The Woke Attack on Pete Buttigieg

[highplainsdem]

Best analysis I've seen yet of what was wrong with Michael Harriot's bizarre attack on Buttigieg:


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/attack-mayor-pete/602755/

A beautiful illustration of the difference between Twitter and the real world is the viral status of Michael Harriot’s attack on Mayor Pete Buttigieg in The Root as a “lying MF.”

Buttigieg’s sin was to state, in 2011, that inner-city black kids are hobbled from getting the education they need because they lack role models who attest to the benefits of education. “And there are a lot of kids—especially [in] the lower-income, minority neighborhoods—who literally just haven’t seen it work. There isn’t someone who they know personally who testifies to the value of education.”

Many will already wonder what was wrong here: After all, is it not a mantra of enlightened thought about race to bemoan the absence of role models for various beneficial behaviors? However, to Harriot, Buttigieg’s reference to this truism was “lying.” The nut of the issue is that there are other reasons inner-city kids fail to graduate or go to college, such as funding disparities, unequal curriculum resources, and violence.

All of those things are real. Unreal, however, is Harriot’s leap of logic: that in not mentioning those things, Buttigieg was inherently denying their existence, and that in noting the lack of role models, he was blaming black people for their own problems. Buttigieg’s transgression seems to have been that he did not mention all of the reasons black kids have trouble accessing education in underserved neighborhoods. A more elaborate answer would have been more sophisticated. But why would anyone read him as an “MF” for not ticking off the whole list?

Civil-rights leaders of the recent past would be baffled by the pique here, as, I’m sure, would Americans who don’t spend most of their waking hours on social media. It’s been widely noted of late that “woke” white people are “woker” than most black people. It is also true that “woke” black people in academia and media are “woker” than a great many black people who don’t have the privilege of a byline. Harriot is assuming that Buttigieg must have meant that the lack of role models is due simply to some pathology among black people, when actually, almost anyone who publicly talks of role models in this way intends, via implication, that the lack of role models is due to larger societal factors.

-snip-

The degree of aggrievement here must be clear. I will let Harriot speak for himself:

This is why institutional inequality persists. Not because of white hoods and racial slurs. It is because this insidious double-talk erases the problem by camouflaging it. Because it is painted as a problem of black lethargy and not white apathy. Pete Buttigieg is standing over a dying man, holding the oxygen machine in his hand and telling everyone: “Nah, he doesn’t need CPR. He’s just holding his breath.” Negligent homicide is still homicide.

Recall, folks, that this is being written about Pete Buttigieg. Pique of this heat in this situation seems totally unjustified, unless you perceive Buttigieg’s comments as a form of blasphemy. It is as if Buttigieg gave a Christian sermon without mentioning God or Jesus, or listed only five Commandments. It’s one thing to observe that someone’s analysis is incomplete. It’s another to read that incompleteness as a kind of willful denial, sit in fury, and tar someone as a lying MF guilty of negligent homicide. As I’ve said before, this sort of response is more religious than rational; it bypasses the bounds of logic into the realm of imposed liturgy, of ritual: We are less to think than to pose and follow.

Yesterday, Buttigieg was large enough to actually telephone Harriot, upon which they had what The Root billed as a “productive” conversation. However, this verdict is based on the assumption that Buttigieg had something to apologize for and needed to be “schooled” on how structural racism works. That is based on a kabuki version of race relations, all about striking poses. Buttigieg has made it glaringly obvious in countless ways that he understands structural racism. He also understands the rituals of our current race debate, amid which, as a candidate for president, it will serve him well to seek out Harriot to “listen” and “acknowledge.”

If Pete Buttigieg has done anything that reveals him as an MF, it was not that night in 2011.

Emphasis added.

And I agree completely with this take on Harriot's column.

[JonLP24]

1. I love Michael Harriot

I've been reading him long before this Buttigieg article.

[Eyeball_Kid]

3. I plead ignorance. I don't know about Michael Harriot,

but I do know that his argument about Buttigieg is biased and sophomoric. IMO, Buttigieg is virtually flawless in his rhetoric. He knows how to use language in a way that separates himself from guttural politics. And that's refreshing.

No, I'm not backing Buttigieg. There's plenty of time for committing to a favorite.

But I DO have a beef about Democratic Party assumptions about the Primary process: as Democrats, we seem to seek the perfect candidate that answers all of our concerns. Media corporations constantly push this 20 month "horse race" to benefit their ad sales. MSNBC and CNN are remarkably adept at marketing a political horse race that trivializes the real policy decisions that must be made by the next change in government. We are supposed to breathlessly await the next poll numbers and who drops and gains in "popularity," as if that becomes an indicator of what the nation needs and what the voting public wants. Corporate media abandons the policy issues and focuses on meaningless poll numbers between their commercial breaks. And it's the commercial breaks, the ads, that are what really motivates the news cycles. But this context is something that the Democratic Party apparently ignores. They buy right into the corporate concept of a free and fair election process, primaries and all. But the corporate concept is seriously flawed.

