WHAT WE MISS! Rich and Sleeper said the same thing. Sleeper seemed to mean it: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009
We must have a National Censor: At first, you think youre kidding when you say we must have a National Censor.
Then, you read this front-page report in yesterdays Post about the French health system.
It isnt hard to explain how much the French spend on health care. In his report, Post reporter Edward Cody cites the 2007 OECD data. Heres what those data tell us:
There! Do you see how easy that is? The French spend less than half what we spend! But go aheadtry to tease any such knowledge out of Codys lengthy report! Surely, we must have a National Censor, one whos charged with keeping us clueless about the foreign experience.
Codys first peculiar moment arrives in paragraph 4. France has long been proud of its national health insurance, part of a many-tentacled and costly social protection system designed to embrace almost everyone who is legally in the country, he writes (our emphasis).
From that, the average Post reader may start to believe that French health care is somehow costly. As weve shown you, its easy to give the relevant data. But this is the masterfully murky way Cody ends up explaining the matter:
All those statements are technically accurate. They also keep us barefoot and clueless. Its amazingly easy to state the truth: The French spend less than half what we do. But there seems to be a law in this country forbidding the statement of such simple facts. Cody is just the latest in a long line of scribes who refuse to explain, in simple clear ways, how much extra we spend.
How much were getting looted.
On a per capita basis, the French spend less than half what we do. In Codys report, that ends up as murky worthless mush: The French are eighth on the OECD list, while the U.S. ranks at the top.
It is amazingly easy to explain how much we spend as compared with the French. Cody, a very experienced scribe, is the latest reporter who refuses to tell us. Or do we have a National Censor, who took the pencil to Codys real copy? Surely, no experienced scribe would avoid simple statement this way.
PART 3WHAT WE MISS: Gene Robinson made an intriguing remark on last Fridays Maddow Show.
Having finished her latest love-fest with Bush media man Mark McKinnon, Rachel asked a hard-to-paraphrase question about South Carolina, race and health care. The analysts were intrigued by the highlighted part of Robinsons answer:
For the record, South Carolina is represented in the House by four Republicans and two DemocratsClyburn and John Spratt, both of whom are long-serving. As best we can tell, Clyburn (the black guy) and Spratt (the white guy) seem to have taken similar stands on proposed health reform. (Specifically: As best we can tell, neither solon has unequivocally backed the inclusion of a public option.)
At any rate, we were intrigued by Robinsons comment about white-black relations in South Carolina. We had a similar reaction when we spent Thanksgiving 2007 in Columbia, visiting pleased family members. More on that tomorrow. But the analysts swore that this was Good Gene as they watched Robinson speak.
We were glad to hear that. You see, the same analysts had criticized Disappointing Gene as they read his column that morning! There we liberals went again! Sometimes, we seem to be in love with racismso much so that we even announce that we cant imagine other reasons for opposition to Obama. This was Robinsons presentation, though others have said similar things:
For what its worth, many attacks on President Bush did involve big vitriol. Beyond that, youll note that Robinson played a rather slick card herehe only considered previous attacks on Bush, not attacks on the Clintons or Gore. Some attacks on Obama have been unhingedbut so were strings of attacks on previous Democrats. Of course, Robinson played an active role in some of those deeply destructive wars. It may be tempting to forget they occurred when you yourself drove them along.
That said, who did Robinson have in mind when he said the attacks on Obama must be driven by race? What kind of abuse did he have in mind, when he boasted that he can't find any explanation for it other than race? As he continued, Robinson said he wasnt talking about the majority of the citizens who went to town hall meetings to criticize Obama's plans for health-care reform. Then, he explained who he did have in mind. His answer came in three parts:
In this passage, Robinson does what Maureen Dowd did before him (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/16/09). He presents one obvious case of racial insult, then lumps in two other examples where the provenance is much less clear.
For sure! When protestors portray Obama as a witch doctor, theyre toying with traditional racial insult in a blatant, obvious way. But how about the rest of that list? Good grief! When Robinson sees Obamas critics toss around words like socialism, he can't find any explanation for it other than race? That statement is so completely absurd that it constitutes a confession. And by the way: Are the birthers really any crazier than the people who believed the Clintons were murderers? And tell the truth: If Obama were accused of a long string of murders, wouldnt we say that was racism?
Of course we would! But then, we liberals often seem to have no other tool in our tool box. You can say any crazy thing you want about Democrats. If your lunacy doesnt seem to be racial, liberals like Robinson wont notice. Theyll even help drive the war alongif thats what Washingtons Establishment In-Group is pleasing itself with that year.
When protestors call Obama a socialist, Robinson can't find any explanation for it other than race? Crackers, please! Thats truly absurd. Who are the real idiots here?
Because they had criticized Disappointing Gene that morning, we were happy when the analysts hailed Good Gene that night.
