Politics

Really, it's more on race and class in the U.S.

I. This is old news but I didn't hear it talked about much. A couple of weeks ago, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice weighed in on Obama's speech and the issue of race in this country. She said it was "important" that Obama gave the speech "for a whole host of reasons," and described slavery as a "birth defect" in the founding of our nation. She pointed out that the African American experience is different from that of Asian Americans or Latino Americans in that African Americans are not immigrants (in the sense traditionally used in the U.S. - we're obviously all immigrants compared to Native Americans):

Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together - Europeans by choice and Africans in chains.

But even as she recognized the reason for the anger as expressed by Rev. Wright, Rice was quick to defend black patriotism:

What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them - and that's our legacy.

I bet Obama would agree with her on that, tho I know not all blacks would, and understandably so. Anyway, it was refreshing to see that Rice does recognize that race is still a problem in this country that needs to be addressed. One would think that any semi-intelligent person of color would, but then there's people like Clarence Thomas so ya never know.

II. Hillary Clinton is attacking Obama for using the word "bitter" to describe Pennsylvania's working class, claiming that he is "out of touch" and "elitist." For perspective, this is the full quote in context:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Call me out of touch and elitist (I'm sure some will), but I don't see anything wrong with what he said. Of course it's not true for everyone. Generalizations always have exceptions. But Obama was describing the economic situation and explaining why issues like gun control and immigration might take on more prominence than they otherwise should. It was a compassionate explanation.  Are we at the point where a politician cannot speak the truth (without getting blasted) just because it doesn't sound nice?

Clinton (and McCain) can keep making their claims of elitism, but ultimately it depends on whether the working class who are being talked about see Obama or them as more truthfully describing their situation, not just giving platitudes.  Will people actually buy Clinton as a pro-gun, church-goer?  The Clintons didn't even start attending church until Bill lost re-election of the Arkansas governor's mansion.  We'll see.

Addendum (2008.04.13 4:34 pm)

Tracing back through a series of blogs, I found this great news article that pertains to the Wright controversy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23947058 

Well, I've posted his previous tripe, I might as well post this too.

From Buchanan's 3/21 post on his blog:

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

 

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

....

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

----

I was stunned when he called the influx of Asians into the U.S., after racist quotas were eliminated in 1965, "the greatest invasion in [American] history."  (Methinks the Native Americans would disagree with that.)  I have to say tho that while his anti-Asian comments cut deep personally, this round of anti-black comments is just... I'm flabbergasted.

Is there not the slightest sense of shame when he refers to the forced immigration of Africans as SLAVES and then asks "Where is the gratitude?"

Mr. Buchanan, where is your conscience?

I've been thinking today, if I happened to find myself in a room with Pat, what I could say to him.  I've been wondering how I might stay in relationship with him instead of simply writing him off.  To be a UU means that even those who hate you still have worth and dignity.  

And I can believe that Pat Buchanan is simply ignorant.  Due to his upbringing, he hasn't had the opportunity to experience what it's really like for African Americans in this country.  So he can't understand the anger.

But that really only goes so far.  There is ignorance and there is willful ignorance.  It's one thing to not know and another to refuse to listen when someone is trying to tell you how it is. Buchanan calls Obama's speech "the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running..."  Is he talking about the same speech I heard?  The one where Obama went out of his way to recognize the legitimacy of white anger, and called on us - all of us - to rise above the hatred?  Obama recognizes the legitimacy of white anger, and Buchanan ignores it.  Obama articulates the source of black anger, and Buchanan calls it a "con/shakedown" and Obama a "hustler."

If I found myself in a room with Mr. Buchanan, it seems to me that whatever I tried to say he wouldn't listen.

Today in the blogosphere, I came face to face with why it is that we can't all just get along. Because our views of the same exact event are so fundamentally different, and because there is so much misinformation out there.

