Harry Reid's only offense (in this case) is that he told the cold, hard, truth.
Several weeks ago now, the revelation concerning the reasons that Senator Harry Reid had specified in accounting for the viability of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy had elicited outrage from his Republican rivals. Both Obama's "light skin," the Senator explained, as well as his artfully selective eschewal of a "Negro dialect," in no small measure render intelligible our 44th President's success. Republicans are demanding Reid's resignation while Democrats– including all black Democrats — have come to his defense.
This contrived brouhaha is but the latest piece of evidence to add to a mountainous heap that only strengthens my contention that "racism" is, in the final analysis, a meaningless term that should be retired.
The Gospel of John states that so great in number were the miracles of Jesus that all of the books in the world would be incapable of containing the accounts of them. Neither, I would add, are there a sufficient number of books to contain the dizzying array of understandings of "racism" that have cropped up just within the last few decades alone. But when the meaning of a word is made to hinge exclusively upon the preferences and purposes of the individual or the group to which the individual belongs, it ultimately, and for all practical purposes, means nothing.
Consider an analogy. Theologians and philosophers of a monotheistic bent have struggled for millennia to reconcile their belief in a perfect God with the presence of evil in our world. Among the responses with which "the problem of evil" has been met is the "theodicy" known as "the Natural Order Defense." According to this position, short of literally obliterating the world, God could prevent all instances of suffering from materializing only if He intervened each and every time they were about to transpire. This, however, He could not do, for such unrelenting interference with the laws of nature and the human freedom whose exercise these laws render possible would make the world radically discontinuous with itself from one moment to the next. All intercourse between individuals would inescapably collapse as the common framework of presuppositions upon which human interaction crucially depends is made to vanish away: the world would become nonsensical.
Fortunately, the world itself hasn't lost all of its stability just yet, but there is no shared framework of assumptions regarding the meaning or meanings of "racism." Thus, serious, adult talk of "racism" is as possible as interaction of any sort would be in a world that God abruptly and dramatically alters from one moment to the next: it is impossible because the term, if it ever had any meaning at all, has long since been divested of it. If there was ever any proof of the truth of this proposition, this latest episode of which Reid is at the center is it.
I detest Harry Reid's politics and I believe with every fiber of my being that along with the rest of his party, he is disastrous for this country. That being said, however, there was nothing in his comments regarding Obama that so much as warrant an apology, much less his resignation. Those Republicans and "conservatives" who are piling on Reid — though understandably upset over the gross double standards by which they and their political opponents are judged by the public and the media — are engaging in the worst sort of posturing, and given that the vast majority of blacks, and all of those black politicians and pundits who unfailingly wax indignant over every imagined racial affront, are supportive of the Senate Majority Leader, Reid's right-leaning detractors are making themselves utterly laughable.
It would be one thing for Republicans to point out that it is not Reid's analysis of Obama's candidacy that is objectionable, but the fact that there would be outrage had a Republican described the latter in the same terms. It is another thing entirely for them to feign moral indignation over the remarks themselves, and it is but another instance of the abysmal depths to which the GOP is willing to resort just so that it may convince people generally and blacks specifically that it isn't "racist." Ironically, if they weren't in competition over votes with Republicans, this is an exhibition of racial pandering of which even the Democrats, masterful racial panderers that they are, could have been proud.
For the first couple of days of this controversy, there had been a profound deficit of clarity as to why exactly Republicans were demanding Reid's head. Eventually, it turned out that Reid's intolerable racial "offense" ostensibly consists of his usage of the word "Negro." Granted, having grown up in the 70's and 80's — when "black" was well-established as the standard term for all who could make a claim to membership in the Negroid race — "Negro" is not among the terms that is known to spring from my tongue. Yet the word had been the norm for quite some time in the past, and was employed more frequently than "black " as recently as the late 1960's and by such illustrious heroes of our culture's popular racial imagination as Martin Luther King, Jr. That Reid used a term that is no longer in vogue may establish some anachronistic propensities on his part, but the moral sensibilities of a people or an age need not be unaccommodating of words or ideas just because they are anachronistic.
And, paradoxically, it is only the "politically correct" moral convictions of the one party that purportedly opposes "political correctness" that can't abide Reid's anachronism. Everyone else — including and especially blacks — are unperturbed by it.