Back to that column: Sometimes, we liberals seem to be so in love with racism that were able to spot nothing else. On Sunday, two major writers said this is harmful to liberal interests. WellJim Sleeper said that in the Washington Post. Frank Rich pretty much said the same thing in his New York Times column.
We were struck by the differences between these two pieces.
How much is race tied into opposition to Obama? We wouldnt know how to measure that, and we dont think its smart to make sweeping statements (or insinuations) about large numbers of voters. In Sleepers assessment, Racism is only one of many factors driving the backlash against the president in town hall meetings and in demonstrations on Capitol Hill. He describes some of the other factors that are tied into opposition. In the following passage, he suggests that liberals tend to fail politically when they focus on racism only. And he describes a type of top-shelf pseudo-liberal who is simply too well-off to care about other factors:
To watch upper-end (white) pseudo-liberals enjoy the pleasures of yelling race, just try MSNBC any weeknight evening. Or enjoy a bit of a laugh as Rich tangles with this topic.
In Sundays Times, Rich argued a similar thesis about the opposition to Obama. If only it were just about the color of his skin, he sadly laments as he starts. Like Sleeper, Rich is soon saying that the current opposition involves a lot more than race:
We tend to agree with thatalthough we think pseudo-conservative leaders who toy with race should be aggressively criticized. (Rush Limbaugh, to cite one example.) For our analysts, the amusement came as we watched Rich attempt to argue that the opposition isnt all about race. Frankly, no one loves yelling race more than Rich. The analysts roared at his Strangeloveian efforts to rein in this primal instinct.
In our view, Rich is much too fair to Glenn Beck in this columnbut then, Rich is almost always wrong. (Beck bonds with his fallible listeners by openly and repeatedly owning up to his own mistakes? Cracker, please!) But the comedy comes as Rich keeps yelling race, even as he says that we need to examine the other factors. This is the way he begins his piece. This may send thrills up pseudo-liberal legs. But Frankly, its typical Rich:
This fellow lives for over-statement. To state the obvious, Palin didnt speak to all-white crowds (although blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic). The decision to refer to these all-white crowds as mobs is typical of Richs demeanor. This is the way he helps us see that it isnt all about race? Meanwhile, we included that third paragraph just to let you enjoy a good laugh. Crazy people now take their cues from behavior during joint sessions of Congress? Rich has always tended toward foolish. Frankly, in that overblown passage, he played the fool again.
For a chuckle, just read through Richs piece and see how often he plays race cards, even as he is instructing that our analysis needs to go beyond race. No one love to list the racists quite the way the big loudmouth does. In this passage, you see him playing the character Sleeper warned us about:
Rich is so in love with yelling race, he cant quite bring himself to get it. As Sleeper said, he doesnt really understand that Becks declaration here (his rant) actually seems to right. Wall Street does seem to own the governmentand when Beck names the names of the corporations involved, he is naming a lot of accurate names. (When Eliot Spitzer did this on Maddow, he disappeared from the program.)
Indeed: Just as Sleeper said in his piece, Rich cant quite bring himself to understand the accuracy or the anger lodged in this analysis. He quotes Beck naming G.E., General Motors, Wal-Mart, Citigroup. And sure enough! In his very next paragraph, he goes right back to implying this is all about race.
Rich quotes Beck, who says that the government is giving your money to GE. But Rich cant seem to hear what he himself has just finished typing. In the very next paragraph, he paraphrases Beck, who is now saying that Washington is redistributing hard-earned money to the undeserving and shiftless poor! Just like that, a complaint about corporate looting becomes a complaint about race! But Frankly, Rich is always like that. Frank Rich simply loves yelling race. Even when he says we shouldnt, he goes ahead and does.
Nor does it seem to enter his head that Beck could imaginably be right about Obama (and about other Democrats). As he continues, Rich offers this soppy milquetoast about Obama and Wall Street:
Thats a nice warm dish of milquetoast about Obamaabout Democrats generally. But then, Obama is the black guy! For that reason, in Richs novelized world, he has to be basically right. Sleeper: Liberals who've done well by those practices aren't always serious about redressing their inequities and disruptions. In his heart, Rich loves to rant about racenot about corporate looting.
Go back and read what Robinson wrote. When he sees people calling Obama a socialist, he thinks it has to be about race! Good grief! At least from Franklin Roosevelt on, every major Democrat has been yelled at in just this way. But so what? The pseudo-lib world just loves yelling race. Its the only thing we know how to saythe only manifestation we know how to see. Its the thing we love to yell.
Race is important, a brutal part of our history. People like Limbaugh need to be challenged. But if we only know one play, could that be a prime way to lose? And when we lose, we all lose, of courseblack and white together.
Tomorrow: South Carolina v. Boston