MANDATED SPEECH! Is the birther lunacy racist? Career players know what to say: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, MAY 6, 2011
Watching us become like them/Exceptionalism edition: Good lord! The Washington Posts Style section has always been the place you go to watch big scribes make fools of themselves. But yesterdays spread about The Photo may have set a new standard.
The spread concerns the now-famous photo of Obamas team during the raid on Bin Laden. No one even knows what was happening when that particular photo was snapped, but the Post called in a team of experts to analyze the shot. And good god! Everyone from the food critic on down was forced to lend his expertise.
To peruse the entire piece, just click this. Heres what the food critic, Tom Sietsema, contributed to the discussion:
The choice of a wrap rather than a slice of bread strikes me as very Bush-era! Yes, that appeared in yesterdays Post as part of a massive, front-page Style spread, with the chef at Palena even called in for his thoughts. Dance critic Sarah Kauffman also offered her insightsbut then, so did Jura Koncius, home and design writer. Also reporting: The Posts TV, art and film criticsand Judith Martin, Miss Manners columnist and etiquette expert.
At its upper end, your press corps is almost inexpressibly mindless. By the way: Dont blame the writers who were forced to contribute to this utter nonsense. Question the sanity of the editor who conceived this ludicrous piece.
Within this sad and embarrassing context, whats the current meaning of American exceptionalism? On Monday evening, Big Ed Schultz promised us that wed have some fun with the concept. This is what the big guy said at the start of his love song about the way we took out bin Ladens son as he came down the stairs:
Luckily, Schultz didnt have those five hours. Better yet: Midway through his 18-minute ballad, he tried to talk about American exceptionalismbut a piece of tape didnt play, and he was forced to move on. Finally, at the end of his lengthy segment, his staff did have the tape cued up. So Schultz got this much in:
Inexplicably, Colonel Wilkerson was back, presented as a sympathetic witness. Hes the man who assembled Colin Powells UN presentationbut now hes presented as one of our own. Reason? As part of his image rehab, hes willing to go on the air and say stupid shit about Rumsfeld. (To review Wilkersons Wednesday night effort, just click this.)
At any rate, Schultz played that videotape, saying it represented American exceptionalism. For ourselves, we have no idea why Il Duce thought that, or what he thinks that concept meansbut so it tends to go on this program. At his blog, Schultz offered this post about the conceptbut even after reading that, we have no idea what Schultz thinks the concept means.
This morning, Big Ed is asking for patriotic songs. They may even get played on the air!
Theres nothing wrong with patriotism, of course, depending on how you express and enact it. Theres nothing automatically wrong with the concept of American exceptionalism, depending on what you mean by the concept. But this murky concept can be a bit dangerousand it has been used in demagogic ways in the past few years. But so what? As our side becomes more like their side, our silliest players have been rushing off to embrace the pleasing concept.
In the wake of the bin Laden killing, we were struck by the way some of our players acted a great deal like them. More and more, we ape the dumbest, most dishonest practices of the worst on the other sidethe kinds of practices our side once abhored. We love the details of the killings; we engage in the dumbest partisan hackwork. And we swear that Barack Obama does so believe in exceptionalism!
Does Barack Obama believe in American exceptionalism? We doubt that this is a major part of his outlookbut like Steve Benen, we dont really know. But in our view, Benen has really been going over to the other side of late.
To see Steve announce what Obama believes, take a deep breath, then click this.
PART 3MANDATED SPEECH (permalink): Kathleen Parker asked a good question: When did this lunacy start?
Why is our discourse being driven by buffoons? the headline on Sundays column asked. One cant help wondering when exactly we lost our minds, she wrote in the actual piece. Parker cited these crazed factions that become obsessed with conspiracies, unconvinced by facts.
Most specifically, Parker referred to the (many) people who swallowed the recent nonsense concerning Obamas place of birth. But when exactly did this crazed culture get started? That question is easy to answer:
This culture started in 1988, when Vice President George H. W. Bush had Lee Atwater run a slime campaign against Governor Michael Dukakis. No one slimed Walter Mondale in 1984, or Jimmy Carter in the previous two campaigns. But from 1988 on, every presidential-level Democrat has been slimed in similar brainless ways, with large numbers of Republican voters believing the guff of the moment.