That this ultimately boils down to partisan politics as usual is a proposition of which I have no doubt. Yet I am equally certain that there is another dynamic at play here: no one but Republican politicians and pundits are expressing outrage over Reid's remarks because everyone knows that, his dated terminology notwithstanding, what he said, regarding Obama's "dialect," if not necessarily his color, is true. And no one knows it more so than Barack Obama himself.
For all of the rhetoric concerning "white racism" — rhetoric that would by now sound as dated as the term "Negro" if there weren't so many benefits to be reaped from furthering the fiction that it is alive and well and holding racial minorities in a grip of deadly fear — there is no racial minority more aware of the aching desire of most whites to be regarded as "anti-racist" than blacks. And a search of the annals of human history from its beginnings to the present day will readily confirm that this obsession of contemporary whites to prove themselves "color blind" is a uniquely Caucasoid phenomenon. Racial minorities generally and blacks especially know full well that the commonplace utterance of so many whites that "Race means nothing" is a specimen of folly of the first order. In fact, if these same whites had sufficient courage and honesty to examine, just briefly, both themselves and their world, they too would have to recognize it as the nonsense that it is. Paradoxically, if they did just this, they would stand a better chance of earning the respect of the very minorities by whom they so desperately want to be liked, for, once more, the idea that race is as irrelevant as a wart strikes minorities (and, to be fair, many of us whites) as almost offensively preposterous.
But the point here is that Obama is as familiar with this perverted longing on the part of whites as anyone, and he deliberately set out to exploit it throughout every step of his march to the presidency. A reading of his autobiography, the subtitle of which is A Story of Race and Inheritance, definitively establishes that not only has race been a lifelong preoccupation of Obama's, but, more importantly, he situates his own quest for an "authentically" black racial identity within the context of the conventional narrative of "a legacy" of "white oppression" and "black suffering." That is, our President is convinced — given his odyssey for "authentic blackness," it is not unreasonable to suspect that he convinced himself — that the white race is uniquely culpable for the world's problems. This notion is a truism among the political Left but, lamentably, it is also held in varying degrees among a great number of whites, particularly younger whites, who have absorbed it not just from the educational institutions that they have attended, but from the popular culture as well.
Obama, not inaccurately reading this pervasive longing in whites for black acceptance as a longing for redemption of a sort, exploited it brilliantly by depicting himself as their Savior, a light-complexion black — "Negro" — who could disarm them and charm them by distancing himself through his skin color and vocal inflections from the likes of the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world.
And in the meantime he could sail his way to the office of the presidency.
No, Harry Reid's only offense (in this case) is that he told the cold, hard, truth, and reinforced what anyone with the slightest intelligence, even if it is in the deepest recesses of his or her mind, must know: to no small extent, underlying the election of Barack Obama to the presidency and, for that matter, virtually every other area in the life of our racially-pluralistic world, is a racial subtext.
Perhaps if Republicans finally recognize this, they just might begin to earn the respect and trust of the blacks whose vote they have made so many disingenuous and pathetic attempts to court. At any rate, they will regain the respect of the whites who abandoned them in droves on November 4, 2008, for — another "politically incorrect" truth — without them, the GOP is finished.
I always cringe when the Republicans play the racial game of minefield politics. It reminds me of TV shows from the 70’s when some ignorant white character would utter the unforgivable phrase “you people” and the audience would all “ahhh” in unison. When you play this game you only validate the ever changing rules of disingenuous racial discourse. You have to mince your words to avoid saying anything of substance because a direct phrase may contain the latest racial insensitivity. This political gobblygook is what frustrates average Americans and turns them against politicians and political discussions.
The more appropriate Republican response would be, “I understand that Reid used the term Negro which is no longer acceptable to many people. I don’t believe he meant it as an insult or that he hates all black people because he used that term. All this over sensitivity is a distraction and one we can’t afford right now as we watch Reid’s party tax and spend this country into socialist oblivion. The destruction of the dollar, reckless spending and the take over of health care and private corporations are what Reid and his party need to answer for.”
This response would trivialize the racial hysteria and refocus attention on the ruinous policies of the opposition. This tactic would also ensure that your not setting any snares for your self in the future.
