Iowa and Beyond: "Common Sense" Racism and the Tea Party GOP
The 2012 Republican presidential field, a hydra which self-destructively feeds on itself, had one more battle royale in Iowa. Fighting to a standstill, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul bloodied each other. While the Tea Party GOP is still a house divided, their leading candidates share a common, uniting, go to issue: hating on the blacks makes for good politics; it pays substantial political dividends.
As Iowa demonstrated, be it Gingrich's yearning to have lazy black and brown kids pick up mops and brooms as janitors in work houses, Romney's nativist Klan inspired opines to keep "America America," Santorum's appeals to a belief that African Americans find sustenance by stealing from hardworking white people, or Ron Paul's assertion that the Civil Rights Act (with its bringing down of Jim and Jane Crow) was an unfair intrusion on white people's "liberty" and "freedom," the Tea Party GOP remains addicted to the crack rock of dog whistle politics.
Decades after the founding of the Southern Strategy in the 1960s, the old school remains the true school. Ultimately for conservatives, demagoguing the negroes can still help stir up support among the white populist faithful.
Precision matters here. Research on public opinion and political behavior has demonstrated that not all conservatives are racist. However, racists are much more likely to be conservative--and to identify as Republicans.
Social scientists, historians, psychologists and others have developed an extensive vocabulary to talk about the lived politics of the color line. These terms include such notable phrases as symbolic racism, white racial resentment, the white racial frame, in-group and out-group anxiety, ethnocentrism, prejudice, realistic group conflict, colorblind racism, systems of structured inequality, racial formation, and front stage vs. backstage racism.
In thinking through the politics of race at work in the white conservative political imagination, this seemingly disparate terminology is connected by a common thread. Race and racial ideologies are ways of seeing the world, of locating people and individuals relative to one another, and are a cognitive map for making sense of social relationships. While shocking to outsiders, the type of racism played with so casually by Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul and other conservatives is a type of "common sense" for their public.
For example, the audiences that cheer Romney's speeches about a country that is lost, one led by an anti-American usurper, are not necessarily "bad people." They are motivated by a sense of belonging, and made to feel special by virtue of being "real Americans," part of a special tribe anointed with unique insight and wisdom by their oracles.
Likewise, those who embrace Gingrich's habit of stereotyping "inner city blacks" as lazy, unmotivated, and criminal, probably identify as "compassionate conservatives," or "good Christians." There is no intended malice on their part. To them, "everyone knows" that these observations about black and brown people are "true."
Rick Santorum's Iowa speech on the nature of black people's greed and degeneracy is an especially instructive example of this broader pattern:
"It just keeps expanding - I was in Indianola a few months ago and I was talking to someone who works in the department of public welfare here, and she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don't sign up more people under the Medicaid program," Santorum said. "They're just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That's what the bottom line is."He added: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added, to applause. "The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling again.""Right," responded one audience member, as another woman can be seen nodding.
There are several elements at work here.
First, poverty in America is racialized. The image in the public imagination is of black welfare queens, or illegal aliens birthing "anchor babies" who live off of the government tit, profiting from food stamps and the generosity of the American people. The white poor rarely, if ever, enter the picture. Second, black people are in a parasitic relationship with white Americans (Santorum's "someone" else). In sum, black people are "lazy," and a dependent class, unable to take care of their families except for the generosity and benevolence of white people.
The most powerful part of Santorum's appeal to his white audience in Iowa is the implication that black people are receiving some type of "reparations." For Santorum and the Tea Party GOP, blacks are plagued by "bad culture" and are existentially prone to poverty. Therefore, in a country where labor, capitalism, and citizenship are inexorably connected, blacks are outside of the political community.
In the age of Fox News and the Right-wing echo chamber, one cannot forget how the conservative imagination is constituted as a dream world: it is a mature fulfillment of some of the most sophisticated propaganda in the post World War 2 period.
In this imagination, it does not matter that whites are the majority of America's poor.
It does not matter that most people on public assistance and welfare in Iowa are white.
It does not matter that there is a deep history which explains how conservatives have spun a fiction about black and brown poverty while ignoring structural economic inequality, and how many of the policies endorsed by the Tea Party GOP in the name of economic austerity and punishing people of color (who are coded as "the poor" or "unproductive citizens"), also disproportionately harm the white working and middle classes.
This local type of common sense helps to explain the feelings of defense, denial, and injury that many white conservatives exhibit when challenged about the racism of the Tea Party GOP and the Right-wing establishment. While the leadership and media elites from which they take their cues skillfully play the race baiting game, rank and file Fox News conservatives simply feel aggrieved at the suggestion that anyone would take their common sense understandings of the world to be racist, bigoted, or based on false understandings about the nature of racism and white privilege in the Age of Obama.
