Harry Reid’s “‘Negro’ Problem”
Frank Beckwith has the story here, with a link to there.
Basically, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader has shot off his idiot mouth once again. Harry Reid’s subtext was actually if Obama had been too “black,” America never would have elected him.
But Commenter “Jay” agreed on the face of it, that
It surely IS true that Obama would have had a much harder time getting elected if he spoke stereotypical Ebonics, just as a white candidate who sounded like he’d come straight from a trailer park…would lose votes on that account.
as did Commenter BSK, who noted that
Obama’s looks and diction may have played a role in his presidency (something true of all candidates)…
And that should be like, duh? to any denizen of the 21st century. If you can’t articulate the English language at least as well as the twits who read the 11 O’Clock News, you can’t be president.
OK, OK, George W, Bush couldn’t quite talk that talk and Sarah Palin could, but let’s move on, and also past Barack Obama’s relative “light-skinnedness,” which actually cuts both ways.
Because there’s a far more serious issue at hand here.
Reid’s use of “Negro” is unfortunate in this day and age, but I’m a generation younger, and I remember MAD Magazine referring to the “TV Negro,” who looked black but sounded like he went to Harvard.
Which—or who—Barack Obama is.
And there’s a PC flap right now over the 2010 US census, that in addition to self-identifications of “race,” “Negro” was kept in, as well as “Black” or “African American,” since some folks from Harry Reid’s generation prefer “Negro.”
But little of this, the word “Negro,” has anything to do with what’s important.
GOPers have some room for a righteous whine here, but not much: Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have all these problems over all these years, either.”
was substantive, not just a comment on Barack Obama’s cosmetic appeal.
Yes, it was rhetorical carelessness on Lott’s part. His retraction:
“My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life.”
Yeah, yeah. But it went far deeper than that. When Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948, he was deeply committed to segregation and opposed to anti-lynching laws.
So the Republican Party can enjoy a “gotcha” moment on Democrat Harry Reid and on the press giving him a relatively free ride for violating political correctness.
But it’s a hollow victory, and indeed not a victory atall. Harry Reid mouthed some thoughtless words, but Trent Lott thoughtlessly gave voice to an abominable idea, that Strom Thurmond should ever have been elected president in 1948.
All stupidities are not created equal. Sadly, it’s just more evidence that when it comes to race, today’s GOP still doesn’t get it. Yes, Republican Ike sent in the troops to Little Rock to enforce desegration of our schools. And Sen. Everett Dirksen swung the day in 1964 to win passage of the Civil Rights Act.
But in 2009, The Party of Lincoln has few other laurels to rest on. It can’t even tell the difference between Reid’s stupidity and Lott’s. This has simply got to change.
You gotta walk the walk, but as a politician, you also have to talk the talk. When you speak an alien language like Trent Lott did that night, that Strom Thurmond should ever have been our president, even in loose party talk, you’re not speaking American atall.
Tom,
So what is your point, that Republicans can’t criticize Reid for his racially insensitive statements because Lott said something dumb? As I recall, many Republicans asked for him to resign his leadership position over those statements. As I recall Lott voluntarily stepped down. Reid ought to do the same thing. There is nothing inconsistent, hollow, or hypocritical in calling for Reid to resign his leadership position. I’d call that walking the walk.
FWIW, I think you have failed to appreciate the substance of Reid’s statements. To even suggest that there is a “black” way of speaking that is somehow less intelligent indicates that Reid may see African Americans as inferior to other racial groups. Speaking proper English is not a white, black, or Hispanic thing. Anyone of any ethnic or racial group is just as capable as anyone else of proper use of the language. To suggest otherwise indicates a belief that the ethnic group incapable of doing so is inferior.
While Reid’s statements were different than Lott’s they were still bad. It is a waste of time trying to to split hairs over which statement was worse; unless you want to help out Reid.
What about the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?
Joel-
I don’t think TVD’s point is that Republicans have no right to criticize Reid. But to jump up on the soapbox and denounce Reid specifically and the Dems generally as being behind the times on issues of race is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended). At least, that is how I read TVD’s statement.
I concur with his larger point and would say that most of us would be better served to clear out the skeletons in our own closet rather than get sanctimonious at the follies of our opponents. This is no way excuses Reid. But it is disingenuous to denounce Reid while individually or collectively being guilty of the same criticisms we levy at him.
Joel, I’m not splitting hairs atall—there’s a qualitative difference between Reid’s silly political incorrectness and lionizing the Strom Thurmond of 1948, who represents genuine racism.
BSK gets it, in that the GOP should not be particularly anxious for Thurmond to ever come up again. Best leave him in the rearview mirror.
So yes, we can enjoy our righteous indignation about double standards, but the comparison between Reid and Lott is true only on the surface.
And don’t think people—especially black folk—don’t know it, and don’t see the GOP’s attempt to equate the two incidents as once again proof that “Republicans don’t get it.”
Tom,
If you want to classify Reid’s statement that Obama got elected because his skin wasn’t too dark and he wasn’t plagued with a “negro” dialect as merely “silly political incorrectness” then you, sir, are very much on your own.
Just because Lott said something racist (and was condemned by his own party and lost his leadership position) doesn’t mean that Republicans are forever barred from condemning statements such as Reid’s. Nor does it mean that they are bared from pointing out the double standard applied to liberals and Democrats when it comes to race.
Robert C. Byrd held leadership positions in the KKK. As a politician he wrote supportive letters to segregationists politicians and a Grand Wizard of the KKK.
However, in 2004 Sen Dodd (D) had this to say about his Democratic colleague in the Senate:
“It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation’s 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.”