Bill Clinton was involved in a long list of killings! As late as August 1999, a loathsome fellow named Chris Matthews invited the crackpot Gennifer Flowers onto his program, where she spent a full half-hour discussing this ludicrous notion. Flowers made so little sense that Hannity & Colmes reacted quickly, giving her a full hour to rattle this ugly nonsenseand to inform the world that Hillary Clinton was the worlds biggest lesbo.
This is the way our culture has worked since 1988.
How obvious is that as the starting-date for this crazed political culture? In The Hunting of the President (2000), Lyons and Conason described the way Atwater went to Arkansas in May 1989 to jump-start the sliming Governor Clinton, who was seen as the eras most talented young Democratic leaderthe strongest threat to Bushs re-election. (Subtitle: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.) In 1992, Candidate Clinton survived a blizzard of ludicrous tales. Eight years later, Candidate Gore did not, by a hair, thereby sending a second George Bush on to a seat in the White House.
For the most part, the liberal world has agreed to pretend that none of this ever happened. For an interesting example of the cross currents involved here, consider Steve Kornackis piece in Salon about the birther claptrap.
Kornacki understands his countrys recent history. He didnt have the time or the space to tell the total story. But in this passage, he described what birtherism grew out of, giving a perfect example:
Kornacki skips the lunacy about Candidate Gorelunacy which also continued well after Clinton [and Gore] left office. Presumably for reasons of space, he also skips the sliming of Candidates Dukakis and Kerry. But Kornackis account is right on the money: The recent nonsense about President Obama did grow out of a pre-existing culture, in which Republican leaders encourage a refusal by the right to accept the legitimacy of any Democrat who comes within spitting distance of the White House.
Anyone with an ounce of sense can understand what Kornacki said: The moronic sliming of Obama is similar to the earlier sliming of Clinton; it isnt gigantically different. The right devised a string of preposterous tales about Clinton; through the recent birther nonsense, they did the same regarding Obama. But an utterly brainless political culture currently rules the pseudo-left, establishing mandates all creatures must bow to. For that reason, even Kornacki knew that he had to start his piece with a strange, sweeping statement.
Here are Kornackis headlines and his opening paragraph. By the hard tenets of pseudo-lib law, the thrust of that headline had to be instantly contradicted:
Before Kornacki could give you your history, he had to make a sweeping statement: Birtherism itself has everything to do with race. He said he was doing this to be clear. In fact, this sweeping statement is quite hard to parse.
Question: If birtherism is just the latest example of a long string of crackpot attacksif Republican voters also believed all those prior preposterous attacksthen what does it mean when Kornacki says that birtherism has everything to do with race? This is a very murky claim, offered in the name of clarity. Does this mean that everyone who believed this crap had to believe it for racial reasons? Why would such a claim make sense, given the long string of non-racial ludicrous claims these same voters swallowed?
Why does this most recent preposterous claim have to be all about race?
Has race been part of the birther belief system? Presumably, yes it has; presumably, some people who were drawn to this claim were drawn in for reasons of race. Indeed, race and ethnicity figured in somenot mostof the earlier ugly and idiot claims about Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Kerry. Bill Clinton had a black love child! While were at it, lets recall the year 2000: John McCain and his druggie wife adopted a black baby!
Presumably, some have been drawn to the birther nonsense for reasons involving race. But why must these ludicrous birther belief have everything to do with race? What does such a sweeping claim even mean? Does it mean that everyone who believes this crap must be racist?
Kornackis history was right on the markbut his clear statement was very murky. On the other hand, he does understand the current rules of mandated faux-liberal speech.
To his credit, Kornacki told the truth about modern historybut only after bowing to the gods of faux-liberal racial assertion. The hopeless and gruesome Tavis Smiley had done quite a bit less just two nights before. Smiley had paraded into New York for a special week of broadcastsbroadcasts he would waste on subjects like Katie Couric and the billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, to whom he bowed and scraped. But even as Smiley wasted his time with Gothams most famous players, he went on The Last Word and recited for Lawrence ODonnell.