In the same way that a fish does not know that it is wet, the politics of nativism, an authoritarian-like embrace of the politics of us and them, and a fear of the Other, are so central to contemporary white populist conservatism, that they are taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of the world.
Moreover, politics is essentially about the creation of an imagined community. The stump speeches about evil liberals who hate America, the cheering of dying cancer patients who lack insurance, the booing of gay soldiers, and the numerous fictions about the economy, science, the Constitution, and public policy more generally are taken as divine gospel. These fictions are standing priors for contemporary conservatives which help to mark out the boundaries of their political world.
During an election year, and as a function of a highly polarized 24 hour news environment, it is a given that the incumbent president will be the target of vicious attacks by the out party. By implication, the election of Barack Obama, America's first black president, has amplified all of these tensions. The election of a member of the racial out-group has made the stakes especially high for white conservatism. Obama is anathema to the Tea Party GOP soul, the living embodiment of a world turned upside down, for no man who looks like him could ever be leader of the free world, where whiteness is inseparable from being "American."
By implication, there is a short line from the white racial appeals of Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Romney and others directly to President Obama. He has been called "the food stamp president" and a "ghetto crackhead." Obama is stained by the Birthers who say he is not an American citizen. The appeals to American exceptionalism are naked arguments that a black man like Obama cannot help but be outside of the "normal" political culture of this country. It has also been implied that President Obama is a perpetual "they," a member of a marginalized group who by association is lazy, anti-white, unqualified, and an "affirmative action baby" that somehow managed to steal a presidential election and win the popular vote.
Many may laugh at such a formulation. However, the Tea Party GOP, Iowa voters, and others who clamor to participate in the Republican primaries, would take such claims as common sense knowledge. For people of color, the outsider, the Other, and those who are not (in their eyes) "quintessentially American" (and thus have to prove their authenticity to the white conservative gaze), this is not your country.
You people may have built and improved this country, but it is not yours. For the Tea Party GOP and the populist conservatism of the present moment, you people are just guests. They will remind you people of that fact at every moment.
Why? Because it is common sense. Didn't you know that?


Salon.com
Comments
Nice analysis. / r
1st sentence=truth; 2nd sentence=lie.
As an African American friend of mine said to me recently, "Why would they want to help people they hate?"
2 other hard facts make "consensus" history the only one palatable for h8ters: 1- The so-called SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY of many of these people is actually and without any possible legitimate debate West African Culture. Deniers of this fall in the camp of disavowing the Holocaust or Global Warming. 2- We are all Africans.
November=Landslide for our BLACK HAWAIIAN FEARLESS LEADER!!!
(Hana Hou!) (Lets do it again!) --- thanks again Staples Singers
Watch these and see what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY
gingrich espoused paying jobs for inner city kids not because they are lazy, but in order to put money in their pockets, which might help them stay in school and develop the life skills they need to succeed in the future.
your post is a blantant distortion of his commentary, and tosses inflamatory terms like "racist" irresponsibly.
i assume you are NOT satisified with the status quo, where 50% of inner city kids fail to get a high school diploma, and are consigned to perpetual menial work or welfare.
or maybe you ?
Do they even know how ignorant and profoundly provincial they come across to the rest of the world? It's like they live in an alternate universe. ... And let's not forget how they trot out the red herring of "illegal aliens" every time they want to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance during elections.
Ron Paul's economics will destroy this country. His economic and foreign policies are a fantasy and will not put Americans back to work. The economic plan for America to leave the Industrial Age behind and embrace its role as an educator to the Third World began to take shape in the late 1970's. I don't believe that the manufacturing industry will never re-emerge in America because there are too many other places to procure cheap labor to turn a profit.
Instead of worrying about the so-called lazy, socially disenfranchised minorities in this country, we had all better be more involved with and concerned by the economic bias that exists and is becoming more stark by the day!
Read much?
That wasn't me -- I hate Newt--he's an evil chicken-hawk crook.
...Yea--it is.
Stay reactive and ignorant and see how it works out for you.
Because if you did, you'd question your belief that he's lying when he says he didn't write them.
Look, if you will, at Youtube and search for 1988 videos of Ron Paul on racism and the drug policies (the same time as the newsletters).
Or just live in your MSM haze and think what you are told to think like a good little man.
Source citation please
but in the interest of immediacy--Moorecow, you would like citations?
click on the embedded links, track down the book polarization and american politics, some articles on race and public opinion by bobo, parker, and others.
if you want a take on the debate on the subject see the book the scar of race, or the edited volume which i believe is called race and public opinion.
this claim is well cited and very well grounded. conservatism is typified in the present by a deep authoritarian streak, thus it logically follows that racism and out-group racial hostility would be a big part of their ideology and political appeals.
