WaPo column (Eugene Robinson): The Favor Jimmy Carter Did Us All

[Heidi]

Friday, September 18, 2009

What I wrote last year about candidate Barack Obama -- that to win he had to be seen as "the least-aggrieved black man in America" -- may be even more relevant now. To lead this diverse and fractious nation effectively, the president has to negotiate racial issues with delicacy, caution and tact. He has to give even his most vocal critics the benefit of the doubt.

But I don't. So I can say in plain language that Jimmy Carter was right in essence, but wrong in degree. It seems clear to me that some -- but not "an overwhelming portion," as Carter claimed -- of the "intensely demonstrated animosity" toward Obama is indeed "based on the fact that he is a black man."

<snip>

Of course it's possible to reject Obama's policies and philosophy without being racist. But there's a particularly nasty edge to the most vitriolic attacks -- a rejection not of Obama's programs but of his legitimacy as president. This denial of legitimacy is more pernicious than the abuse heaped upon George W. Bush by his critics (including me), and I can't find any explanation for it other than race.

I'm not talking about the majority of the citizens who went to town hall meetings to criticize Obama's plans for health-care reform or the majority of the "tea bag" demonstrators who complain that Obama is ushering in an era of big government. Those are, of course, legitimate points of view. Protest is part of our system. It's as American as apple pie.

I'm talking about the crazy "birthers." I'm talking about the nitwits who arrive at protest rallies bearing racially offensive caricatures -- Obama as a witch doctor, for example. I'm talking about the idiots who toss around words like "socialism" to make Obama seem alien and even dangerous -- who deny the fact that he, too, is as American as apple pie.

Read more

(Edited to fix link)

[Cha]

1. Thanks Eugene Robinson for pointing this

out so eloquently.

[goclark]

13. Eugene Robinson nailed it ~

[BlooInBloo]

2. Just like digby said, as well.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/jackie-robinson-rules-by-digby-it-turns.html

[Ignis]

27. Ooh, nice column. I missed it, thanks for the link. (nt)

[LiberalAndProud]

3. Bad link (courant.com)

For full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091703566.html

[Heidi]

4. Fixed now in the OP. Thank you!

:hi:

[DHub999]

5. Pretty well stated

personally, i think the racist element in the protests is
rather miniscule... maybe something like 3 or 4%?


though i have no hard evidence to back this up, it's what i've
observed looking in on other political boards, and talking to
people

[Heidi]

6. Welcome to DU, DHub999. Are you basing your estimate on observations

of posters who make blatantly racist comments/posts about the president? Do you believe racism can exist without overtly racist declarations? For me, racism certainly does exist among people who would never dream of using the "n word."

[SoCalDem]

7. 1 idiot with a gun, and hankering to be "famous" is all it takes

never mind the "percentages"..:grr:

[Heidi]

8. Totally agree.

:hi:

[99 Percent Sure]

9. Right on and thank you, Heidi.

There's no such thing as a little bit pregnant and there's no such thing as a little bit racist. The numbers as well are greater than folk choose to believe, including mealy-mouthed black journalists. Thank goodness none of these folk were Sixties civil rights workers or Dr. King would have been assassinated before the movement ever began. Weak-kneed and cowardly, the lot of them.

I wholeheartedly agree with President Carter without equivocation.

[noiretextatique]

25. President Carter has more guts

than most of the democratic party leadership...and certainly most mealy-mouthed journalists. if people refuse to see what's plainly in their faces i can only conclude that they prefer not to see it.

[DHub999]

28. ??? I seem to be posting in invisible ink?

i'm not sure why, exactly, it's happening, but i DI reply to you, heidi


tyvm for the welcome

[hfojvt]

10. was Robinson a critic of Bush?

