"Let's Talk About Race"
by Michael Williams
September 22, 2009
Let’s talk about race. As an African-American son of the south, I grew up in a time and place where you didn’t have to divine intent or deconstruct code words to find racism. When it raised its ugly head it was like a blunt instrument waved in your face to keep you in your place. It was as unmistakable as it was demeaning.
Unfortunately, with political waters getting rough for the first time for our president, his supporters are quick to latch on to the actions of a fringe element, and ignore the racial transformation this country has made to take us back to a past era where opposition to a black man was about the color of his skin and not the content of his ideas.
Recently former president Jimmy Carter asserted there is a “belief among many white people, not just in the south but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.” Absurd on its face – after all, Mr. Obama wouldn’t have been elected without tremendous support from white voters. This statement is not damaging because it is a false observation, but it stigmatizes the discussion about race relations.
When someone of public prominence carelessly and callously demeans the motives of millions of honest Americans as racists when they are simply concerned about policy ramifications of the President’s agenda, we stop hearing each other. How can the President win over critics when critics are so unfairly stigmatized by such a personal attack on their character? You can hear the conversation around dinner tables and social gatherings: ”If we disagree with Obama, the liberals think we are a bunch of racists.” This truly hampers the effort to find common ground.
Furthermore, stigmatizing honest opposition as “racist” appears to be a way of not answering legitimate questions about policy reform. I, for one, oppose the President’s healthcare plan because it will explode the deficit, allow further government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship, and continue to insulate healthcare consumers from the true cost of their care. The President and his allies should explain why my concerns are misplaced. But by attacking the character of their critics, they don’t have to answer their charges or win the debate over policy differences, because the charge of “racist” is the nuclear option. Once it is launched there is no need for conventional warfare in the political sense: winning and losing on the merit of policy.
What grieves me most, however, is not that false cries of racism shortcircuit our debate, but that it makes legitimate concern about pockets of racism impossible to hear among the majority of Americans where it truly exists. Racism does still exist in America today – on both sides of the political spectrum. Now it will be that much harder to expose because the real cry will be impossible to distinguish from the false one, much like the boy who cried, “wolf.” Racism exists, but so does opportunity, and I can personally attest to the fact that there is far more opportunity than racism.
We have rid our institutions of government of the practice of discrimination; if only we could rid our political discourse of the ugliness that ensues when we ascribe discriminatory motive to statements with no obvious discriminatory aspect. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd couldn’t help hearing a missing word in Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech to Congress. The Congressman yelled, “You lie.” Ms. Dowd couldn’t help hearing, “you lie, boy.”
While Congressman Wilson started a fire, Ms. Dowd poured fuel on it. The greater ugliness is not the inappropriate outburst, but Ms. Dowd intentionally injecting a word loaded with a history of racial condescension to label a whole movement of opposition.
I have a suggestion for future discourse. Let’s leave race out of the debate unless someone clearly raises it as the rationale for their position on an issue. Instead, let’s stick to the substance of the argument for the good of the American people.
The fact is I can disagree with my president based on the politics of ideas instead of the politics of identity, and so can millions of Americans. When liberals seek to change the debate from the content of reforms to the character of their opposition, it smacks of desperation. And it makes me wonder if they have forgotten what real racism is like. While I appreciate President Obama’s response to this controversy in real days, he has missed an opportunity to disavow his supporters. They are taking this country back to an uglier time and place, when so many of us want to move forward.
#####
Michael Williams, 56, has been elected three times statewide in Texas as a Texas Railroad Commissioner, and is a candidate for the United States Senate. As a federal prosecutor he successfully fought against the klan and other white supremacists groups. As high-level aide in the U.S. Department of Education under President George H. W. Bush, he made a controversial stand against the use of race in college admissions.
Comments
Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr. Sep 22, 2009
It is absurd to make this connection as there is no proof whatsoever that Rep. Wilson has any animosity against people of color.
Mr. Carter said in an interview with NBC News, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American”. He further said, "That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”
Mr. Carter, once again, has stirred the pot of animosity. He has made a statement that is terrifically divisive and unfair to the congressman from South Carolina. Has Mr. Carter some special, unique and omniscient knowledge of the hearts of the American people? What gives him the right to make such an egregious, universal statement? Has Mr. Carter not found enough to do in his dotage? Isn’t hob-knobbing with terrorist groups and dictators not enough for him, that he must now must slander the people of this nation, accusing us of being racists if we happen to think that Barack Obama is dead wrong, and that we question his ideology and his commitment to the improvement of the nation?
Mr. Carter could do us all a favor and go back to pounding nails for “Habitat for Humanity”, and leave politics, statecraft and race relations to those who have the with and the acumen to understand them.
He obviously doesn’t. His record on that score is infamous; he arguable had the most failed Presidency in the last half of the 20th century. Yes, perhaps he should go back to Georgia, and keep to the old tradition that former Presidents keep to themselves and manage their own affairs, and keep out of the public discourse.
