Code
By Mitch Berg
The other day, I wrote a piece about regional DFL activists and media figures trafficking in what I perceive (correctly, I think) to be Administration talking points.
Pat Kessler – WCCO’s long-time Capitol correspondent and one of Minnesota’s foremost political journalists – notes that he’s been sending the following clarification to emailers asking about the appearance on KFAN that started the brouhaha:
You need to know I did not call health care opponents racists.
What I said Saturday was that some of the tension around the debate over President Obama’s policies is ‘about race’- some; not all or even most, but some.
I also referred to ‘code words’ and phrases, and I could have been clearer. I did not mean that everyone who uses such language intends it to frighten or disparage black people. However, it is a matter of historical fact that certain rhetoric has had that impact in the past, and that some black people might — and do– interpret it that way today.
Well, fair enough, as far as it goes.
But – and I’m not aiming this at Kessler, specifically – there’s another set of code words and phrases at play here. There’s a solid case to be made that the biggest divide Obama brings out in America is class, not race.
Class is all over the place these days. From Obama’s two-tiered healthcare plan and the privately-educated elites’ assault on vouchers and school choice to Elizabeth Gates’ snarks about Sgt. Crowley’s eye liner, the Obama Administration is all about class divides; the nation’s self-appointed brain trust has gotten the hoi-polloi to anoint one of them (of a conveniently PR-worthy race) as president, and now they’re getting their due, exorcising their white liberal guilt at the wheel of the biggest spending machine in history.
And the campaign against dissent is dredging up – and creating – all kinds of code words to keep the peasants down and in their place. Dissent from Obamacare, from Porkulus and the Eternal Deficit is compared with a regime that murdered tens of millions and made toothbrush mustaches forever out; gigglingly linked with a mild but lurid sex act generally associated with homosexual relations; lumped with a hare-brained “birther” conspiracy that every significant dissenter has repudiated; put on watch lists and impugned with the slander that it is sympathetic with likes of Timothy McVeigh and Gordon Kahl, even with the idea of killing the President.
In short – dissent is called the province of the ignorant, depraved and, let’s face it, “racist” masses that the government needs to protect the rest of America from.
America has a racist past, it’s true. Unlike every other significant nation on earth, America has spent the past 150 years wrestling with that past, in its own imperfect way.
Maybe all that prejudice and hate need to go somewhere; the people who dare to dissent while middle-class and unconnected with clout are the unlucky, and absolutely permissible, targets.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:33 am
AC arrives to prove your point in 5, 4, 3, 2….
August 19th, 2009 at 8:55 am
“And the campaign against dissent is dredging up – and creating – all kinds of code words to keep the peasants down and in their place. Dissent from Obamacare, from Porkulus and the Eternal Deficit is compared with a regime that murdered tens of millions and made toothbrush mustaches forever out; gigglingly linked with a mild but lurid sex act generally associated with homosexual relations; ”
a point of clarification, a question, just to be sure we are speaking of the same things… code being sometimes obscure, and still consuming my first caffeine of the day
I just want to be clear about this laundry list of things…
nazis and hitler’s mustache, tea bagging? or are we discussing some form of sodomy? (given those references have appeared here from time to time)
“lumped with a hare-brained “birther” conspiracy that every significant dissenter has repudiated;”
while I respect that you and MANY others have repudiated the whole birther thing, the polling numbers from a variety of sources do suggest that it is not only an ongoing phenomenon, but one that is increasing, has a strong regional component, and is largely unique to self-identified conservatives/ republicans among those who do embrace the idea. Sorry, but I’m still a little cranky after having slogged through more of Law of Nations and the text of statutes like the 1790’s Naturalization Act and the 1952 federal legislation in researching material to refute birthers comments on another blog — because I like to go to primary sources. The late date addendum at which citizenship at birth could be inherited from one’s mother, as contrasted with the 1790’s inheritance from fathers, if born to a U. S. citizen while in a foreign country was a real eye opener btw.
“America has a racist past, it’s true. Unlike every other significant nation on earth, America has spent the past 150 years wrestling with that past, in its own imperfect way.”
I think you do a disservice to other countries, like oh… South Africa among others with this statement. Personally, I’m still wrestling with the personal inner chill of moderating comments like “All niggers must die” on another blog where I have admin and editorial duties (NOT penigma).
