Conservative commentators really, really don’t like Al Sharpton. For a recent example from Peter Wehner:
And of course, no one is more prolific in Sharpton-bashing than the editors of the NY Post.
Criticisms of Sharpton from the right seem to have two parts:
He is an unscrupulous opportunist who exacerbates racial tensions in order to promote his own ambitions for power, money, and fame.
Rather than standing up to Al Sharpton’s damaging race-baiting demagoguery, liberal politicians like Barack Obama and Bill de Blasio have instead amplified his voice by granting him access, legitimacy, and an advisory role in policymaking.
Is there merit to these claims, jointly or separately? Are conservative commentators using Sharpton as an easily caricatured bogeyman to discredit Obama, de Blasio etc. by association? Or should self-respecting liberals be appalled by Sharpton’s power in shaping public debate on race relations and join conservatives in deploring it?
I am starting this thread because mentions of Al Sharpton in conservative commentary have reached a frequency and level of vitriol that seem to me disconnected from the guy’s actual real-life nefariousness and power. His nefariousness seems to have peaked over 20 years ago, and I struggle to find any tangible example of undue influence on individual politicians. What am I missing?
Well, he’s definitely an ass. His most recent stunt, going to talk to Eric Garner’s family about the cops that were killed in New York didn’t help anyone, least of all African-Americans. And you keep hearing about shit like this.
Sharpton is in no way as powerful as the right makes him out to be. I think there may have been more truth to charges that he was an opportunist like 20 years ago, but I think he’s become better over the years. Some on the right would have you believe that he is only at protests where white cops kill black kids but doesn’t do anything regarding black on black crime in Chicago - which ignores the huge event he held in Chicago earlier this year to try to deal with the crime going on in that city (it wasn’t covered by the media, because that’s not interesting to them).
I would say that Sharpton is about as powerful as Sarah Palin. He’s a polarizing got a smallish group of loyal followers who listen to what he says, and the media will report his proclamations because he says controversial things which attracts viewers whether they are for or against him. But he has no official power and no one in power seriously pays attention to anything he says.
Eh, I’m liberal as Hell & even I don’t like Al Sharpton. He just bugs me.
Beyond that, though, no, I don’t think he’s nearly as powerful as conservatives make him out to be. Really, I think most of his influence is relegated to his show on MSNBC & the rallies that he headlines every now & then.
Earlier in his career he did not regularly meet with the president and the mayor of NYC. Earlier in his career he would not have gotten his chief aide on the staff in Gracie mansion. Earlier in his career he would be in jail for tax evasion. Earlier in his career he was a fat buffoon in a track suit. He was smart enough to rework his image.
I wonder what the numbers are on each side re: those who think Sharpton/Palin is a loudmouth clown vs. those who think Sharpton/Palin have the right ideas for the the future of the country?
I’m willing to bet more people on the right take Palin seriously than people on the left take Sharpton. JMHO. YMMV.
None of this really answers my question. The examples you mention are ones primarily of PR and photo opportunities not actual influence. As you said, he reworked his image. He in now “safer” to be photographed with in polite society.
This is comparing apples and oranges. Palin did not spend most of her career ensuring her influence was limited to a base(largely limited to a single race) of 12% of the population. Compare Palin’s “taken seriously” rate amongst non centrist Republicans and Sharptons rate amongst African Americans and you are probably nearer comparable figures.
Still haven’t forgiven him for that Tawana Brawley mess. In my estimation, he should have withdrawn to a monastery and spent his time in repentance and good works. This is complicated by the fact that Baptists don’t actually have monasteries. Poverty, obscurity and silence would still have done nicely.
That said, I have noticed on a number of occasions that he offered some intelligent and insightful commentary. So, I will bend an ear to him because he is smart. Doesn’t mean I have to trust him, just pay attention.
He is actually an ordained Baptist thumper, though I am not sure how much pulpitry he engages in. I would much rather have Sharpton lending his voice to issues over Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart or Warren, but it does seem difficult to find much in the way of redeeming qualities in religious leaders, any more than in politicians.
Shapton is hated by the right because he regularly stands up against what he perceives to be racism, he is black himself, and he is a skilled and gifted speaker who is smarter, and comes off smarter, than any of his critics. The man has a clarity when he speaks, in tone and content that is truly stunning.
He makes a considerable effort not to be ignored. His influence dropped off somewhat after he was convicted of slander for accusing the DA of being involved with the Tawana Bradley “case”.
The unfortunate thing is that he garners more support among black Americans than any white racist would after talking about “Greek homos”, claiming that Mormons don’t really believe in God, tax evasion, slander, etc.
Well, not really. There are lots of people who listen (approvingly) to Sharpton, just as there are lots of people who listen (approvingly) to Sarah Palin. Minorities, sure, but significant ones.
The fact is, both Sharpton and Palin owe their fame to something of a vacuum in the power structures where their influence lies.
I’m glad you mentioned Palin, because while I won’t deny she’s got a following, her national profile is as high as it is because liberals love to hate her.