Despite the stupid way she went about of arguing it, I think Maureen Dowd was right about the essential motivation of the teabaggers, birthers, deathers, [insert next hysteria-inducing myth here].
Yes, racism is the glue that holds a disjointed and incoherent set of principles and beliefs together to allow working class whites (some of whom have even suffered greatly from the current economic crisis!) to protest healthcare reform that would ultimately improve their lives. It’s the Southern strategy redux. But I think Dowd makes a fundamental error in her assessment of what racism is, and that’s why she chose to clumsily insert a derogatory term into Joe Wilson’s scream and insist that that’s what he really wanted to say but couldn’t.
The problem with a discussion of current forms of racism is that it is hamstrung by certain frames that have been adopted by mainstream commentators. The general idea seems to be that racism is a single, concrete belief held by an individual, rather than a more nebulous set of beliefs that may not be detectable in an individual but can readily be observed in society when race becomes correlated with socioeconomic status. It then follows, as Kai Wright notes, that a person is only considered racist when they make their position explicit, either by calling for violence or discrimination against an ethnic group or referring to someone with an ethnic slur. However, this view elides the majority of racism which is not only implicit, but may not even be conscious for many people. So, when liberal commentators point out instances of systemic racism, conservatives are able to attack them as racist for being the first to actually mention the R-word.
At the same time, a certain kind of political correctness has been instantiated with respect to race and racism that draws a very clear boundary between racists and non-racists [sup]1[/sup]. Racism has become so maligned that even most white supremacists maintain that they are not racist, seeing it as something negative; instead they call themselves “racialist” or “separatist”, and invoke the language of equality in discussions of race. No one wants to be called racist because that has been universally designated to be a Bad Thing. As a result, there is no gradient of racism, so someone cannot be slightly racist or have a racist disposition; it’s a strictly binary characteristic.
The paradox is that the same PCness that serves as a useful stopgap for the most extreme and overt forms of racism also precludes meaningful discussion of race. It’s highly unlikely that the Joe Wilsons are just itching to re-establish Jim Crow, but keep their feelings under wrap for the cameras. In fact, they may honestly believe themselves to be racially unbiased. But the implicit beliefs they hold may come out in ways such as the severe violation of House decorum seen recently. And these beliefs hamper progress on all sorts of issues.
For debate:
-
Does the national discourse on race need to be changed? If so, how?
-
What should Obama’s approach be with regard to working class whites? Should he try to engage their fears explicitly? Should he pacify them by asserting a need for inter-racial harmony and togetherness? Or maybe he should attempt to channel their anger into class divisions by continuously pointing to those responsible for the economic crisis and counterposing them with poor blacks and whites? Or something else?
[sup]1[/sup] And yes, of course the Left does not have a monopoly on PCness. The Right has created plenty of PC tropes, too.