Steve Scalise and His Catholicism

So much has been swirling through my head the last couple of days about Steve Scalise.  I am still trying to process it all and collect my thoughts.  There is just so much about this situation that bothers and concerns me.  I'm likely to post more on this in the future, but one of the things that I want to comment on now is the repeated reference by Scalise to his Catholic faith and its unequivocal stance condemning racism.

The reference to one's religious faith as a moral identity marker, especially among conservatives, is nothing new.  But so often, folks who trot out their faith and wear it on their sleeve are the very people who use this as a bludgeon against the rest of us believers who are reluctant to use their faith in such a ham-handed way.

The reason why I, at least, am cautious about bringing up my religion as a baseline argument for social policy is that I find myself often at odds with my faith's position on a wide variety of social issues.  People like me are often accused by religious purists (and I would consider Scalise to be one of these purists), of being a Cafeteria Catholic, because I don't buy they whole package deal of Catholic teaching on all social issues.

But here we have Steve Scalise using Catholicism as a measure of his morality when it comes to the social problem of racism.  If we were to believe Scalise, we should understand that when he says he abhors racism because his Catholic faith instructs him to do so.  But here's the rub:  the Catholic faith also instructs him to support a living wage, to oppose the death penalty, to condemn the intrinsic evil of torture.  But Scalise doesn't adhere to what Catholicism demands of him in these instances.

Now, it's fine if Scalise himself is a Cafeteria Catholic, rejecting the guidance and instruction of his faith and church on such matters.  Who am I to throw stones here?  But what I would suggest is that Scalise be a bit more humble and equally cautious in using a knee-jerk reference to his Catholicism to prove he is not racist.  It's just not believable.  Perhaps he is a "Cafeteria Catholic" in this regard, too; and speaking to a racist hate group, with a wink and a nod, because he relies on their votes, tells us as much.

Segregation, Black Culture, and Conservative Colorblindness

Today, as I was on the stationary bike trying to get in shape, lose some pounds, and meet my New Year's resolution, I was listening (again) to an NPR Jazz Profiles episode.  This particular episode focused on Nat King Cole as a singer.  As usual, the profile was simply outstanding, as every single one of them is.

But what got me thinking as I listened to the profile (and it could have been any number of profiles about pre-Civil Rights black jazz musicians) is how disingenuous and thoughtless is the current conservative pretension to embrace a kind of "colorblindness" when it comes to race -- even in matters of cultural expression and identity.  I have argued on any number of occasions about the existence and value of expressions of ethnic and racial identity through social and cultural outlets and traditions.  I contend that there is such a thing as culture linked to race and that not only is this not a bad thing, but should actually be embraced and celebrated as part of the rich diversity of our country's racial and ethnic heritage.

But I can't tell you how many times I've been called a "racist" by conservatives who pretend to embrace a "colorblind" attitude when they read my thoughts on the subject and think that my position amounts to perpetuating a society where things are determined exclusively by skin color.  I think these people conflate and confuse racism with simple racial identity.  There is a difference between political oppression and discrimination on the basis of race and an acknowledgment that black culture exists and that black people identify with this culture because of their race.

And as I was listening to Nancy Wilson narrate the profile of Nat King Cole, it dawned on me that the history of racial segregation and discrimination must be considered as a force that actually conditioned the creation of black culture.  A shared culture linked exclusively to race was, I think, partly born of black people (and other marginalized peoples) forced to live in a segregated world that was defined by race and ethnicity.  Let's just take music as an example (and jazz music in particular).  White jazz performers who catered to white audiences were identified by a particular kind of jazz music.  Just listen to Stan Kenton and his orchestra, or Benny Goodman and his orchestra, or Paul Whiteman and his orchestra, etc., to get a feel for the way white jazz bands performed.  On the other hand, black jazz performers who catered to black audiences were identified by a very different style of music.  Chick Webb and his orchestra, Louis Jordan and his "tympany five," Cab Callaway and his orchestra, Count Basie and his orchestra, Duke Ellington and his orchestra, etc.  Even the musicians and commentators in the Jazz Profile series often speak of this difference.  And we can apply this differentiation to other aspects of culture as well -- food, religious traditions, dance, linguistics, etc.

The difference in culture was born out of a forced difference in association.  Might I be so bold as to suggest that if there weren't racial segregation and discrimination in this country, there might be a more universal "American" culture shared by all without disaggregations because of race.  But we have what we have today because of our history of racial segregation and discrimination.

Yes, there is a black culture shared by the young black woman in Oregon and the elderly black man in Georgia.  This shared culture is defined by race.  Being "black" has meaning.  And to try to "erase" that shared culture by adopting this contemporary conservative meme of "colorblindness" is not only naive (in that it ignores history) but it is also, I would argue, racist in and of itself.  It's basically a claim, under the insidious guise of colorblind equality, that being culturally black in America, even given the realities of our history, is an unacceptable expression of racism.  The conservative folks whose ancestors demanded a separate world for black people because of race now seek to claim that the cultural legacies of this world that was forced on black people by segregation, legacies that remind and celebrate the black experience in America, should cease to exist.  And how arrogant, patronizing, condescending, and outlandish is that?!?!