Not according to this analysis in 2005
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021805.shtml

and the next day he was on TV to 'balance' Ann Coulter. One hour of Coulter balanced by one hour of Robinson. Except Robinson spent much of his hour praising Republicans and bashing Democrats like Dean, Boxer and Pelosi

"At the three-minute mark, it was more of the same—Republicans “get it” better than Democrats. Of course, there’s plenty to criticize about the Dems, and there’s no reason why a “liberal” scribe shouldn’t do so. But as Robinson’s hour dragged along, we began to wonder if he’d ever say anything negative about any Republican! At the 18-minute mark, for example, he echoed Coulter in tearing down Boxer (along with Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi). (They can’t disagree without being disagreeable, the fierce liberal more-or-less said.) And out in the country, C-SPAN viewers were picking up this liberal’s odd vibe. At the 14-minute mark, a viewer puzzled over Robinson’s claim that the GOP pays more attention to Hispanic voters than the Dems. At the 23-minute mark, a conservative caller praised his outlook, saying that, unlike most liberals, Robinson really was quite “objective.” Indeed, the scribe criticized Dems and liberals throughout. At the 31-minute mark, for example, a conservative caller said that Dems seem to think that whites are superior; Robinson said he agreed in part! Three minutes later, it was time to bash Howard Dean again—and to say, for at least the third time, that Republicans just seem to understand the United States better than Dems do.
By now, we were more than half-way through the hour, and Mr. Robinson—the fierce Post “liberal”—still hadn’t said a single word that was critical of Republicans or conservatives."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh022105.shtml

Although, in some ways this column seems positive

First, he scales back the numbers. MOST of the Obama protestors are NOT racists. In that he seems to agree with me and disagree with Carter and most of DU.

"I'm not talking about the majority of the citizens who went to town hall meetings to criticize Obama's plans for health-care reform or the majority of the "tea bag" demonstrators who complain that Obama is ushering in an era of big government. Those are, of course, legitimate points of view. Protest is part of our system. It's as American as apple pie."

But continuing, he still has to take swipes at perhaps large swaths of voters. They are not just wrong or misinformed by people like Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and Grassley. No, they are 'crazy', 'nitwits' and 'idiots'.

"I'm talking about the crazy "birthers." I'm talking about the nitwits who arrive at protest rallies bearing racially offensive caricatures -- Obama as a witch doctor, for example. I'm talking about the idiots who toss around words like "socialism" to make Obama seem alien and even dangerous -- who deny the fact that he, too, is as American as apple pie."

[Heidi]

11. That he has criticized Dems does not negate the fact that he also criticized Bush.

Eugene Robinson quotes:

“As visual metaphors go, it was a lavishly gilded lily of an image, a hanging curveball across the plate, a George Tenet-style slam-dunk: A weary President Bush, trying to escape a news conference in Beijing on Sunday, strides away from the microphone to a pair of locked doors, which he pulls and tugs in vain. No exit, the image screamed. No way out. Of course, George Bush will inevitably get out of the mess he has made -- he leaves office in three years and two months, not that anyone's counting. But the rest of us will be left with his handiwork: crushing national debt, rising economic inequality, a poisoned political atmosphere and, oh, yes, the war in Iraq. We're the ones trapped in the dark with no exit sign in sight.”

***

"I know that I'm not alone in wishing that Obama were moving more quickly to erase the stain that the Bush-Cheney excesses left on our national honor. I wish Guantanamo were already closed -- but Obama did set a date certain for shutting the place down and pledges to follow through. I'm troubled that he hasn't flatly rejected the concept of indefinite detention -- but he at least recognizes that some kind of due process needs to be involved.

I'm most troubled by Obama's resistance to a full-bore investigation of the Bush-Cheney transgressions. I can only hope that the president sees the error of his ways -- or at least that the probe of CIA interrogation abuses that Atty. Gen. Eric Holder may launch is allowed to follow the evidentiary trail to whatever crimes it may reveal."

***

I'm under no illusion that George W. Bush or Dick Cheney is actually going to be prosecuted by the Justice Department. But I want to know — and I believe the nation needs to know — the full, unvarnished truth of what they and others did in our name. It's probable that painful scrutiny and lasting disgrace will be the only sanctions that Bush and Cheney ever face. But history demands at least that much.

