Sqrl said:
1) It absolutely takes way from what you said. Your argument is that the right has a racist past and that undertones of that past are present in their dissent. But the reality is that both parties have racist pasts and racial undertones are part of American politics in general (pretty much world politics as well). The point being that you are taking a general truth about American politics and cherry picking it down to a specific subsection for the express purpose of marginalizing.
You say the marginalizing is only meant for those who are "like that" but the nebulous and non-specific condemnation is the rhetorical equivalent of an adult telling a child that there are sharks in the ocean just before he goes for a swim......His chances of being attacked are ridiculously small but now he is terrified of going in any part of the water and for no good reason. The same way the adult would be a buffoon for not knowing that this is the effect it would have on the child, it is absurd for those making this racism argument to claim they don't want to unfairly marginalize legitimate dissent. That is exactly what you are doing and, to be blunt, you have to be blind not to see it.
So then the correct solution is for the world to ignore any racial undertones in politics rather than to attack them? To me it is clear that the more extreme edges of the protests do have racial undertones and I don't like it at all.
It reminds me of the situation in some climate change protests in Britain, there were people protesting against a new power plant but the protests also attracted violent anti-authority groups who attacked the police. I actually agreed entirely with the anti-power station people (I don't think building new coal plants is a spectacular idea) yet I strongly disagreed with the people attacking the police and felt they were damaging the actual message of the protests.
In my opinion you should be doing the same - agreeing with the people opposed to Obama's policies and being thoroughly annoyed at the people who are using the protests for their own racist agenda.
If the left was actually interested in both discussions this would be true. But when you talk to the left about tea party protests its all "teabaggers" and "racists". There are certainly exceptions but they are exactly that, exceptions. And that is when they even choose to talk about it at all instead of literally ignoring it and pretending they don't exist.
Where your point falls flat to me is that racism and criticism of Obama are two different topics. You're trying to justify the changing of the topic (which is by definition marganlizing to the original topic and something that we make against forum rules here because it goes against intelligent discussion to merge two contentious issues and expect anything but the more emotionally charged topic to dominate) by saying "gosh can't we talk about racism?". Sure lets talk about it by setting out its own time to talk about it. The topic is surely worthy of its own seperate discussion right?
I think that is better than reading between the lines of every dissenting opinion and relinquishing the discussion to back and forth jabs based on individuals conveniantly choosing which context to discuss it in. By choosing to discuss race only when specific partisan context is in play we ensure no progress is ever, or can ever, be made. The reason is simply that by starting the conversation with everyone entrenched and ready to fight to the death for the political ground they've long since staked out, you've assured nobody is going to budge an inch without some bloodshed. In essence you're arguing for us to continue having a racial discussion that is doomed to go nowhere before it even starts all so we can point out what is generally true about American politics in order to demonize a specific political context that you disagree with.
Beyond that though what can you actually say within the limited context of a protest that can't be said in a larger more general sense when it actually wouldn't be at the expense of legitimate dissent? What point would you like to make about the speculation that..possibly..maybe..some extremely small portion of protesters are racists? Are we going to say "these people are wrong!".....who do you think disagrees with that? What is achieved in those politically contentious discussions that can't be in a more even and level-headed non-partisan discussion of race? A discussion that doesn't dominate the issue that spawned it.
As for me being annoyed with racists....? I would be annoyed with the racist tea party protestors if I actually saw them in any numbers greater than fractions of a fraction of a percent (of either kind, see below). As it is I think the extent to which those voices are an absurd minority is encouraging for the racial health of the country, not annoying. And this brings me to the true farce in the debate. When you or others label generic, unseen, and defenseless people as "racists" you conjure up the demons and gremlins of the KKK and minorities hanging from trees...but what you're really talking about is undertones...which come in the "don't leave money out when you have black guests" and "white cops hate black people" type of unease rather than actual overt racism. And the terms end up being used like they are interchangeable. And none of that even discusses the disservice done by de-stigmatizing the word "racist" itself by the ridiculous overuse.
But even then you are just speculating that even the "unease" type of racism exists in the crowd...inferring this based on the fact that people generally agree that it exists throughout American politics. And in that way your argument could be made in general about ANY group, at ANY protest, of ANY ethnic makeup.
But it is always the opposing views that the argument is made against, and it is in that predictably selective presentation with the predictably selective outrage of a predictable form that the outlines of the political cudgel of granstand rhetoric become obvious. Of course the really insulting part is the game of surrogates that is played...but thats another topic for another day....
2) I'll be honest...
I can't remember a single instance where you actually discussed their concerns directly...I of course remember discussions of protesters with members on the left provided that we were focusing on liberal talking points about how they were racists or about how they were a minority (ie discussions that marginalize them) but I can't remember you actually getting involved in a discussion about how Obama is spending 4x faster than any other president, which is an extremely common complaint by protesters.
I would personally say Obama has had to take exceptional actions in extraordinary circumstances. I think his actions, along with those of leaders in Europe, have probably saved the world from a far greater crisis than this current recession. I can see why they would complain though, America does have a terrible defecit and currently its only getting worse.
I think replying would just cause more argument (and would be even more off-topic) so I'll leave this by just saying I think your view of Obama's economic actions and motivations are fairly naive.
I don't know maybe I've just missed it but I can't recall a single instance where the protesters have been brought up and racism hasn't been shrieked by at least one liberal in the thread until it was the only topic of discussion...
Even if I am completely wrong and those discussions have happened, the point remains the same. You (and others of your view) still insist on pointing out the faults of a super-minority of an undisclosed minuscule"ness" and with no particular examples of the types of racist arguments they've made...ahead of addressing the overwhelming super-majority's arguments. To the point that it is your very first reaction to the mention of them to the exclusion of the "legitimate" claims of the non-racists you claim to not wish to impugn.
I have thoroughly talked about the real arguments of the people opposed to Obama's policies. I love such discussions and engage in them all the time, I'm actually thoroughly sick of talking about a few racist protesters and would much rather discuss the actual politics. I just don't think that flat out denial of any racism in these protests is the right way to go about it.
My original blurb above covered my points pretty well, I won't repeat stuff just to have a tit-for-tat reply, particularly when you've expressed that it is your last reply in the thread.
|
