enough to potentially offensive actions.
Instead of getting aggressively defensive, the appropriate response to accusations of racism are calm, rational explanations and elaborations of what was meant, and regret for a lack of clarity. Being equally confrontational and adversarial to the accusers does nothing but raise more suspicion toward the original comments and commenter.
Comment by Darren — February 12, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Your condemnation is implicit in your assumptions.
Actually I addressed his daughter in my original post, you have merely chosen to ignore it and assume that any comment of white women and black men must automatically imply rape or violation. Kling’s mention of his daughters was a direct reflection of the fact that future generations–ie. his children–will be burdened with the costs of Obama’s reckless spending.
Nowhere did I say that race problems are only a result of being hyper-aware of racism. I’m saying be hyper-aware of problems that do not exist does not help the situation. There are plenty of legitimate issues of racism in the United States (and Canada, and everywhere) but constant vigilance guided by emotion, arrogance and irrationality can be counterproductive. Where issues of legitimate racism and predjudice exist they should be routed, but in a case like this it’s not helpful because it alienates people fighting legitimate problems making mountains out of trivial, misinterpreted molehills. Everytime someone brings up a faulty case they undermine real progress and real issues such as the drug war which are clearly racist.
Letting overly sensitive people like yourself dictate language is not helpful either in removing stereotypes or abuse. Sometimes a rational explanation doesn’t suffice because some people have it in their minds that racism is lurking under every rock and that every possible interpretation of an analogy, phrase or illustration should be eliminated just in case. Obviously people should take care with their words and be sensitive to alternative meanings. But that doesn’t mean that people should bend over backwards because some white people have decided, a priori, that you cannot use the analogy of theft or destroying white children’s futures because that is offensive to black people.
Look, I can see how at first glance you look and you see: Obama + Daughter + Home Invasion + Thugs and think race. The part I can’t forgive is then reading it a second time and thinking, “you know what, that fucker Kling totally just said that Obama and his black administration is raping his daughers.” Then deciding, that fucker Kling ought to change his language because some people might interpret it wrong even after an explanation is given. What is an acceptable illustration for what Kling was saying? He wanted to get across the point that the government, a powerful, unstoppable force is enacting policies which will affect his children (daughters) long into the future. Presumably even saying that, without analogy or illustration, is racially insensative because it implies the same thing only more subtly.
Regretting a lack of clarity only goes so far. Sometimes it’s legitimate and poor wording has been used and sometimes the audience is so fucking stupid that it’s not necessary.
Comment by Robert S. Porter — February 12, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
First of all, I’m not making assumptions–I’m saying it’s possible he meant it in a racially-charged way. I reiterate that I agree with your pointing out that condemning him outright is wrong, or any kind of certainty is false. But that goes both ways. Being certain that he didn’t mean it in a racist way is just as ignorant. That’s what I’m trying to say.
I didn’t say that race problems are only a result of hyper-awareness either. And I even agree that smear campaigns based on emotion and arrogance, on which the Kling smear may very well be based, is deplorable.
My main point is that even on multiple readings, it could be interpreted as racial in sentiment. I don’t think those who are “less sensitive” have the right to dictate how we can interpret things either. The simple truth is that if you don’t want to be interpreted as racist, be very conscious about what you say, and recognize and accept that people may misunderstand you. Obviously Jon Stewart wasn’t meaning to be racist when he talked about “buying” Al Roker, but if he was reasonable he’d recognize that people who are unfamiliar with him would have reason to think he was being racially insensitive.
Comment by Darren — February 12, 2009 @ 5:34 pm