Race and the GOP

I have often called out conservatives for their cynical use of race in their own politics. There is a kind of schizophrenia within the supposedly "color-blind" conservative approach to race where conservatives insist on demonstrating how "color-blind" they are by pointing to all the people of color that have succeeded in the GOP because of their merits. And they tend to highlight and applaud such people of color within the conservative movement. One case in point is Thomas Sowell, the black conservative economist. Another case in point is Michael Steele, the chairman of the RNC. But the problem is that in their earnestness to show how "color-blind" they are by having people of color in positions of power and authority, they paint themselves into the box of not being able to respond to folks like Michael Steele and Thomas Sowell without being sensitive to their race.

For instance, whenever a black liberal intellectual speaks out on a particular social issue, whether involving race or not, conservatives often tend to try to find a black conservative intellectual to face off against this black liberal intellectual. And whenever a black conservative leader, like Michael Steele, faces complaint and scandal for his performance, conservatives are just as inclined to soften their criticism for fear of being called out as racially insensitive. And it doesn't help when Michael Steele himself acknowledges that his race gives him "slimmer margins" of performance expectations among his own ideological brethren. Race matters. It just does. And the more conservatives try to pretend that it doesn't, the more they actually make it so.

Joshua Green captures the conundrum of the race problem for the GOP by referencing the kid-glove treatment Michael Steele is getting. As Green notes:

It's impossible to imagine his [Steele's] magisterial display of buffoonery going unpunished in almost any circumstance--but it is going unpunished, and Steele appears to be in no danger of losing his job. Far from being a problem, his race is all that's standing between Steele and a pink slip.

The GOP, on the other hand, does have a race problem. It won't fire Michael Steele because he is black. ...

It's remarkable that Republicans, after a generation of complaining about racial quotas and political correctness, seem paralyzed by Steele's race. They appear to have internalized the very "liberal mindset" they once warned against. Steele presents a perfect opportunity for them to leave race aside and make a judgment strictly on merit. And they're flinching.

And this is, in a nutshell, what I mean when I refer the conservative schizophrenia regarding race.

Racism, Birtherism, and Basketball

The All American Basketball Alliance is proudly calling for a new segregationist culture. Apparently, this group is consciously and purposefully setting up an all white basketball league. Why? No reason than it just doesn't like non-whites and can't stand the thought of shooting hoops with them. Good God Almighty. What has this country come to?

And, yet, the most illuminating thing about this whole bizarre thing is how the anti-Obama birther movement is intimately linked to the All American Basketball Alliance's mission. Read this statement from the All American Basketball League:

"Only players that are natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league."

These people are nuts. And I bet every single one of the league organizers, players, and supporters identifies as an anti-Obama birther and a movement conservative.

What Constitutes Racism?

I have once again been bantering with some conservatives over at Right Wing News about the subject of race and racism. No need to get into the specific details of the conversation, but my discussion over there did cause me to ponder a hypothetical situation related to race and I do want to throw out a couple of questions for readers of The Huck Upchuck to hear what you have to say.

Here's the hypthetical (which is not unimaginable and probably, in fact, happens with some regularity): You are a white person who is out shopping for a Barbie doll for a little white girl in your family (let's say granddaughter, daughter, niece, or cousin). You know for certain that this little girl really wants a Barbie doll, and you will not go home without one. You arrive at the local department store to find that all the white Barbie dolls have been sold, but there are still a few black Barbie dolls on the shelves.

Here's the question, in two parts: (1) Do you grab a black Barbie doll and purchase this as your gift, or do you head back to the car and head over to another department store in search of a white Barbie doll? (2) If you decide to pass on the black Barbie doll and search elsewhere for a white Barbie doll, does that make you a racist?

I have my own thoughts and answers, but I'm gonna sit on them a bit so that I can hear from you first.

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due: John Hawkins at Right Wing News and the St. Louis School Bus Beating Incident

I've been a fierce critic of conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News on many occasions, and especially on his schizophrenia regarding the subject of race. Given that, I think it is only fair and just that I take the time to point out that Hawkins was one of the few conservatives in the very early stages of the breaking story about the St. Louis School Bus Beating Incident who didn't instantly jump on the "racism" bandwagon. When it became clear that the incident was less about racial tension and seemed more about simple grade school bullying, conservatives like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh, who shamelessly race hustled this incident, were left with egg on their faces for their incendiary race-baiting that they still haven't apologized for or backed down from.

But John Hawkins, to his credit, didn't take the bait. On this instance, Hawkins demonstrated a measure of sanity and restraint that his fellow conservative bloggers and pundits failed to show. I think that deserves some positive recognition on The Huck Upchuck given how often I've criticized Hawkins here.