That put watching Obama’s being so relaxed in the presence of armed protesters at town hall meetings in a different context for me. It is still overwhelmingly significant to me that NOW, unlike the last administration, protesters are not being kept in zones miles away. I think this speaks to a trust, and a respect, for dissenters that should be noted. Prominently noted.
So, no with respect Mitch, I don’t think the tensions you outline are particularly class based, and certainly not anti-middle class. I don’t view dissent, especially courteous, self-disciplined civil respect, at all as either a target or something that ‘the rest of America’ needs to be protected from — and if the ‘rest of America’ is not the middle class who do you think they /we are?
August 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am
while I respect that you and MANY others have repudiated the whole 9/11 Truther thing, the polling numbers from a variety of sources do suggest that it is not only an ongoing phenomenon, but one that is increasing, has a strong regional component, and is largely unique to self-identified liberals/Democrats among those who do embrace the idea.
This is fun.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“so relaxed in the presence of armed protesters at town hall meetings”
Say what?
August 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Doggie, Great Leader doesn’t have town halls, he has campaign rallies with carefully selected audiences. You have been duped by political theater.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:00 am
But she sooo loves the primary sources, Kermit.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:14 am
From the Secret Service
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.
“In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to,” Donovan said. “They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon.“
BTW, the guy with the AR-15 and the Glock, is not your typical Angry White Guy.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/055823-2009-08-19-obama-comes-to-phoenix-arizona-so-does-chris-and-his.htm
August 19th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Kermit Says:
August 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Doggie, Great Leader doesn’t have town halls, he has campaign rallies with carefully selected audiences. You have been duped by political theater. ”
So, for example his speaking with a dissenter at the meeting in Montana, the guy who drove hundreds of miles to express his views and was able to speak with Obama was just theater? Are you asserting he was a plant, and rehearsed, or just carefully screened, or ?
MoN – many public buildings have restrictions on open carry inside, and many meetings have had attendance which far exceeded capacity as determined by fire safety regulations. However, there appears to have been no restrictions on being in the adjoining public viewing area, which is a heckuva lot closer than dissenters ever got under Bush designated protesting areas miles away.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Mon wrote: BTW, the guy with the AR-15 and the Glock, is not your typical Angry White Guy.
In at least one instance there were multiple individuals with AR 15s.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I think you do a disservice to other countries, like oh… South Africa among others with this statement. Personally, I’m still wrestling with the personal inner chill of moderating comments like “All niggers must die” on another blog where I have admin and editorial duties (NOT penigma).
FYI – that particular racist threat was from someone who was politically conservative, and appeared from the context to be directed at both Obama, and NRC chair Steele, btw. In Steele’s case as an apparent ‘get off my side’ sort of comment.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Carefully screened, without a doubt. The first one Great Leader did was so packed hw was begging for a dissenting question at the end. Can’t let it br to obvious, after all.
And a true, big C Conservative would never make the statement “All niggers must die”. That is the rhetoric of a Nazi, and regardless of what Clownies says, Conservatives are not Nazis.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:56 am
“which is a heckuva lot closer than dissenters ever got under Clinton designated protesting areas miles away. ”
August 19th, 2009 at 11:56 am
sorry
August 19th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“there were multiple individuals with AR 15s. ”
Can you cite your source for this?
August 19th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
kel Says:
August 19th, 2009 at 11:56 am
“which is a heckuva lot closer than dissenters ever got under Clinton designated protesting areas miles away. “
Kel, do you agree that Obama is not requiring dissenters to be miles away?
Let me ask this in a different way. There was a certain level of fear / expectation when Obama was elected that this meant someone was going to be taking away guns, there would be draconian restrictions on firearms, etc.
I am not aware of any of that happening , or any kind of attempt to restrict 2nd ammendment rights, contrary to those expectations. In fact, Obama signed into law a provision which makes it legal to carry weapons in national park, which arguably extends gun carrying, rather than making it more restrictive.
If you don’t approve of how open carry has been received so far, most particularly at public political events, what would you LIKE to see done by the present administration that has not been done about open carry, given that it seems to be more state regulated in these instances than federally restricted?