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs has scheduled a markup hearing to consider funding the reauthorization the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Of the money, one-third of it is earmarked for "abstinence only" (until marriage) programs, even tho studies show that "abstinence only" fails to prevent the spread of HIV. Some of those who support continuing this earmark hosted a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday to say so. Some of those who want the earmarks removed, such as the UUA, so that all of the money can go to comprehensive programs, staged a counter protest of sorts, standing behind the speakers with signs.

Here are blog posts about it from R H Reality Check and the UUA's Washington Office. (You can see my colleague in the back in the red, holding up a sign.)

I can understand that there is a serious difference of opinion here. Some of us think it's morally important to teach people to wait until marriage for sex, and some of us just want to provide the information that will best prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS without judgment as to whether and when people should have sex.

But still, here's how a pro-lifer site presented the exact same event: Concerned Women for America - Help Africa, Save PEPFAR

I'm really appalled that they characterized us as the "abortion lobby." And by the claim that we're trying to take money away from good Christians providing "health care" to poor Africans so that we can fund abortions. First of all, how is their preaching abstinence only considered "health care"? Second, we want COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED, meaning teach the people about condoms instead of preaching at them to wait for marriage. If they allowed the teaching of condom use there wouldn't be as many abortions! Who is it that is truly against abortions?

How can there be any hope of compromise if we can't even characterize each other's positions fairly?

So these historic Dem primaries pose a question: which is the biggest barrier to getting elected president, gender or race?

In all honesty I spend a lot more time ruminating on the inequities of race than I do gender. I can list countless times where I have been made to feel "less" or "other" due to my slanted eyes, and very few times due to my vagina. But what I suspected might be the case, and what is becoming increasingly obvious, is that gender is the bigger barrier, possibly because it is more invisible.

First, there is the more obvious stuff like criticizing Clinton's personal features - her hair, her clothes, her voice, her laugh. These are petty criticisms that for the most part would not be directed at men. I was appalled one day upon entering an online forum to find a (female) member had posted an especially unflattering picture of Clinton, with the challenge to write an equally unflattering caption. But unflattering pictures of Clinton abound in the media.

Then, we had to witness Edwards, Obama, and the supposedly neutral moderator, Charles Gibson, gang up on Clinton during the "debate" on Jan. 5th. "Gang up" is a loaded term but I see no nicer way to put. How else does one explain the debate moderator thinking it reasonable to ask Clinton why so many voters found her "unlikeable"? The animus was so obvious that poor Bill Richardson remarked, "I’ve been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this."

When Clinton got angry over the attacks - a very human reaction - it was characterized by the media as a "meltdown." She doesn't even get to be called "angry" like a man, instead the media chose a word that implies feminine weakness, hysteria.

The challenge is that a lot of people think that just as long as you don't say, "I won't vote for a woman" then it's not sexism. They don't take into account all the other factors that make them less likely to vote for a woman. A lot of people think their animus towards Clinton is purely personal. I've heard people say, "I'm not against a woman president, just not that woman. On the surface, this seems reasonable, doesn't it? After all, we are allowed to dislike people on an individual level, for their personal flaws, without being accused of sexism (or racism for that matter).

But let's take a closer look at the personal flaws that Mrs. Clinton supposedly has.

I've heard that she's aggressive, ambitious, domineering. All of these traits are considered positive in men, but apparently unacceptable in women. No one accuses Barack Obama of being overly ambitious in his run for president, even tho he's only recently been elected to the Senate and Clinton has been elected twice. Why? Because a man who wants power is understandable, it does not conflict with accepted norms, whether he is black or white. But if a woman shows the same ambition it's perceived negatively. That kind of bias is sexism.

Pundits, in seeking to explain why Clinton won New Hampshire when they had written her off, are now saying that it's because she "cried." In doing so, she showed her human side. "Why," they ask, "didn't she do that before?," as if this were due solely to some personal failing on her part. But Clinton walks a fine line here. If she is hard, cold, and ambitious, she is seen as the bitch. If she is warm and approachable, she is seen as weak - NOT "Commander in Chief" material. If her misty eyes did help Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, the irony is that it came at the expense of what she's been trying to be all her life - strong, self-reliant... the traits that many of us look for in a president.