Spumey forgot to include Ron Paul's book:
Rep. Ron Paul's early book included controversial passages
You need to know that, like Ron Paul, Spumey is a poser.
Whoever ultimately crawls out of the Republican primary will present a very stiff challenge to Obama -- not on merit, but by accident of birth. And anyone who thinks this election won't be thisclose is advised to remember that last time around a doddering old coot (unliked by most of his Party) and a vacuous bimbo got thisclose to 60 million votes.
Thank you for all you do to enlighten us
Maybe Santorum cares about poor blacks and whites when he talks about work beating welfare. Call him out on being wrong if you like - and I don't feel he is - but with the racism charge, you really need to make a case that he hates a person because of the color of his skin or his background. I don't see anything in one's worrying, rightly or wrongly (as say a Thomas Sowell does), about welfare and "race" that makes one a racist.
It is clear to me now that you have a vested interest in keeping racism alive. You use the remarks made by politicians. I don't care what NG or RP said or meant. They are just politicians anyway. They do NOT speak for everyone. And voting for them does not mean one agrees on this point.
The majority elected Obama and they are mostly white.
Show me a fiscal conservative Democrat and may I will vote for them.
As for no mention of poor whites folks, you imply that they are not the target of political comments because they are whit not black. They are not lazy or criminals in politicians eyes. The reason they are not talked about is because they are not of any political interest.
Black s come up because that is the hotpoint. Conservative or liberal they are the topic. How to handdle? What to do about it? There is no political interest for poor white kids, whether they are lazy criminals or perfect "Americans".
No gives a damn politically.
We should be talking about all people in bad situations, not just minorities.
You called me a racist or a racist denier or some such BS. Well all your talk of racism denial is such crap. Technically if racism was no more then racism denial would be correct. Best I can tell is you don't want it to ever be corrected. You wand to hang on to it. You cant seem to accept the acat that I don't like Obama or the same reason I don't like Hillary, Pelosi, Gore, Kerry etc. It is not because he is black. It is because I DON'T LIKE HIM. I like hardly anything he has done and most of it had nothing to do with racial issues.
I don't like the following that have nothing to do with race:
He dictated the terms of GM bailout instead of letting normal bankruptcy proceedings; ignoring all preceding law. This screwed the bondholders, who very likely are retired people of all means that thought they ad safe investments. The law provided they be paid first. Obama paid them last. To buy votes with my tax dollars. We hear GM has paid the gov back. Will they use the next bit profit to ever pay back those bond holders. No. Did Obama even make that part of the deal? Why not? Was he too stupid to think of it or did he just not give a shit?
He gave shoot to kill orders on Bin Laden. I wanted to see him face trail. Execution was too good. But Obama was in a box. Take him alive and he might have to be tried in a civilian court. Or not. Either way a conundrum for Obama where to try him. A political hot potato. Lets avoid that at all costs.
He inability to keep his promise of accountability, ethics and transparency.
His failed economic policy.
Even if you say I am wrong on the above pints, that is fine. They are still the reasons I don't like him. Not his skin color.
I can go on. I don't like him; period.
Get off your racism kick. It is old.
As expected, Joseph missed this:
Had GM and Chrysler collapsed, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone, according to the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research.
Now, we get this (published today):
All three U.S. automakers are on track to be profitable in 2011 when they report results in the coming weeks. That's something that hasn't happened since 2004.
JC: Even if you say I am wrong on the above pints, that is fine.
Of course we know you’re wrong. Thanks for the heads up.
Whites only make up 9%-12% of the world's population, thus,WE are the minority--in truth-- we are an endangered species. If we get rid of all the blacks and beaners in the U.S., then we will have full white employment and much less crime.
Happy New Year!!
Ron Paul would end the drug war. That seems pro black since blacks are disproportionately affected by the racist drug war. He would end our military wars that disproportionately affect people of color. Maybe he is a blatant racist, but if his policies are better, maybe that is better than someone who is black who continues to oppress blacks (Clarence Thomas, Obama, Herman Cain, etc).
As far as Paul's other policies, they are no different than any Republican, but the sad fact is there is really little difference between Republican and Democratic polices. You have to get beyond the rhetoric and look at the policies and actions.
We need to abandon the 2 parties. There is very little difference. They are both corporate shills. They do the bidding of the one percent at the expense of the 99%. They use race to divide so we keep fighting each other, while they continue to rape and pillage the economy and the planet.
Enough to NOT get many people to work and back. But just another forced choice by Obama. Take a technology that cannot bear free market scrutiny and prop it up because HE says it is correct. Well fuck him.
This is why cooperatives get pissed off. Because instead of 535M wasted on Solyndra that could have been used for unemployment. They money is just gone, wasted.
When the economy is turned around and strong we can spend on such research. Not now. Save the planet now or save the people now?