Personally, my feeling is that while there are some who are uncomfortable and unfamiliar with fire arms and fire arm safety, so long as individuals are acting responsibly, they should not be penalized or limited by the fear of others who feel differently than they do. I would equate it to some people are afraid of dogs, with or without personal bad experiences on their part. Their fear of dogs, for whatever reason, should not deny me the pleasure of being accompanied by my hounds as the enjoyment and use of my property, conditional on their being well behaved / safe and under my control, which they are.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Yow. This thread is getting into “Golden Age of Peev”-length territory.
I’ll see what I can do:
nazis and hitler’s mustache, tea bagging? or are we discussing some form of sodomy? (given those references have appeared here from time to time)
We are referring Nan Pelosi and Babs Boxer referring to Obamacare dissenters as Nazis, and to the entire phalanx of media who referred to Tea Party attendees as “Teabaggers”.
while I respect that you and MANY others have repudiated the whole birther thing, the polling numbers from a variety of sources do suggest that it is not only an ongoing phenomenon, but one that is increasing, has a strong regional component, and is largely unique to self-identified conservatives/ republicans among those who do embrace the idea.
Not only do I challenge the notion that it’s growing, but I’ll counter with this: the highest number I’ve ever seen for support for birthers among Republican voters was around 25%. In 2004, 33% of Democrats believed that 9/11 was an inside job.
Now, I’m leery of these kinds of stats, largely because I don’t know how the stats are grouped; is someone who says “I’ve got questions” considered a full-blown conspiracist? But whatever – if we accept these poll numbers as any kind of evidence of all (and clearly you do!) then the left is 25% more paranoid than the right – and about a much more caustic and ugly conspiracy to boot.
I think you do a disservice to other countries, like oh… South Africa among others with this statement.
I specified “significant” country. South Africa ain’t chicken feed, regionally, and they’ve certainly confronted their past (albeit just as imperfectly as wel have), but they’re a fraction of the size and influence of the US and, arguably, would never have confronted it at all without the influence of the “racist* USA.
Personally, I’m still wrestling with the personal inner chill of moderating comments like “All niggers must die” on another blog where I have admin and editorial duties (NOT penigma).
I’ll defer to William Raspberry, who wrote in the early nineties that racism IS out there, in the hearts of many ignorant, pathetic holdouts – but in America today, it’s not something that needs to hold any black citizen back. Raspberry is, by the way black.
That put watching Obama’s being so relaxed in the presence of armed protesters at town hall meetings in a different context for me.
He wasn’t “in the presence” of anyone, certainly nobody who was breaking the law; as has been noted elsewhere, not only did neither of the two “incidents” involving law-abiding, permitted citizens with impeccable criminal records violate any laws, but the “incidents” took place on the other side of the President from rings of police and Secret Service and, I’d suspect, two armed citizens who would have been happy to knock off a would-be assassin that crossed their path (legalities notwithstanding). Obama was safer where he stood than the citizens of any of the cities he was in.
It is still overwhelmingly significant to me that NOW, unlike the last administration, protesters are not being kept in zones miles away.
Don’t believe the hype. Not only did Clinton segregate protesters pretty aggressively, but in every case I attended a presidential appearance during the Bush years (twice, both in the ’04 campaign, including one that I MCed), protesters got every bit as close as they do for any other event. You’re mistaking regular appearances for “political conventions”, where the police take pains to segregate differing *groups* of protesters to avoid tension.
I think this speaks to a trust, and a respect, for dissenters that should be noted. Prominently noted.
And with all due respect, I believe you’re wrong. Leaving aside the fact that neither of the armed protesters was violating any laws, local OR federal, the Obama Administration has been the worst in my lifetime at actually engaging dissent. They want to shut down conservative talk radio (conventional wisdom says the “Fairness Doctrine” is on the back burner, but elements of the Doctrine, including Local Ownership clauses, are working their way through the bureaucracy); they made a show of putting utterly innocuous conservative groups on watch lists; they are using their surrogates at the SPLC to make noises about “Militia” and “White Supremacist” links with protesters (which, I noted last week, are specious even in the context of the SPLC’s statements themselves); of course, they have circulated the talking points to the media and their various political/campaign operatives (the distinction has vanished in the past six months) to minimize, denigrate and slander dissenters rather than engaging them.