As would become quite clear, Smiley is the ultimate hack, but he does know the words to the songs. Go aheadenjoy the comical bad faith involved in this requisite bafflegab:
To watch the full segment, click this.
For the record, the director of the Secret Service testified under oath that President Obama was not receiving more death threats than Presidents Bush and Clinton (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/4/09). We dont know if that statement is accurate, but thats what the gentleman said.
At any rate:
Before lobbing pointless questions at Couric that night, Smiley wanted to get on the record with a fiery statement. According to Smiley, we are already engaged in the ugliest and nastiest campaign in our nations history. That is a ludicrous statement, of course, even if one accepts the idea that birther bilge is essentially racist. But the comedy came when Smiley followed this major R-bomb by saying that he didnt want to cast aspersion on the Tea Party broadly, grandly saying that we need to get back to some sense of civility.
Too funny! Well grant you, Smiley built a tiny escape hatch into his statement. Technically, he seemed at one point to restrict his remarks to the worst in the Tea Party. That would seem to imply that most Tea Party types arent snarling racistsbut how large a percentage was thus exempted? As usual, a sweeping statement had been unloosed with no real attempt to clarify its meaning or define its scope. And just take a look at what Smiley said next!
How did Smiley know that the people in that entity were involved in the ugliest campaign ever? Easy:
There have been some antics that theyve engaged in that made it clear to me, Smiley said. He then cited the antic of showing up to rallies with guns; this is conduct in which only a tiny handful of Tea Party folk have engaged. And he cited the antic of all those death threatsthe unprecedented number of threats, the threats the Secret Service denied.
How many Tea Party people have ever telephoned a death threat?
Dont even ask! On the basis of those two antics, Smiley unloaded a massive R-bomb, seeming to suggest suggesting that millions of people are now engaged in the ugliest, most racist campaign in the nations history. And by the way: When Trump says Obama is the worst president ever, does that really represent the worst race-baiting Smiley has ever seen in a campaign? Does Smiley know that Trump has now said that three recent presidents were the worst ever?
Plainly, Trump is a world-class buffoon. But what makes this buffoonish claim racist? Trump says inane shit all the time!
Needless to say, Smiley had more nonsense to dispense before he got to his evenings real taskthe task of wasting time with Couric for his PBS viewers. As he continued, he did what these grandees always dohe seemed to suggest that Trump himself really cant be a big racist. (But one last thing beyond Donald TrumpIm disappointed in Mr. Trump. I think, frankly and respectfully, this is beneath him. People like Smiley always defer to the billionaires, even as they sweepingly slime millions of average people.)
After that, having kissed the Trump rump, Smiley made his least attractive statements. Note the way he plans to fight this racism, the worst hes ever seen:
What a perfect expression! According to Smiley, were in the middle of the most racist campaign in the nations history. But he doesnt plan to discuss it on his own programthough its fine if ODonnell does.
Then, having said that he himself wont be discussing it, he related the current campaign to the Holocaust, mentioning his Jewish friends and saying, Never again.
Shorter Smiley: This racist campaign is like the Holocaust! But I dont plan to discuss it! He then proved it all week long, conducting a series of New York-based programs in which he fawned to Bloomberg and Couric and movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. The racism didnt come up, except briefly on Monday with Bloomberg, who had commented on Trump the day before.
Is the recent treatment of Obama the same? Or is it different? Does it resemble the way others Dems have been slimed, dating back to Dukakis? Or is the current lunacy different because of a racial component?
We would say its more the same. But to ginormous hacks like Smiley, nothing even remotely like this has ever happened before.
Kornacki at least described the recent history in which every other presidential Democrat has been slimed in ludicrous ways. But for the most part, we liberals now like to pretend that none of this ever happened. We pretend that what is happening now is like nothing else in our nations history. Whats happening to Obama is shockingly newand by law, it has to be racist.
When we play dumb in this ludicrous way, we fail to tell the truth to the publicand we disappear twenty-five years of the other sides disgraceful conduct. In several ways, this is amazingly dumb politics.
Why on earthwhy in the worlddo we liberals keep acting this way?
Mondaypart 4: Why do we liberals do this?