The Warrantless Blogtapping Program
BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News
Issue: John Hawkins' Schizophrenia on Race
I appreciate conservative blogger John Hawkins' gracious congratulatory posting regarding Barack Obama's victory. It must have been a bit painful for him to write, so I give him credit for doing so. However ...
I can't simply let slide what I still see as a conservative myopia and schizophrenia, if not hypocrisy, regarding the subject of race in America. Here's the relevant part of what Hawkins wrote in his posting linked above:
Although I would have certainly preferred to have John McCain in the White House, it will at least be nice to finally see a black American become President. Conservatives have been saying America isn't a racist nation for a long time. This proves we're right. Conservatives have been saying that we don't need Affirmative Action in this country. This proves we're right.And yet, in his very next posting, Hawkins had this to say about race:
In other words, despite the staggering advantages the Democrats had in this election, including a candidate who undoubtedly drew in millions of black voters who wanted to pull the lever for the first black President and millions of other voters gripped by white guilt, it only led to a shift of about 4% of the American public from the Republicans to the Democrats.I've written about this before. And it just keeps surfacing. Doesn't Hawkins see the contradictions in his positions? On the one hand, he keeps propagating this notion that America is not a racist nation, while on the other hand explaining Barack Obama's success and victory to racist behavior. Does Hawkins not see that he takes pride in finally being able to "see a black American become President" without noting the irony that it wasn't his vote that helped make this happen? What should one make of that? Doesn't Hawkins recognize that, if it's Barack Obama's election to the White House which is the evidence that we are not a racist country, it stands to reason that the folks who actually voted for him and put him there are the ones that represent the actual proof of this claim? Doesn't he see the irony that when he claims Barack Obama's election as "proof" that conservatives were right that America is not racist, he is essentially saying that this proof is not being provided by conservative who voted against Obama, but rather by those who actually voted in a way that made this happen?
I can't tell you how many times I've left comments at Hawkins' blog defending and supporting Obama without once mentioning (or even thinking about, for that matter) the color of Obama's skin, only to have been accused of being racist simply for supporting Obama. For some conservatives, it is inconceivable that a white person would vote for Obama for any reason other than his skin color. They are fond of calling this "white guilt," and then they have the gall to say that I'm the one stuck on the slavery and Jim Crow past of America because I support the "black" guy! Whatever. Suffice it to say that my experiences on Right Wing News comment boards illustrates this conservative schizophrenia regarding race in America perfectly. ...
You know, I had a kind of epiphany last night when looking at the crowds and the environments surrounding both McCain and Obama's speeches at the end of the evening. Unlike what Sarah Palin claimed on the campaign trail, the "real" America, in all of our wonderful diversity, was on display in Chicago. And just a small, narrow, and fundamentally non-diverse slice of America was on display in Arizona. It was the same at the Conventions. For good or bad, that's just the way it is. But for Republicans, if they don't find a way to harness the growing diversity of America and make some kind of intellectual argument framing this diversity in the context of a principled conservatism, more and more states are likely to be turning blue in future years. Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada -- they're not flukes, but rather a sign of a growing diversity in the context of our national unity. And John Hawkins, for all his sincere effort really to embrace and be part of this diversity in his recognition of the importance of an Obama victory in this regard, is still caught up in the contradictions of a context where race is a recognized, important, and significant aspect of identity, but where this difference is celebrated and not seen as a matter of divisiveness. Hawkins just can't seem to get beyond his "black and white" understanding of race in America. By this I mean that Hawkins can't envision an America that sees and embraces race (and other identity markers, for that matter) as meaningful, but which also doesn't necessarily see discrimination in this. For Hawkins, being "color-blind" means denying race at all levels of social meaning. And yet he himself simply cannot take his own advice and get beyond seeing the meaning in race. So, he's left holding to that schizophrenic practice of being a rhetorically "color-blind" conservative who is never actually "blind" to color and who, instead, always sees something insidious in ascribing meaning to race all the while he does precisely that.
Posts
10 comments:
"Does Hawkins not see that he takes pride in finally being able to "see a black American become President" without noting the irony that it wasn't his vote that helped make this happen?"
But don't you see the irony in your own statement? You are essentially saying that only people who's decision was based on the inherently racist idea of voting for somebody specifically because of the color of their skin should be able to take pride in the fact that race wasn't an issue in this election.
Proposition: Obama didn't win because of his blackness or in spite of it, he won because he convinced many Americans he was the best candidate.
Argument: To the degree that the above statement is true, we should be proud of Obama's victory.
Corollary : To the degree that the statement is false, (i.e., to the degree that he was helped or hindered based soley on the color of his skin) we should be ashamed.
Is it really all that hard to understand why conservatives who oposse Obama on ideological grounds might still take pride in the fact that, in America, a man's race doesn't disqualify him from fully participating in the public narrative?