So, no with respect Mitch, I don’t think the tensions you outline are particularly class based, and certainly not anti-middle class. I don’t view dissent, especially courteous, self-disciplined civil respect, at all as either a target or something that ‘the rest of America’ needs to be protected from — and if the ‘rest of America’ is not the middle class who do you think they /we are?
Targets for SEIU thugs?
August 19th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
while I respect that you and MANY others have repudiated the whole birther thing, the polling numbers from a variety of sources do suggest that it is not only an ongoing phenomenon, but one that is increasing, has a strong regional component, and is largely unique to self-identified conservatives/ republicans among those who do embrace the idea.
largely unique? You can’t modify an absolute. And stacking adjectives is a sign of peevish writing.
August 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Terry’s right about the “largely unique” business, DG. Something is either unique or it isn’t. And if the behavior you describe isn’t unique to “self-identified conservatives/republicans,” then your point collapses.
August 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Well, even if it’s NOT unique to conservatives, there might be a point to be made that it’s largely associated with people who are conservative to one degree or another.
Again, we have no idea about what the survey questions were, or how the results are grouped. I’ve seen scads of examples of news media taking this sort of thing grossly out of context (classic example: the NEJM’s infamous “claim” that a gun in the home was 43 times as likely to kill the owner, a family member or acquaintance than a criminal, which was not only a matter of grossly selective context and misinformation but, even by that low standard, misreported).
But let’s take it all at face value. Let’s assume that 25% of Republicans do seriously believe Obama has some missing paperwork and is ineligible for office. So what? What is the worst possible consequence of this belief? There is no consequence. None. It is of absolutely no importance (other than as a rhetorical cudgel against Republicans); it doesn’t weaken the nation one iota. Obama is president, for 3.5 more years.
OTOH, the fixation on the part of as many as a third of Dems (according to a 2004 Gallup poll) on 9/11 trutherism means that a third of the party in power believes to one degree or another that George W. Bush proactively connived in a conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans and launch a worldwide war to solidify his grip on power (which, many of them assured us, he would not relinquish this past January, if you recall!).
This, I believe, does this nation a lot more damage than a flap about paperwork, even if you DO accept the “polling” at face value.
You sure you wanna go there?
August 19th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I agree with Mitch (surprise!) Even if there were proof incontrovertible that Obama was born in another country, congress could simply declare him a natural born citizen & so he would be qualified to be president of the United States. What would be the alternative? President Biden?
It is hilarious, though, that the Hawaiian activists who believe that the sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom is not now and never has been part of the United States voted for Obama.
August 19th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“I am not aware of any of that happening , or any kind of attempt to restrict 2nd ammendment rights…”
H.R.45 where are you?
DG, do you deny that H.R.45 will restrict 2nd amendment rights?
August 19th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Leaving specific legislation aside (if only because Krod covered a fairly salient piece of it), Obama’s retreat on gun control is a matter of political prudence, not his own belief. He has a long record of supporting gun control in Illinois.
That he has muted those tendencies in the past two years is testimony more to the power of the grassroots gun lobby (who have turned “gun control” into a third rail in the past twenty years) than any trustworthiness on Obama’s part on the issue. He knows that backing gun control would gut the ranks of the Blue Dogs that are the source of his legislative power, but who are already feeling the heat from Obama’s statist noodlings on healthcare and economic intervention.
Which, honestly, doesn’t make any difference to me. If Obama isn’t right on the issue, I’m perfectly happy that he’s too scared to do wrong. My goal is to not only keep it that way, but – when the political winds change, as they will – to continue the process of not only rolling back “gun control”, but extincting it without mercy.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Troy Says:
August 19th, 2009 at 11:00 am
But she sooo loves the primary sources, Kermit. ”
Be my guest – better than simply repeating what is said by your preferred ‘talking head’:
House Education and Labor Committee: http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/07/house-democrats-expose-campaig.shtml#more
• House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1687&catid=156&Itemid=55
• House Ways and Means Committee: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/MoreInfo.asp?section=52
Mitch writes:
“Which, honestly, doesn’t make any difference to me. If Obama isn’t right on the issue, I’m perfectly happy that he’s too scared to do wrong.”