I am always listening to the news within the context of a book I read in the 1980s titled, "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander. I suggest that DU readers return to the concepts described by Mander-- not for the literal elimination of television, but for the reminder that television exists as a now-necessary feature of corporate capitalism. It's what makes consumer-driven economies thrive, and it's what also stifles vitally necessary and valid expressions within the body politic.

[judeling]

10. This occured in 2011 not 1980 or even 2000

Quite frankly I am increasingly finding Buttigieg as an adapt opportunist. He has all the moves I just have no Idea of why he makes them.

The problem I see is that he makes people comfortable in their bias. That particular argument at that time was being fought against by those who understood it. It is at its core see it isn't our fault it is theirs. With just a little work and a bit of understanding he would have known that.

[Thekaspervote]

12. +1000

It seems a lot of his stumbles have been from inexperience. ...period. And it’s not just this issue- his handling of his pac, comments about the tea party

That in itself is enough to show he just isn’t ready for the world stage. Run for congress or gov, gain some real political accomplishments ... then

[dsc]

27. Your candidate fondly remembers working with segregationists and you have the nerve to attack Pete

over those remarks, give me an ever loving break.

[JonLP24]

11. In an era of Trump I appreciate The Root's perspectives

I don't agree with them all the time but I appreciate their perspective.

[highplainsdem]

13. You haven't missed anything important. In 2016, Harriot denounced Hillary Clinton as too "evil"

for him to vote for her.

He was wrong about that.

He was also wrong when he claimed that he wouldn't be helping Trump by not voting for Clinton.

To the extent he influenced anyone else who might otherwise have voted for Clinton as the Democratic candidate to stay home or vote for someone else instead, Harriot deserves some of the blame for Trump being elected.

[ChiTownDenny]

15. In my book,

that makes Harroit the MF.

[question everything]

16. +1

[cwydro]

17. Thank you for your OP and this post.

I can’t stand Harriot.

[oasis]

18. Harriot was "part of the problem" that caused a dent in the 2016 turnout.

Whatever he has to say about any of our Dem candidates has to be taken with consideration of his more recent shortsightedness.

[Cha]

21. Harriot doesn't sound very "Woke" to me.

[Celerity]

22. did you love this? Michael Harriot : I'm Not With Her Because I'm Petty

https://www.theroot.com/i-m-not-with-her-because-i-m-petty-1790856224

snip

I’ve always been this way. Whenever anyone does something objectionable to me or someone I love, I can’t f—k with them anymore. I can’t place my arm around them and smile in photographs. I can’t greet them with a Christian hug after church. I stay away from them forever. By default, I love everyone, but if I don’t love you, I want to fight you. Forever. I can forgive you. I can forget you. But not both. Nowadays they call that “petty,” so I guess I’m petty.

That’s why I’m not “with her.”

Whenever I state this, troglodyte thinkers automatically assume that I’m with Donald Trump. I’ve written more scathing condemnations of Trump than I have of any other human being (except maybe Kanye West). There is a prevailing school of shallow thought that if you’re not helping Hillary Clinton, you're helping Donald Trump. I am not that stupid. That’s not how math works. That’s not how the Electoral College works. But let me be clear: I am not with Donald Trump. I think he is a racist, entitled poster-boy-for-white-privilege half-wit capitalizing on white nationalism and Caucasian fear.

Is that clear enough for you?

I do not want Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as president of the United States, but most of the people reading this already know the litany of reasons we should reject the thought of voting for Trump. Those people tell me they aren’t necessarily in love with Clinton, but they are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. I will not choose evil.

snip

[JonLP24]

23. I mean more recent posts

I wasn't even aware of The Root around the 2016 election. When I learned of the Root and Harriot I would read many articles posted under his name. I agree with his articles where he calls out racism. I don't agree with everything said over there, Bernie Sanders gets called out as well.

I agree with what Cornell West says a lot even though he endorsed Jill Stein. I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and will vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020 no matter what because Trump is so awful.

[Celerity]

24. Cornel West is poison, his stances are electoral suicide and he deffo helped Rump get elected.

He will try and do so again, of that I am sure.

The US is far too spun to the right on a systemic electoral map basis (due to decades of RW gerrymandering, propaganda, and voter suppression, etc) for a far left agenda to every have more (atm) than a token congressional presence. Far left (and I use the term far left in a strictly American sense, as a large amount of the Democratic Centrists, Moderates and certainly the few Conservative Democrats left would be firmly in the middle and more than likely on the rightward edge of most centre-right political parties here in Western and Northern Europe) candidates simply cannot win in pink/purple/reddish/red swing districts at present. 2018 showed thsi to be the case, as no Sanderite-style politician flipped a swing district from red to blue. Almost every single flip was done by a moderate or a centrist Democratic candidate. The closest one MIGHT claim where a farther left person did flip was the now (RW-scandal mongers-led) run out Katie Hill, and she was hardly a fire-breathing Omar or AOC type.

I have no problem at all with farther left candidates primarying an incumbent in a SAFE BLUE district. I SO hope the odious Lipinksi and Cuellar (anti-LGBTQ, pro-life, anti-immigrant, anti-Obama, pro-gunner (Cuellar is A rated by the NRA), anti climate change, pro private prisons etc, campaigning and fundraising for RETHUGs (Cuellar again) etc) goe down hard in IL and TX, as those 2 seats are safe Blue.