And here I thought the ability to comprehend a nuanced argument was a valued skill among liberals!
;-)
And also, Huck, I'd add: You know I have been plenty critical of John Hawkins at times. I don't make these arguments out of any particular loyalty to him or the folks over at RWN. I just think you are being pretty unfair in your argument that only people who voted for Obama can claim the glory for proving that America isn't a racist nation.
Anybody who didn't consider race as part of their voting criteria gets to share in this glory. That's sort of the whole point!
But don't you see the irony in your own statement? You are essentially saying that only people who's decision was based on the inherently racist idea of voting for somebody specifically because of the color of their skin should be able to take pride in the fact that race wasn't an issue in this election.
No, you are misreading me, Eric. First off, it was a question, not a statement. And though the implication you note is present, it is not an implication that I personally hold, but one that comes out of the dichotomy in Hawkins' representations. The point I was making about Hawkins is that Hawkins was taking pride in something that he manifestly didn't believe was true: that the democrats who voted Obama into office did so for reasons other than Obama's skin color. For instance, if you had made that comment about being proud of seeing a black American become President, even though you didn't vote for him, your claim would ring true. But given what we know of Hawkins' beliefs of why Democrats support Obama, it just rings hollow that he thinks Obama's election shows that racism is dead.
Is it really all that hard to understand why conservatives who oposse Obama on ideological grounds might still take pride in the fact that, in America, a man's race doesn't disqualify him from fully participating in the public narrative?
That's not hard to imagine at all for some conservatives, or even as a general matter. But it IS hard to imagine for Hawkins. Let's remember that my posting was about Hawkins' shizophrenia. He can't have it both ways. My questions were simply logical follow-ups based on Hawkins own contradictions stated in the quotations I cited.
I just think you are being pretty unfair in your argument that only people who voted for Obama can claim the glory for proving that America isn't a racist nation.
Anybody who didn't consider race as part of their voting criteria gets to share in this glory. That's sort of the whole point!
Yes, it would be unfair of me if what you say is my argument is actually my argument. But it's not my argument at all. You're extrapolating my argument about Hawkins (and those who have made similar kinds of arguments) as a general statement about all conservatives. I agree 100% that anybody who didn't consider race as a part of their own voting criteria, or who didn't impugn the motives of others along racist criteria, gets to share in this glory. Hawkins is not one of those people. He might have opposed Obama on purely ideological grounds (and I don't contest that point. I never have.); but Hawkins has indicated many, many times that Democrats supported Obama on purely racist grounds. So when it comes time not only to share in this glory, but to actually claim this as proof that he (and Republicans) were right about racism in this country and its role in this election just doesn't pass muster. The day Hawkins stops talking about my support for a black candidate in racial terms is the day Hawkins gets to share in the glory.
Hmmm... interesting take, I see where I may have misunderstood you.
Still, I wonder, where does the person stand who voted for Obama on principal, but also believe that large numbers of Democrats voted for him based solely on his race? Is that person in the same camp as Hawkins?
Eric - Regarding your latest question, the obvious short answer is yes. That person, as well as Hawkins, sees race as the exclusive variable in choosing a candidate.
However, the long answer requires distinguishing between that person whose only criteria is race, and that other person who embraces the candidate for his policies and ideology, but who also sees the meaning of his racial identity as significant, too. I wouldn't deny that there are people (maybe many people, for that matter) for whom Obama's race had some meaning for how they thought of him as a candidate. That's no different than considering gender, or sexual orientation, or any other physical attribute as having meaning in one's calculus in support of a candidate. But once one claims that any one of these factors is the exclusive reason for their vote, then we get into the worst of identity politics. But I know very, very few people for whom that's the case.
However, what's really troubling in my eyes is when someone like Hawkins, who proclaims to be color-blind, tends not only to imagine racism at work in the preferences of Democrats for minority candidates, but who also tends to actively and consciously charge racist motivations without any shred of evidence to support those charges.
As I said, I think Hawkins wants to have his heart in the right place, but his words belie a deep and fundamental confusion and contradiction about race. And that tends to manifest itself in his playing the game of race-card politics as well as any of the leftwing race hustlers, all the while lamenting the game itself -- and then topping it off with a disingenuous claim to be "color-blind." Hawkins is not color-blind, he is consumed by color. Sometimes, it seems that skin color is ALL he sees.
Regarding Hawin's, I think it is safe to say that he himself doesn't see things in terms of skin color as you suggest... but he does accuse a lot of Democrats of doing so, essientially calling them racist.
Now, I disagree with his claim. I think liberals on average are about as racist as conservatives, which is to say "not very", (although their racism manifests itself in different ways). As with conservatives, there are pockets within the liberal demographic who are more likely to vote along racial lines.