Interesting analysis of “racism” – whites want acceptance from blacks so they voted for Obama – as an act of contrition – as an attempt at redemption? Maybe, but I doubt that anyone can ascribe specifically defined motivations to tens of millions of American voters and boil it all down to one and only one set of collective behaviors driven by one commonly held motivation.
I think the reason accusations of “racism” are still being flung about, as this pleasantly diverting past time has evolved within our culture, stems from an unconscious desire to reassure black Americans that, collectively, whites have no plans to harm them and, in turn, from a desire by the black community to bend the white community to their will as a sign they are both valued and possess their own unique, and accepted, cultural strengths within the greater American community. Start with the concept of being a “minority” within any larger culture, the temptation is to circle the wagons, remain within your own “kind”, keep a watchful eye on the greater majority community and fret over the potentially aggressive actions of those others “not like you ” – add to those actions an active resistance to assimilation which would invariably force the individual to leave the emotional shelter of their “group” for the lonely role of “just another American”.
The other day, for example, the French announced their government plans to crack down on Muslim women wearing full body veils; the announced rationalization is that such veil wearing women obviously refuse to assimilate into “French culture” – however that culture is defined. Muslims can no longer seek immigration entry into France if they plan to thumb their noses at French culture and choose, individually, to remain visibly apart.
European immigrants to America tended to cluster within our cities frequenting their own sections of our urban areas, “Greek Town”, “Mexican Town”, Hamtramck in the Detroit area for Poles, Chinatown in San Francisco – as the immigrants assimilated into the general populace, these geographic enclaves slowly disappeared except as lucrative “ethnic” tourist attractions – but it was the younger, American born children of immigrants who drifted away, while the older immigrants tended to cling to the emotional safety of their familiar streets and shops while they yet lived.
Blacks have taken much longer to assimilate completely into the greater American culture due to an active and widespread hostility and discrimination towards them left over from colonial slave holding times. And this emotional legacy of fear and deep seated suspicion held by black Americans hasn’t completely disappeared by any means. So, part of the reason whites felt obligated to vote Obama in, and only partly, was another attempt to reassure blacks they weren’t in danger of annihilation through a racial jihad. This fear of annihilation may seem faintly ridiculous to most white Americans but remember Obama’s mentor Rev. Wright and his bellicose condemnations of white society, many blacks don’t find such an idea ridiculous by any means. Many whites remain confused as to the reasons for what they see as unwarranted paranoia on the part of blacks, but the tension is all too obviously there and it isn’t going away.
For black Americans, their ability to set and ultimately control the agenda between the races provides both emotional reassurance and a sense of empowerment. Don’t call us Negroes, we’re African-Americans, no, we’re black Americans, no we’re “persons of color” – rather juvenile in the constant changes of “accepted nomenclature” but, by defining accepted cultural norms in part, blacks constantly “test the waters” of both mood and benevolent intentions within the greater white community.
Looking at Obama himself, his autobiography reveals his fixation on race, his concern and resentment over the treatment of black Americans. And he served the normal apprenticeship of black leaders, he allied himself with Rev. Wright to build his power base within the black community, then he distanced himself, in order to obtain a personal advantage, when it was time to move into the greater political arena. His career stepping stones are hardly unique among black political leaders, each step along the way being a familiar one to many blacks, as well as to observant whites. When it came time to move onto the national political stage, Rev. Wright received the symbolic boot – black Americans understood and accepted this repudiation as the price that must be paid when you’re trying to overcome repression by “The Man”.
As to Republicans, they lost out to the Democrats in obtaining the enduring loyalty of the black community, they were out smarted and out maneuvered repeatedly during the heyday of the Civil Rights era, not exactly a new position for them to be in either – check the percentage of Jewish Americans who vote Democrat consistently election after election. And looking at the Jewish voters, Republicans are eternally mystified as to the reasons the Jews won’t come over to their side – a side historically allied with the movers and shakers within our nation. It’s going to take decades before Republicans can claim black voters as their own, assuming it could actually happen.
Even this author reflects the Republican form of ineptness in racial matters. The sanctimonious attitude that Republicans aren’t like Democrats and shouldn’t go after Reid when he’s politically vulnerable is self-defeating. And somehow a “show of weakness” in their persistent, philosophical musings won’t reassure many Americans as to the Republican’s ability to effectively lead – and as Republicans had hoped that it would – another lesson the GOP never seems to fully grasp.