You can postulate why he is doing what you prefer, but the important thing is that IS what he is doing, not what you expected he would do.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Master of None Says:
August 19th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“there were multiple individuals with AR 15s. ”
Can you cite your source for this? ”
Check the news footage from Arizona; pretty hard to miss, one of the people carrying an AR 15 was white, another was black…
August 19th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
largely unique? You can’t modify an absolute. And stacking adjectives is a sign of peevish writing.
I should have written more clearly. What I should have written was ‘largely confined to’.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Do you remember all the news stories about AK-47 carrying black panthers protesting at the Texas GOP convention back in 2000?
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2000_3222859
August 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Mitch said:
“the Obama Administration has been the worst in my lifetime at actually engaging dissent”
Depends on the type of “engagement” we are talking about. Didn’t officials in Senator Kyl’s home state get a lot of Executive branch sourced fan mail when he voiced his opposition to Porkulus? Yeah, let prominently note that.
August 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“the Obama Administration has been the worst in my lifetime at actually engaging dissent”
Waxman is usually behind attempts to demonize political opposition.
This week’s target is the insurance companies:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26251.html
Next they will try to demonize doctors, and after that, probably old people for using more than their fair share of health dollars.
It used be said that the Democrats were the evil party and the Republicans were the stupid party. Today’s democrats fit both definitions.
August 19th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
You can postulate why he is doing what you prefer, but the important thing is that IS what he is doing, not what you expected he would do.
a. Call for facts not in evidence. I didn’t necessarily expect him to overtly go after guns right of the gate; never said he would. I expect him to try to issue the odd nagging cut – turning a nudge and a wink to the sandbagging of DC’s compliance with Heller, those kinds of little passive-aggressive things, but he’s not stupid.
b. Since the subject of “primary sources” came up – all of the primary sources on Obama take my assmptions well out of the realm of “postulation”; his entire Illinois legislative and non-profit record is that of an orthodox anti-gunner. On this point there is no rational argument based on Obama’s objective legislative record.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
‘Largely unique’ becomes ‘largely confined to’? I think it is far, far more accurate to say that the ‘birthers’ movement is confined to those who want to delegitimize Obama’s presidency. This is a game that has been played by both parties since the days of Nixon; Ford wasn’t elected president, Carter won with a plurality of
August 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Sorry, comment got truncated. It was probably too long anyway.
August 20th, 2009 at 2:47 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
Here’s an MSNBC video showing a guy wearing weapons somewhere near an Obama rally, followed by MSNBC pinheads getting all excited about the racism, these white racists are threatening the president, etc.
Problem is they edited the film so you can’t see that the guy with the guns is black.
Lefties have finally gone insane. Over the rainbow. Playing with the toys in the attic. There is a very good reason why they insist that any health care reform plan must include psychiatric care.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Phoenix is the only place I have heard about 2 people with AR-15s. There are plenty of photos of the one guy but somehow with thousands of cameras around only the one guy gets photographed.
Sounds like bigfoot to me.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:57 am
And of those one or two people, how many have indicted in federal court?
August 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Dog Gone said:
“Be my guest – better than simply repeating what is said by your preferred ‘talking head’”
Links are good, and thank you for them. Better than my preferred ‘talking head’ (whomever the hell that would be)? Probably not.
‘ThinkProgress.org’? Yeah, absolutely what I think of when someone says “primary sources”. *snicker*
Also, ‘FactCheck.org’ may hold magic properties for some, but to me it’s just a domain name for a University backed group of mostly journalists who claim to have no bias. I laugh. *shrug*
August 20th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Yeah, factcheck.org has shown a tendency to spin for the left, and for Obama especially. Example: They said that a McCain campaign ad was wrong when it claimed that Obama had voted for higher taxes 94 times. Factcheck.org’s reasoning was that some of these votes were against tax cuts rather than voting for tax increases.
Calling such a vote a vote for ‘higher taxes’ is a legitimate interpretation — higher than if he had voted the other way. Factcheck.org also apparently believes a tax increase is not a tax increase if it only affects rich people and the proceeds are used to fund Headstart.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html
August 20th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
“Waxman is usually behind attempts to demonize political opposition.”
Dog Gone calls MOB members “birthers”.