In your orginal post, where you cite Hawkins, he is very clearly taking aim at the segment voters who were, in fact, making race-basede voting decisions. While he should be expected to back up the "millions" number he threw out there, I don't take offense to him making this point. There are some Democrats who were swayed to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, and their actions are just as disgusting to me as anyone who let his skin color factor into their decision not to vote for him.
Also, you said:
"the long answer requires distinguishing between that person whose only criteria is race, and that other person who embraces the candidate for his policies and ideology, but who also sees the meaning of his racial identity as significant, too."
I just disagre with you Huck, because I don't think you'd be quite so easy on somebody who agreed with Obama's policies, but had a negative view about his racial identity.
Or, to look at it another way, if somebody said, "You know, I really agree with John McCain's policies, and in addition to that I just prefer to have a white men in the oval office." You'd rightfully call such a person a racist. Why do they quit being racist if they say the same thing about a black candidate?
Eric - Again, you are misreading me. Let me try to clarify. I said that we need to distinguish the voter whose sole reason for making a voting decision is skin color. That is clearly, undeniably racist. And someone can certainly be racist and yet elect someone to office primarily on the basis of other criteria. What I was differentiating was that person who finds meaning in race as part of the whole decision-making process, including voting behavior, while not using this meaningfulness to discriminate against someone just because of race. If Barack Obama's race didn't mean anything in this election, neither Hawkins nor McCain would have been talking out the significance of Obama being the first black man to be President. The fact is it does have meaning, and that this meaning has a place in our public life. Let me take your example and show you the difference in what you claim I'm saying and what I'm really trying to convey. You asked: Or, to look at it another way, if somebody said, "You know, I really agree with John McCain's policies, and in addition to that I just prefer to have a white men in the oval office." You'd rightfully call such a person a racist. Why do they quit being racist if they say the same thing about a black candidate?
They don't quit being a racist. But I don't see anyone, except Hawkins, saying that this is what Obama supporters are saying. What I see happening is that people support Obama because they agree with him as a candidate, and they take pride in the fact that he is black. I don't see anyone saying I like Obama's policies and I prefer having a black man in the office just because he's black. In fact, this is the contradiction in Hawkins' position: he wants to take pride in the fact that Obama is black and that this is signficant to our history, yet he wants to say that it is only "color-blind" conservatives who deserve to take credit for and pride in this fact.
And you can take out "black" and insert "female" or "Catholic" or "gay" or "fat" or "atheist" or any other ascribed characteristic of identity, too, and my argument would be the same. It's not that these identity markers are determinative and are used in discriminatory ways, but that they do have meaning to people.
"What I see happening is that people support Obama because they agree with him as a candidate, and they take pride in the fact that he is black."
But, again, if that isn't a type of racism, then would you take issue with somebody who supported him on the issues, but thinks it shameful that we have a black man in office? You say it isn't racist to find inherent meaning in racial identity, but does that only apply towards positive associations and meanings, or does it work both ways? I think I see the point you are making, but don't think it works out logically.
Now, what I see happening is that a lot of people are celebrating the tangible evidence that our country has moved from a country where black people couldn't fully participate in our society, to a country where their race is no longer a limitation. It isn't the color of Obama's skin or his ethnic heritage we are celebrating, it is the removal of unfair barriers.
Nobody should take pride in the fact that Obama is black. Sorry, but I still think that is just plain racism, and only a step removed from certain group of individuals who run around with white sheets on their heads celebrating their own racial identity. The thing to take pride in is the fact that, for all practical purposes, in today's society his blackness is as superficial a quality as the color of his eyes or the size of his ears.
Eric - Do you not think that race is tied into identity in some way? It is undoubtedly true that there is nothing inherent to skin color that determines any kind of superiority or inferiority such that discrimination on the basis of skin color is justifiable or acceptable. I do not deny that at all. But I do think that it is impossible to separate skin color from historical memory, from cultural practice, from identity. That's what I say when I propose that race has meaning to people. In a sense, it's the same thing as being Southern or being Catholic or being gay.
"Do you not think that race is tied into identity in some way?"
Sure it is, but I think it is much less so than it has been in the past, and that is a good thing. The important thing to distinguish is that skin color has taken a back seat to cultural identity when it comes to the importance of race. I can go with my wife's family to the annual Green Corn Ceremony, and there are as many white participants as there are Creek participants, at least based on appearance. Even in tribal politics here in Oklahoma, being Native American has much more to do with cultural identity than skin color, because, due to intermarriage, it is increasingly unlikely that one can determine an Indian from a white person here just by looking.
So I think skin color can be, is, and will continue to be seperated from cultural practice and identity... though I doubt that will be the case with historical memory. And I think that in general, this is a good thing.
Post a Comment