That said, those are probably the ONLY 2 I REALLY hope go down. I NEVER support primarying a vulnerable Democratic in a swing pink/purple/reddish/red seat. It is madness and if it happened enough, we would lose our House majority. I am FAR more pragmatic in my American politics than I am when I am voting in Europe (I am a UK/US dual citizen and also have the right to vote in Sweden.) simply because of electability as dictated by the RW artificial skewage. A lack of proportional representation is also another huge barrier to a more left leaning Congressional representational superstructure. That will not change (you would have to shred much of the core the US Constitution dealing with the literal entire structure of the government.)

It will take decades to reverse the systemic rightward movement and rigging that the Rethugs and the RW have spun up since the late 1960's. The state legislatures are a huge key, as 2020 is also a Census year, and if we win a lot of state legislatures back, we can really start to unfuck the artificially RW electoral map when the new apportionments come out.

[JonLP24]

25. I don't think his stances are that scary

He has always been the same person including the same person where Obama sought his endorsement in 2008.

As far as primaries let the voters decide. The DCCC usually pressures a progressive to drop out & threaten to use opposition research against them. Can't blame this on the far left but reading the word "far left" reminds me when I tortured myself and watched Bill O'Reilly in the early 2000s. The conservatives are the extremists supported by propaganda & lies like climate change is a hoax.

By the 2nd half of Obama we had a lot of Democrats DemExited so I think we lose more support with centrist policies by giving the Republicans over half of what they want in a negotiation.

---

When Barry Goldwater ran he was this anti New Deal conservative that the moderate Republicans that supported the New Deal were scared he would the lose the election back then (things were different back then we weren't so partisan -- I think a generic Democrat is guaranteed to be in a 50/50 race because we are so partisan) which he did but 16 years later the country elected Reagan and now the party is more insane than Goldwater.

George Will said "We [...] who voted for him in 1964 believe he won, it just took 16 years to count the votes."

I believe this country is heading toward a progressive direction we may not be there just yet but I think Clinton era politics & neo con politics are over.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. By this logic we can rehabilitate Trumper MAGAzis by pairing them with better thinkers

any takers?

[CTyankee]

4. It's amazingly simple: listen to black folk when discussing this subject.

There are some amazing black spokeswomen and men on shows like Morning Joe. IMO, there should be more. Pete is great and I love him but he could use some schooling from black folks themselves and proceed from there...

[highplainsdem]

6. The author of this critique of Harriot's column is black.

[CTyankee]

7. and that is his opinion. Duly noted.

[Cosmocat]

20. Black people know bullshit when they see it/hear it

They don't need/want white people TRYING to figure them or their circumstances out and trying to figure out how to talk to them or about them.

You either get it or you don't.

They value people who are like them - genuine and honest.

Match up getting it with those qualities and you start to hit the mark.

Honestly, Pete and EW are similar in that they are who they are, genuine, well intentioned, get it and super smart. Why they are my top two.

This was a test for Pete, to see how he responded.

He passed it.

[Kurt V.]

5. the background of these 2 men are completely different. thus so are their views.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Two black people have different opinions about a white candidate

So, let's pit them against each other so that white people can try to prove that the one who criticized the white candidate is not only wrong, but crazy and mean - instead of thinking about and discussing the different perspectives that black people bring to the conversation.

[Alithea]

9. +1 Thanks for posting

[evertonfc]

14. Harriot can

piss off. Why do I give a shit what he thinks about Pete. Pete is perfectly qualified and I could care less what he said or how it was interpreted by someone a decade ago. Let Harriot serve and attempt to weave the difficult path of being everything to everybody. I support Pete but I'm voting for Biden. Not because what some guy who sits around and has the luxury of simply writing for a living thonks. I would love to compare the resume of Pete and Harriot and look at what they have done for people. My guess is it would be an embarrassing comparison. So, keep fighting for people Pete, in the trenches- Harriot can keep writing and dividing. As I ask a table of friends and family 10 minutes ago...Have you ever heard of Michael Harriot? Not one person has and 6 of 8 of us were black. Enough said.

[Cosmocat]

19. It was a test

He went so far over the top to test Pete out, see how he responded.

See if he was for real or not.

If Pete got all indignant or reacted angrily, it would show he is not the good guy he seems to be.

If he tried too hard and got kiss ass, would show him to be say anything politician.

As usual, Pete was real and handled it well.

[Joinfortmill]

26. I like Mayor Pete a lot

We could do a lot worse, and currently are.

[BannonsLiver]

28. Harriot is a racist

I’ve got no interest in what he says about our candidates. He might as well be Alex Jones as far as I’m concerned.

[nsd]

29. +1

I don't understand how people can respect Michael Harriot. He is not as loathsome as his counterparts on the right, but his writing and opinions are quite worthless.

I'm not enamored of Buttigieg (whom I refuse to call Mayor Pete) but this attack was absurd and disgusting.

[cwydro]

30. This.

Spot on.