Get Me My Smelling Salts: Harry Reid Said Something Uncool?
Wow. Can you imagine someone as cool, as hip, as Senator Harry Reid saying something really uncool and un-hip?
Well, he did.
According to excerpts from "Game Change," the dishy new book about the 2008 campaign, sometime during that year Reid spoke approvingly of Barack Obama's candidacy, since he was "light-skinned" and didn't speak "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
Reid has apologized to President Obama and every other sentient being in the fifty states. The President, of course, accepted the apology, gave Reid the imprimatur of un-bigotry, and declared the book closed.
The GOP, of course, is calling for his resignation -- a little payback for Democrats forcing Trent Lott from the leadership back in 2002.
And the media, of course, has fallen on the story with the kind of adolescent glee they usually reserve for a starlet's nip-slip or the dropping of an "f-bomb" on live TV.
No matter how many times we see this little song-and-dance, it never ceases to amaze.
Only in politics could something said in passing more than two years ago come back to take a person down. (And we wonder why politicians never want to say anything substantial.) Only in politics do people have the patience to wait years for revenge.
But how do the rest of us get dragged into the mix? Has it really been necessary to hold debates, in the media and on the blogs, on whether this was a "racist" statement?
Anachronistic phraseology aside, Harry Reid was speaking a political truth. As was Geraldine Ferraro when she told a California newspaper in the spring of 2008 that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." As was Joe Biden in 2007 when he noted that Obama was a "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." Being outraged does not make it any of these statements less true.
Whether we like it or not, we carry an image of what the perfect candidate looks like, and for more then 200 years now, that model of perfection has been a white male. He has to come from wealth or have an appropriate son-of-a-mill-worker-climbs-to-success narrative. He has to be married -- or at least have been married at some point. He has to be at least nominally a Christian, but preferably not Catholic and certainly not a Jew. And the taller candidate usually wins.
At the same time, we know that these tall, rich, Christians have let us down in the past, and gosh, wouldn't it be nice to see someone who looks a little more like me in the driver's seat for a change.
Barack Obama perfectly fit in the gap between that old image and that old longing: a tall, Christian, self-made millionaire with a spotless marriage and two beautiful kids who, by the way, happened to have a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother and could thus offer through his candidacy some minor redemption to a nation haunted by centuries of slavery and its aftermath. It was an open, if largely unacknowledged, part of his campaign spiel.
These things are self-evident: We know that presidential elections are more about image than ideas, and we know that that is wrongheaded, and we know we don't know how to change it, or we would have changed it already.
We also know that politicians sit around trying to figure out which among them can best move the most number of voters to the polls every forth November. Why vilify Harry, or Gerry, or Joe for stating the obvious?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Max Rivlin-Nadler
Janis Jaquith
Emily Holleman
Dave Cullen
Akopsa
iamsurly
Salon.com
Comments
Reid's comment joins Joe Biden's "clean, articulate" remark about Obama in the library of the soft racism of liberals. They pretend to be color blind and sometimes say things that demonstrate race and color as being prominent in their thoughts and feelings.
Would Biden have referred to Obama as "articulate, bright, clean and nice looking" had he been a white man? Hardly. His image of blacks had to be just the opposite -- inarticulate, sloppy and looking like Mike Tyson. Those racist stereotypes had to clearly be uppermost in his liberal mind for him to single out those particular attributes. You won't hear a liberal saying, "finally, we have a white candidate who's clean, articulate and good looking" because those attributes are assumed to be part of the "white" package, not the black one.
Then, the white liberal is so grateful and happy to find an African-American candidate who, surprise, almost looks like them.
And then here's Reid's comment, expressing the same kind of negative racial consciousness. "No dialect" unless he wants to. Good lord! If that doesn't suggest that Reid's mental image of blacks is what he saw in "Gone With the Wind," I don't know what does.
This is the quiet racism of white liberals, the secret they keep about their real attitude towards people of color. It fits perfectly with their patronizing and guilty need to help them achieve what they obviously believe they can't achieve on their own. They just po' field hands, honey, they can't do it by themselves. We been keeping them down fer so long they won't get nowhere without our help.
This is deadly stuff, difficult to sniff out from these liberal champions, from these hounds of social justice because their public personas forswear what they privately accept.
They claim to be on the side of the angels. Yet they never move into black neighborhoods or send their kids to schools with a large minority population because they really believe those people have dialects, aren't clean and are dark, dark, dark, scary dark.
