It is ironic that conservative commentators, led by radio personality Rush Limbaugh, dismissed Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama as a racist act at the very moment several Republicans are hunting for votes using racially charged rhetoric about “real Americans.” These commentators argue that Democrats invented symbolic politics this cycle—and that a voter who is drawn to the symbolism of an Obama presidency is a racist—while tacitly absolving the McCain-Palin of its efforts to court those voters who fear a black urbanite in the White House.
Limbaugh hung his attack on a portion of Powell’s endorsement of Obama on Sunday’s Meet the Press, in which he described the Democratic nominee as a “transformational figure.” On his radio show the following day, Limbaugh concluded that “this was all about Powell and race,” explaining to a caller, “Transformational simply means we’re finally going to get over our days of slavery and a majority of people would elect a black guy president, that’s what transformational is.” Apparently, that’s the same as being racist.
“I can’t read the mind of Colin Powell, but I know Rush isn’t crazy,” chimed in National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez. Bewilderingly, Lopez went on to suggest that Obama stole his “change” theme from Mitt Romney and Sean Hannity and therefore differs from McCain the Maverick solely in skin color. Through an analysis of the Obama endorsements and other celebratory features in African-American magazines—Vibe, Ebony, Essence, and Black Enterprise among them—she constructs a flimsy argument that Obama supporters have made the race about race.
In yesterday’s Los Angeles Times, Rosa Brooks made much less convoluted charges of racism against the McCain-Palin campaign and their allies. “The GOP code isn’t hard to crack,” she writes:
There’s the America that might vote for Obama (a suspect America populated by people with liberal notions, big-city ways and, no doubt, dark skin), and then there’s the “real” America, where people live in small towns, believe in God and country, and are … well … white.”
Brooks is referring, of course, to the flood of “real America” rhetoric first delivered by Sarah Palin at a North Carolina fundraiser last week. “We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit,” she said, “and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic … pro-America areas of this great nation.” North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes added his two cents: “Liberals hate real Americans that work, and accomplish, and achieve, and believe in God.”
Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachmann then added fuel to the fire by calling for media investigations of members of Congress to establish whether they are “pro-American” or “anti-American.” Palin subsequently apologized for her remarks (as did Bachmann; Hayes didn’t apologize, but rather issued a statement saying his own comments “came out completely the wrong way”). None of this stopped John McCain, however, from declaring that “western Pennsylvania is the most patriotic, most God-loving, most patriotic part of America.”
On its face, such rhetoric may seem to have more to do with Reds than blacks: there’s a loud echo of McCarthyism in it, especially in Bachmann’s remarks. But the Republican strategy of pitting rural whites against urban “elites” and minorities comes courtesy not of McCarthy, but rather of George Wallace, the Alabama governor—and racist demagogue—who ran for president in 1964, 1968, and 1972. Richard Nixon, who needed the votes of Southerners and middle-class Wallace voters outside the region in order to win the White House, brought that rhetoric into the mainstream of the Republican Party.
The ghost of George Wallace surfaced explicitly in this campaign when Congressman John Lewis suggested that violent outbursts at Palin’s rallies were reminiscent of the violence engendered by the Alabama governor. But the debate over the extent to which the antagonism at recent GOP events resembles the Klan violence Wallace inspired obscures the much more fundamental legacy McCain and Palin inherited from Wallace through Nixon. (Diane McWhorter touched on this larger legacy in a nice piece for Slate last week.)
So Lester, anyone who doesn’t want to vote for Obama is racists, its as simple as that right.
Despite your grossly misleading characterization of Limbaugh’s comments as “racist”, Limbaugh was right with his comments about Powell’s endorsement of Obama, as Rush pointed out how many inexperienced white liberals has Powell endorsed?
As much as I normally loathe Howard Stern, nothing sums up the herd mentality of Obama’s support more than this
Posted by Carl Stevens on Fri 24 Oct 2008 at 11:18 AM
" ...Rush pointed out how many inexperienced white liberals has Powell endorsed"
That's right. General Powell was equally racist when he endorsed George W. Bush for President eight years ago.
Posted by dlamour on Fri 24 Oct 2008 at 01:22 PM
"as Rush pointed out how many inexperienced white liberals has Powell endorsed?"
Yes, and we all remember how Powell endorsed Al Sharpton and before that, Jesse Jackson. What a forelock tugger.
Posted by maimzini on Sat 25 Oct 2008 at 05:26 PM
In Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996, author John Gerring talks about different periods in the histories of both parties. He says there have been two different Whig/Republican parties (the split between Coolidge and Hoover) and three separate Democratic parties.
The person who recommended the book to me was Dr, Poole, of VoteView.com, whose main argument is that Congress is basically unidimensional (a larger vs. a smaller government).
In the latter half of the 1800s, the Republicans were the party of more government action and higher taxes (then mostly tariffs). In that respect, the parties have switched roles.
But Gerring also says that the Republicans were distinctly the more pro-Patriotism, pro-Protestantism and anti-Immigration party. Back then, I say he says, Republicans only wanted white, English speaking Protestant immigrants, while the Democrats were willing to accept most anyone of European decent. The Democrats relied on the Catholic vote. The Democrats, of course, were far more racist.
So, in some ways things have changed, and in others they remain the same.
One party will, most always, be more "rah rah Patriotism" and one party will generally be more racist. It was the Republicans and Democrats, now both are now in the Republican Party.
How racist are they? Are they secretly supporting a return to Jim Crow laws? No. They are generally advocating an end to all affirmative action for people based on skin color.
Ironically, the election of a black President might be the data point they are looking for.
Posted by Joshua Simeon Narins on Sat 25 Oct 2008 at 07:01 PM
Symbolism is important. Implicit racial appeals can persuade people to vote one way when they may have voted another. However, I'm not actually sure that the real/fake America dichotomy is a racial appeal. More than anything, it's class-based. In fact, it doesn't seem that different from the red state/blue state dichotomy in 2004. It's just more localized. I suppose it might be because the Republican party doesn't want to rule out entire states. I can see how the appeal might lead back to race, but I don't think that's the point.
Also, Rush Limbaugh doesn't even sound like he's talking in real sentences anymore.
Posted by The Lady Avenger's Tragedy on Mon 27 Oct 2008 at 04:17 PM