***

"In the Bush administration's program of "enhanced interrogation," this expertise was provided by doctors and psychologists — professionals who are supposed to heal and comfort. A new report by Physicians for Human Rights assembles the evidence and reaches a sickening but inescapable conclusion: "Health professionals played central roles in developing, implementing and providing justification for torture."

Dwell on that for a moment, especially if you believe the Bush administration's decision to submit terrorism suspects to medieval interrogation practices was somehow justifiable — or even if you believe that torture was wrong but that now we should "look forward" and pretend it never happened. This is how torture warps a society and distorts its values."


***

"George W. Bush may not trust America's basic values and highest ideals, but I do"

***

[noiretextatique]

26. how do you, or eugene robinson, know that most protestors aren't racists?

i certainly do not give them the benefit of the doubt. i can only judge them by their actions, and their signs.

[hfojvt]

29. I don't, of course, and I don't think I claimed to know

I do believe, however, in "innocent until proven guilty" and think that it does our cause harm, and is an insult to real discrimination, to fling out unsubstantiated accusations with very little to back them up. Somebody with a racist sign, is clearly racist, although it is not always clear what is a racist sign (is it really racist to call Obama a socialist?). However, a racist sign in a group of 1,000 does not prove that the entire group of 1,000 are racists.

Finally, I don't think this

Wilson: Obama is lying.
Liberal Blogosphere: Wilson is a racist.

is as relevant or effective an argument as

Wilson: Obama is lying
LB: Wilson is wrong, Obama was telling the truth.

The first tactic is just not gonna convince people who are against Obama's plan or who are not sure which side they should support. It also increases the enmity. If we have a national argument between Plan A and Plan B for health care reform it does not help if the two sides are attacking each other instead of discussing the plans on their supposed merits.

One side screams "People who support Plan A are socialists!" and the other side screams back "People who oppose Plan A are racists!" Ultimately something gets passed and it does not make for "domestic tranquility" if each side is nursing anger over the battle.

I always said that it was wrong to attack my patriotism or character just because I was against the war and just because I demonstrated against the war. I bet their side could find some nasty signs at one of our demonstrations, but there is nothing inherently dishonorable in protesting a President or his policies. I can not, or will not, defend my own right to protest and then turn around and applaud character smears against others who protest just because they are protesting something (or somebody) I support.

I expect and hope that their side will admit that there are some good people on our side and will hold to the belief that there are some good people on their side too (at least until it is proven that there are not).

[TexasObserver]

12. Recommend

[AllenVanAllen]

14. I think he is right.

I'm very glad he wrote this, although his assertion that "Jimmy Carter was right in essence, but wrong in degree" may be off.
A 58% majority of republicans still question Obama's legitimacy. I think Carter may be closer in his assumption.

Thanks for posting this Heidi! :hi:

[Heidi]

16. Mornin', AVA!

:hi:

[Raine]

15. On point

:thumbsup:

[madokie]

17. Thanks for the post

otherwise I would have missed what mr Robinson has to say on this.
+1

[Heidi]

18. More than welcome.

Mornin', Oklahoma! I think I missed your Morford this week. :(

[madokie]

20. Not for long

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6560135
:hi:

[Heidi]

22. Thank you!

As average as I am, that one really hit home. ;)

[rucky]

19. In some ways, white males know the depth of bigotry better than minorities.

They're privy to the "locker room" talk. I've been shocked by several of the statements people have made in social situations about race/gender/sexual preference that would never have been said if there were minorities/women/gay people around. Not to say that minorities don't already know or suspect this, but it's sometimes easier for white males to confirm.

[redqueen]

21. I'm so grateful for journalists like Eugene Robinson.

We need many more like him.

[Blue_Tires]

23. well i knew once the nutbars started bringing guns to his appearances

this stopped being about legitimate political difference a long time ago...

[Heidi]

24. I'm 46 and I can't think of a time in my life when even the most hateful contingent

has brought guns to a Dem president's appearances. Wonder why that is? Wait, I think I know.