And you still missed the point. He acted as a dictator and the SCOUTS failed to even hear the case. Well remember this. Every time ANY president exercises executive authority and gets away with it, it sets up a precedent. You might not like it so much the next time it happens and the precedent is set. You think it is always going to come out they way you like it? Maybe you are under the delusion that we are going to have presidents that you like for eternity.
And you missed the bigger point which I made abundantly clear. Even if you disagree on that issue, it is why I don't like him. Not his skin color.
Or did you just miss that?
He thinks the particular section requiring privately owned businesses to serve people they might otherwise choose not to was a bad idea. From a Constitutional and legal standpoint, it's no different from Jim Crow laws - government dictating who businesses can or can't conduct commerce with.
And he thinks, correctly, that the proper redress for Jim Crow laws (which he stands opposed to) would have been for the Supreme Court to rule them un-Constitutional, just as they did for interracial marriage laws with Loving v Virginia. Because Jim Crow laws were clearly un-Constitutional, and that is the process we've put in place to deal with such laws.
So yes, he would have this be a country where a white business owner could refuse to serve a black man. But it would also be a country where a black business owner could refuse to serve a racist asshole.
Talk about a false equivalence. Goodness. Libertarianism really is an epic fail in matters of race and justice.
Sorry can't cosign. The freedom of people like me under the Constitution cannot be made secondary to the "freedom" of white bigots to deny me and my kin our basic human rights. They may do the free market talk, but Jim and Jane Crown were anything but, and the behavior of racist cartels are no friends of people of color...nevermind the terrorism that was visited upon black people who dared to own their own businesses, create prosperous communities, and follow Paul's advice.
Paul's positions on race, Civil Rights, and his newsletters are a pattern that suggests a shocking lack of vision, ethics, judgement, and morality.
You do not have a basic human right to shop at a particular store. No one does. But everyone has a basic human right not to shop at a particular store. What the CRA said was that business owners do not have the same rights as the people who frequent their businesses. That's the problem with it.
The Supreme Court could have, and should have, dispensed with Jim Crow laws, and likely would have if the Legislative and Executive branches hadn't exceeded their authority by stepping in.
Many, many businesses are completely unaffected by the CRA. Yet almost all of them now accept commerce from everyone, regardless of race. The problem really did wind up fixing itself for the most part. Getting rid of Jim Crow laws was a big part of that, but the way they were struck down was inappropriate. And that's really all Paul is saying.
p.s. I never raised or discussed the race issue with regards to you (or implied anything about your views on this topic either).
As it is, if this is the best that the Republican Party has to offer then they are in dire straits for leadership and their prospects for election are dubious.
Another great post from you Chauncey. You cut through the bullshit. Thanks.
And I don't read conservative blogs. In fact I only hang out 2 places in the net. A music forum and here. I cannot even tell you the name of a conservative web site because I have no interest. I don't need to be told. I can think for myself.
Why is so hard for you to just admit the handling of GM was political and idealistic? It is amazing to me that people that want gov interference in these matters won't admit that they got just that. You did not want to see this in congress or court. You wanted Obama to do what he did and you got it.
And if I have my facts substantially wrong about GM then you tell me.
I get my info this way. I listen to multiple sources. I am not interested in the spin. I check them all to see if the basic facts are in agreement. Not the opinions about the facts. If they are all agreeing on the facts I assume they are basically correct. If, which is not often, they are presenting totally different facts, then I will go to other sources.
And I check these things over time. Sometimes all the media gets it wrong at first. But I have seen nothing since the GM bialout that the basic facts have changed.
Do I hate Obama. Maybe. I hate liars. I have a 1 tolerance rule on liar. You get to do it once. After that you have NO credibility with me. If we started impeaching presidents and congressmen the first time they lied they might just stop if a prison sentence was hanging over their heads.
I guess I around line a crazy Ron Paul, but think about it. Do you tolerate it in your personal relationships? Why should anyone put up with it form politicians. Obama campaigned on this issue which makes him worse. I know they are all liars but I cannot recall one ever promising not to.
Obama got votes form 2 groups. Those that voted for him that ere smart enough to see though that bit didn't care and those that believed it. If you haven't noticed the ones that believed it are pissed.
Obama's only chance for reelection is to be the choice of lesser evils. And he may well win but that is pretty sad isn't it? Why do you think Paul is getting attention? If either Obama was strong or any GOP was strong Paul would be ignored. Paul's strength is only because BOTH Obama and the GOP are weak. Paul supporters may well not be GOP enthusiasts but they are so pissed at Obama they don't know what the hell else to do. That is a sad statement on Obama. A good president would not lose votes he previously got.
Whoever wins the White House will have to fall in line, and follow the system that has been in place for centuries - no matter what pre-election rhetoric he's spewing out for the cameras.