This is the real meaning of Reid's comment that Obama is light skinned and doesn't have a dialect unless he wanted one. If he didn't think blacks were, well, really black, why make the distinction? That must mean, to Reid, that blackness isn't an acceptable attribute. Black ain't beautiful to Harry.
And why mention dialect if he didn't privately believe all blacks be talkin' wit duh words what dem white folk can hardly unnerstan?
Along with Biden's comment, this lies in the swamp of liberal hypocrisy about race and it's being treated by liberals as mere slip-ups, misstatements, misspeaks.
Bullshit! It's what liberals really are. The same as they accuse conservative of being.
Loved this statement.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-10/harry-reid-was-right/?cid=hp:mainpromo2
" We" need to hear his remarks "in the context of his being Mormon"? I get it. That person thinks maybe his being a sap, led by his religious beliefs would explain it.
The next person asserts that people are "pretending" shock about something "everyone" thinks. I think many are not pretending at all, and I do not pretend to know what everyone is thinking, however I am certain, that everyone thinking the same thing does not happen.
Both are patently foolish assertions.
I can't say I entirely agree with John Boni either but at least he is not afraid to poke the barking dark with a stick through the fence as he walks by. The problem there is that the dog will keep barking.
R
This is a really important point, since in the past, the successful fund raisers have won. This favored the well-connected and the voters were sick of politics as usual -- which means the well-connected. Clinton redux? Bush lite? Same old, same old?
Part of Obama's success in fund-raising was studying the process very, very carefully.
But, ultimately, the thing that won Obama the election was the tanking economy.
Not any more than we know what's going on with Obama's deadline on Iran's nuclear development.
The wonderful thing about making one blunder after another is that some of the hoarier ones tend to get lost in the dust.
Reid is a Mormon? Wow, that explains a lot, considering that it was only recently that the Mormons had one of their divine revelations and decided that maybe blacks (only the males of course) should be entitled to hold their ever loving priesthood.
The issue is really about the double standard involved here.
Here is what Obam said about the Trent Lott issue.
"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do ... The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
Lott was only trying to say something nice about a very old man on his birthday. Race wasn't involved but many misinterpreted what Lott said because Thurmond was indeed a racist.
Both sides are responsible for this nonsense.
Anyway, their point was obviously that any black politician would have to challenge the stereotypical image of black men which many white voters have in order to win a presidential election. Al Sharpton or P Diddy couldn't have done it. Like it or not, that's obviously true.
You know, it may well be that HR is a racist; I'm just not going to use these "controversial statements" as proof of that. After all, these statements are only controversial because large numbers of people in this country have talked themselves into believing the post-racial fairy tale. That's not really Reid's fault. But he sure is gonna deal with the consequences of this self-imposed cultural delusion.
Tough cheese.
It's just that I read all these "one-dimensional" descriptions of conservatives and Republicans for years here on OS, and never once saw an objection from you about "one dimensionality."
@Boni,
In my comments, I make every attempt to address just the person making the statement and not wave my hand about and imply that everyone thinks so too. I don't always argue just one note, either. I often point out different aspects, underlying thoughts or points of view, and I'm even digressive, as I was with this post. (there was another post on some gossip reporter jumping to "real" news and so that was on my mind when I saw this)
I actually agree with your statement that this is an example of "quiet" racism. I meant what I said. What I thought when I read your comment was, when will people who have the ability to make a half decent argument learn that careful use of rhetoric and the art of persuasion might actually get more people to listen to them than take issue with the language they use. Offended? No, not at all.
You are correct that I've never used the phrase "one dimensional." It doesn't mean I haven't said it in a more subtle manner. Perhaps I should have simply said, Boni, your use of absolutes and condescending manner will cause more people to not consider fairly what you are saying, which has some merit. Would you like it if I made the assumption that you and all conservatives are uptight white control freaks who impulsively have extra-marital affairs? I don't think so. I assume you want people to listen to you, but I am now thinking you just enjoy being bellicose, given your response to me. If that is the case, then carry on.
Obama did not win because he sounded white, that is a racist idea. Another racist idea was the attack of Condoleezza Rice by black democrats because she did not "sound black" and was a republican.
The truth is both Obama and Rice are articulate people who are educated period. Regardless of race, educated people sound like educated people unless they play down their education. Those in politics walk a fine line between being smart, but not sounding to smart for the average Joe.