Leonard Pitts Jr. on Race

I just read Leonard Pitts Jr.'s latest syndicated column on the subject of race and how conservatives are appropriating the use of race in ways that they supposedly detest. To capture the sentiment, Pitts starts his column off with an email he received last year. The email was short and utterly ironic. This is what it said:

"You are such a racist nigger."

Incredible, no? Then Pitts, referencing as an example conservative pundit Glenn Beck's recent charge on national television that Barack Obama is a racist, goes on to provide an excellent summation of some of my thinking on the subject, and why I think painting Obama in whiteface, for example, even in reference to Heath Ledger's Joker, is problematic. Pitts explains thus:

Plainly, this newfound concern about "racism" represents an attempt by conservatives to claim and neutralize the language of racial complaint, to do to it what they did to words like "liberal" and "feminist" -- i.e., to render it unusable.

But they are playing with fire in a dynamite warehouse.

What wound in all American life is more raw than race? What is more likely than race to suddenly flare into conflagration? Our most ruinous war was about race. Our greatest social revolution was about race. We have seen a hundred riots and rebellions fueled by race. Race is a major component of our most vexing issues: healthcare, education, the environment, crime. It is our most profound and oldest regret, a tender spot on the American psyche.

Which is why it's often difficult even for thoughtful people to have thoughtful discussions about it. One is at pains to tread carefully, to probe the issues, seek enlightenment and, yes, to dissent -- without blowing up the dynamite warehouse. Then, in walks Glenn Beck carrying a torch.

To be more specific, Pitts's reference to Glenn Beck concerns when Beck called Barack Obama a racist who hates white people on national television and then 75 seconds later said that he wasn't saying that he thought Obama didn't like white people. But the central point Pitts is trying to make is the following:

[Facing the hard truths of race head on] will never happen as long as men like Beck find it profitable to toy with fire in a warehouse full of dynamite. God forbid it takes an explosion for them to get what should be obvious:

There are some things you just don't play with.

Exactly. Read the whole column by Pitts. It's excellent. And when you're done with that, watch this (especially around about the 6 minute mark):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
So You Think You Can Douche
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Conservatives and Race

I've written about this before, but it's worth repeating again in the context of Gatesgate and this new poster making the rounds in the blogosphere that has Obama gussied up like Heath Ledger's joker.

I'll leave the whole Gates incident aside for the moment and speak just a little bit about the Obama-as-Joker poster. At a conservative blog I frequent to keep my pulse on what is riling the conservative blogosphere and punditocracy, I made a passing comment on this Obama-as-Joker poster that has stirred up all kinds of vitriol and animosity towards me. I think I was point-blank called a racist about a half dozen times, and sometimes for nothing more than being a liberal Democrat.

What did I say to get conservatives in such a tizzy? Well, in response to this conservative blogger's efforts to spread the poster out to the far corners of the country to undermine Obama as President, I wrote: "A black man in whiteface. Yeah, that'll do it. Just keep at it folks."

When the other commenters predictably started frothing at the mouth calling me a racist, I felt the need to explain that recognizing that this poster might stir up racial resentments linked to the history of race and the practice of black/white facepainting in an effort to demean another human being might not be the best way for conservatives to go about criticizing Obama. And then this discussion progressed, again, to the meaning of race in America. Of course, I argued, as I usually do, that race has meaning to cultural identity and that there's nothing wrong with that as long as that meaning isn't one that seeks to justify discrimination, oppression, and civil rights violations. But, many conservatives, whether through having become so gun-shy about being labeled racist, simply can't seem to recognize that race has meaning to cultural identity, even when they acknowledge such a thing implicitly. For instance, when conservatives speak about the "black" church and its alignment with conservative values on such social issues as gay marriage and the morality of homosexuality are ascribing some meaning to black identity that is distinct from that of other racial or ethnic communities.

For my part, I am readily willing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as black identity and that there is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, conservatives always pretend towards color-blindness and claim that race has no meaning at all in the public square. I think this is simply absurd. They simply cannot seem to grasp that discrimination in social policy on the basis of race is distinct from a shared racial cultural identity. The former is racism, the latter is simply a cultural identity marker much like gender, language, sexual orientation, regional association (i.e. Southern), religion, etc., are. For instance, as a Catholic, I can travel across the world and feel some kind of solidarity and companionship with other Catholics simply because we share this common identity and all that it means. There is nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in that. And so to suggest that the Obama-as-Joker poster, which paints a black man in whiteface, might have ramifications based on the history of race in this country, is nothing more than acknowledging that race has meaning in this country. But when conservatives can only respond to this suggestion with the claim that anyone who says as much is a racist, then I think it is fair to say that conservatives have become the race-obsessed people hurling charges of racism at the drop of a hat, people that they claim to detest, instead of the color-blind people that they would fashion themselves as being. But maybe I'm missing something myself in this whole subject; so if you have some thoughts on this, please enlighten me.