How can we as a nation make things better for all people when people like Mr. Carter ascribe a racial component to legitimate opposition? This creates a resentment that would not necessarily have been present previously, had the conversation remained in the political and ideological realm. To suggest that opposition to policy is solely due to race is a disservice to the nation. It creates a “bunker mentality” to groups that are accused of being discriminatory, stifling real and useful discourse, and creates the air of “protected class” status for those who use that gambit against their political rivals. It can become a millstone around the neck to those who use the tactic by actually creating racism where it previously didn’t exist. Logic and human nature being what they are may see some reconsider racial tolerance and acceptance. After all, what good does it do to try and set aside the entire cultural and historical baggage associated with race relations in this country if we keep getting beaten down with it, or have past behavior thrown up into our collective faces at every turn? Why try to find common ground with those who look different, act different, or believe differently if the only pay-off is to be labeled a racist if we happen to disagree on some issue? It is true that there are some who don’t like the fact that a black man occupies the White House; it would be naïve to suggest otherwise, but to make the wholesale assertion that ALL opposition is race based, is absurd and creates race based animosity where none may have existed before.
There is also a small possibility that it may even hurt future candidates of color because some of the voting public will not like to see a repeat of this racial acrimony should other minorities attempt to seek office. Some voters may just decide that it isn’t worth it to them to vote for minorities candidates if it follows that disagreement equals racism. It would be easier to simply not to back minority candidacies and avoid future problems. This would be a huge tragedy for all Americans as We, the People could be denied the best and brightest men and women for office because it’s just easier to exclude, rather than deal with the potential slander.
Then again, maybe that’s what they Liberal Democrats want….
It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation of the liberal world-view that America is an inherently racist country, beyond hope and redemption without the blessings and programs only liberalism provide.
It is also my belief that there is an industry that exists to profit from racial inequities whether real or imagined. Men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have enriched themselves to the tune of millions of dollars and created empires based on reverse race baiting, accusing enterprises and individuals of discrimination and racism when no absolute proof exists, and then extort money or favors from the accused. It is a tremendously effective tool to mute opposition.
America has come so far in the 40+ years since the Civil Right Act was signed into law. Nobody with any intelligence would argue that we still have some work to do to ensure that progress continues toward a truly color blind society, free of base prejudices’ that have so divided us as a nation. I believe that the day will come when we will look back and wonder how all those who came before could have been so ignorant to look at people and measure intellect, competency and character by some superficial differences in color, appearance, or national origin.
I hope that that day comes soon.
Warren Norred Sep 22, 2009
If I wanted to know what the Obama protesters are protesting, I'd just ask them, and see if their words ring true or hollow. It is that simple.
Joe Wilson's may or may not a racist, but no one can say he is based by looking only at two words shouted at Obama over the health care issue.
I suspect that Joe Wilson, like many conservatives for the last ten years, have a hatred of socialism that we had to swallow while the last president messed up the party and sent us back 40 years by adopting socialist measures to deal with every issue. Bush 43 reinvigorated agricultural subsidies, raised tariffs, federalized elementary education, and began the bailout parade. During that time, conservatives were essentially forced to sit on their hands and be quiet.
With President Obama, we are let loose to complain, and we have a lot of complaints. Liberals looking for racism connect the uncomfortable silence from conservatives during the Bush era, see that Obama is just doing more of the same, and come up with the wrong conclusions because we took it from Bush but aren't taking it from Obama.
Of course, there is still racism in this country, and any racist that is active will be active in the GOP. But no one is saying that racism is okay, or arguing on that basis.
Myron Sep 23, 2009
Unlike many, I don't focus so much on Wilson's two, rude words but rather the underlying policy issue that drove a normally mild-mannered man to disrespect himself, the chamber and the president. I.e., that illegal immigrants might be included in the health care plan. We should ask ourselves why, out of the 1,000+ page-bill that this issue was the one that caused Wilson to act a fool? Could it be the prospect of a flood of Hispanics who he imagines will come here to take advantage of our "great" health care plan?
I do give you credit, Warren, for noting the silence of conservatives on spending as Bush and the GOP took the surplus Clinton and an earlier, more responsible GOP left and turned it into a trillion-dollar deficit. No tea party protests then.
But I don't think race is what has made the difference. Rather, it's mainly just pure party politics. People treat political parties like football teams. They just don the jersey and ask no questions.
Myron Sep 23, 2009
Cris Angelini Sep 23, 2009
Kensley Stewart Sep 23, 2009
I KNOW he meant to say:
Of course, there is still racism in this country, and any racist that is active will ***NOT*** be active in the GOP.
WE... find those elements within our ranks and ROUTE them OUT.
Warren Norred Sep 23, 2009
Of course, the GOP isn't a church, but Christians are supposed to welcome sinners into their midst, not shun them. Similarly, the GOP should be about the business of showing the racists who happen to be near that they are wrong, and showing the minorities both in and out of the party that our policies are not right merely because they help business, but because they help people.
Examples abound, but my favorite is that we should be against the minimum wage because it hurts people, and not because it hurts business. Most conservatives know that, but we often argue on the basis that it hurts business, rather than the more salient point about people. As you probably know, it is the lowest income earners who are just barely employed that are hurt the worst, and on that basis we should challenge the Democrats, and force them to defend these anti-people laws.
Mary Savanah Oct 2, 2009
thank you for you service!!!!! I look forward to hearing more from you......
Don Harper Oct 5, 2009
paul Oct 16, 2009