While the democrats attack Bush for being to dumbed down the republicans attack Obama for sounding to elitist. It is all a game to please the masses. Bush was a Texan politician who came off as folksy on purpose, but in reality he was a Yale and Harvard educated social elite just like Obama.
Thanks for taking the time to explain what you’re about. I get it, understand it, and commend you for it.
I’ve returned to OS after a six or seven month absence so I don’t know whether the self-description of your style is accurate, but I’ll take your word for it. One doesn’t invent such a rationale; they believe it’s what they do.
But it’s hardly how you responded to me, was it!?
"@Boni …..” snip “ Don't include me in your one dimensional definitions of what it means to be white and liberal, or I'll have to start assuming that all white conservatives have impulse/control disorders."
In one swoop you were critical of my “one dimensional” definition and suggested one of your own about “white conservatives,” I guess meaning me, about whose philosophy you haven’t the faintest clue.
To correct your last post, you DID use "one dimensional."
But let’s put that assumption aside and talk about the purpose of OS, and what actually happens here. At least, what I think happens here.
In matters of politics, no one tries to “persuade” anyone here. They opinionate. They state their positions, draw a line in the sand and go from there. That’s not a criticism, it’s what goes on. And that’s okay.
And that’s what I did in my post, what I’ve done in previous ones, and what I will continue to do, as will others. I have NEVER seen anyone of ANY political persuasion here write to another poster something like, “Hmmm, you make a good point. I might have to rethink that idea or issue.”
Trying to persuade here, or even discuss, is pissing in the wind and I like to stay dry.
You had the chance to practice what you just preached by responding to me with something like, ‘You know, John – (way less confrontational than “Boni”), I kind of agree with your basic point there, but you’ve stated it in such a way that puts people off, most importantly, people who might agree with you.”
That would make me go, "Hmmm....maybe he's got a point ..."
The fact is, N, you WERE offended, offended enough to take issue with me. Why would you even bring it up if you weren’t offended? Let’s call it “quiet offendedness.”
In your next post, you said: “would you like it if I made the assumption that you and all conservatives are uptight white control freaks who impulsively have extra-marital affairs?”
Wow! You certainly have a “one dimensional” characterization of conservatives, don’t you? Lurking quietly behind your righteous, high road sentiments about rational discourse is a description of one side of the political spectrum that’s just as blatantly general as you accuse me of having towards liberals. Although you couch it in the subjunctive. Twice. Nice move.
And then you end with the assumption that I just enjoy being bellicose. No. I just respond to bullshit, albeit “quiet” bullshit, without apology. Now, if you really want to discuss this, I’m game. Are you? If not, carry on.
Having said that, what he said was harmless in a non-liberal world. But, in a world where liberals have defined strict speech guidelines, Reid should be burned at the stake for his comments; live by the sword, die by the sword.
While I do not think Reid is a racist, this does show (again) how obsessed liberals are with race. I despise Obama. I think Obama is a Marxist scumbag who is destroying this country. I wish only the worst for Obama. But, my feeling about Obama have nothing to do with race. I hate Obama for his beliefs and actions. Only a liberal focuses on skin color and dialect.
My sentiments exactly. Except for Reid.
I was brought up that using last names is not disrespectful, I forget that some people find it offensive. Both of my parents were in the military (Go NAVY) and I went to a boarding school where the use of last names is common.
To be clear: you stated “[I]…never once saw an objection from you about "one dimensionality."” I was agreeing that you don’t see me going around using the phrase “one dimensional.” I do, however, object to stereotypes. I have seen people change their minds here. I have seen people rethink political issues. I have had my mind changed and rethought many issues.
The point of my initial comment to you was that I could make one dimensional definitions as easily as you and not only did I use one to prove it, but I did so in a manner equal to yours. I purposefully used a ridiculous stereotype to show you how ridiculous yours was. It doesn’t mean that I actually believe in the stereotype, just that I’m capable of recognizing one and using it. My second response was to your dismissive attitude and confrontational tone. You were rude. I showed you what it looks like by being just as. And yes, I was as deliberate as you.
That’s all I’ve got to say on this exchange. Racism is racism. Rude is rude. I never took offence, even if you were giving it. Next time we cross paths, I’ll try to be gentle.
Sincerely,
N