I guess “right at any time” also included Byrd’s KKK years. That strikes me as far more specific than what Lott said. However, where was the self policing from the Democrats wherein Byrd lost his leadership position? Remember, Dodd’s praise of Byrd’s ENTIRE career occurred AFTER the controversy regarding Lott’s statements about Thurmond in 2002.
I guess the Democrats felt they couldn’t censor Dodd after they passed over Byrd’s below 2001 comments:
“I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us … I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that. There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”
Yet again, no consequences for Bryd.
I don’t think Republicans do anything wrong in condemning Reid’s racist statements. I do think Democrats and the left do need to have their feet held to the fire regarding the double standard on race.
I wonder how long my comment will “await moderation.”
So yes, we can enjoy our righteous indignation about double standards, but the comparison between Reid and Lott is true only on the surface.
Exactly. Lott made a statement that was racist only by inference, whereas Reid’s statement was overtly racial in context.
I also second Jason Cabel Rowe’s explanation of why the two situations are completely different.
So you are correct Tom, just not in the way you think.
Oh, let’s cut to the chase. The democrats will keep racism and the ‘negro’ problems alive for as long as they can cash in on them for political clout.
For the liberal left, Racism Pays (them).
Just so we are clear, I am not saying, nor is any other Republican commentator, that Lott should have received the same light handed dismissive pass that Reid is getting. Rather, we are arguing that the Democrats should police their own and require Reid to step down from his leadership position. Instead of sending a message to “black folk” that “Republicans don’t get it” I would think that such intolerance for racially insensitive language would send just the opposite message.
By the way, since I speak American can someone tell me what “atall” means? Tom has been using that word a lot in this post.
Once again my comment is awaiting moderation. Great!
What Harry Reid said was not racist, as much as racial. That alone should not be a offense to get you kicked out of office.
Getting kicked out of office should be based on things like saying a war is lost when there are American Soliders in the field. Unfortunately, Harry Reid is not going anywhere (yet)–especially when Nevada has a Republican Governor (correct me if I am wrong, but he gets to replace him if he leaves, no?).
What Reid’s comments show is how condesending he is to American Voters and how hypocritical he is in private. Another reason for Nevada voters to replace him. I hope they do the right thing as Spike Lee would say.
How soon we forget…
He’s not BLACK ENOUGH!
– Jesse Jackson
“Rather, we are arguing that the Democrats should police their own and require Reid to step down from his leadership position.”
Do you not see the inherent contradiction here? If you want them to police themselves, then you need to let them make the determination of what the appropriate course of action is. You can certainly disagree with it or criticize it, but to call for the Dems to have him step down is actually the opposite of allowing them to police themselves, as you are doing the policing and simply asking them to do the enforcement.
I, too, sometimes find my comments awaiting moderation for quite some time. Is this random? Does it depend on who did the post? Is there a clarification on the policy here? I don’t think you are being singled out, Joel.
I don’t think that the Republicans, or ANYONE for that matter, is in appropriate to offer legitimate criticism of Reid’s statement. What I do think is inappropriate, and what I think TVD was getting at, was that this was being used by some GOPers as a celebratory moment. Rather than actually denouncing what was wrong with Reid’s comment, many were in the, “HA! See, YOU guys are the REAL racists” mood and not actually doing anything but relishing the failings of their opponents. (Not EVERYONE, obviously, but many…)
I think we all have random posts put in moderation, and as far as I can tell there’s no particular rhyme or reason.
I understand your argument, Joel; my point is that only Republicans are buying it. The rest of the country sees this as just another meaningless political football, and it hardly makes the party that scoffs at political correctness look like anything but opportunists by playing this up.
Further, the most important point is that people—especially black people—can tell the difference between “racial” and racist.
Even though it’s a historical fact that of the 21 Democratic Senators who opposed the Civil rights Act of 1964
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia
…only the “Dixiecrat” Strom Thurmond joined the GOP, all that garbage got dumped on the Party of Lincoln, and it didn’t help that it accepted and reelected Thurmond for another 30 years.
[Neither did it help that the GOP nominated another opponent, Barry Goldwater, in 1964.]
So this is the problem, not Harry Reid or even double standards. For the GOP to play the PC card here is to bring back Trent Lott and thereby Strom Thurmond, who as years went by, became the symbol of institutionalized racism. With an (R) stuck after it.
To begin with, the only reason I have mentioned that some of my comments are awaiting moderation is to alert whichever one of my co-bloggers has the power to approve it. I never thought I was being singled out.
My point is that I think it is important for the GOP to point out EVERY example of the double standard that is applied to Republicans regarding racially insensitive comments. Say what you want about Lott, but his statement to Thurmond was NOWHERE near as detailed as Dodd’s praise of Byrd’s entire career, a career that included actively recruiting, leading, and supporting the KKK. Lott got forced out of his leadership position and nary a word was said about Dodd’s comments by the MSM or the Left, comments that were made AFTER the Lott’s comments.
If you want to quibble over whose comments were racist vice merely racial then knock yourself out. My point is that unless you expect the GOP to simply play along with the double standard as if it is cool then we need to urge Republicans to actively point this stuff out, not criticize them when they do. If we simply sit back and accept the double standard then we are accepting the premise that there is some legitimacy to the double standard.
Dodd and Byrd would be a very good analogy. Now you’re onto something real.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/11/2004-flashback-dodd-sen-byrd-would-have-been-great/
But there are other ways to confront the double standard re Reid than demanding resignations and whining like PC sissies and pretending to be the guardians of the sensibilities of poor l’il African Americans. Such posturing is transparent to anyone outside the GOP.
Bemusement would be a more sophisticated and authentic reaction for the “colorblind” party. Anything else sings of disingenuousness.
The Reid issue is a fragile place to make a stand for reasons given. The problem is far deeper than that, also for reasons given. The GOP got saddled with the Dixiecrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act. That’s serious business, not this little drama.