Dahleen Glanton’s column in today’s Chicago Tribune mentioned Sen. Tim Scott’s op-ed in the Washington Post about King’s comments that said, “Some in our party wonder why Republicans are constantly accused of racism – it is because of our silence when things like this are said.”
Gagging as I write this, but I actually sort of agree with **Farnaby **here. Cutting aid to the poor isn’t by definition racist. The impact of these actions – which, I must add, I universally and vehemently oppose – has a disproportionate effect on minorities because minorities are disproportionately poor. But you can favor those policies for many reasons other than outright racism.
What’s more, labeling them as racist policies (when they can just as easily impact poor whites) plays into the GOP’s accusations of identity politics. It’s better to oppose them on their merits than label them as racist.
You can oppose all those policies because you oppose “handouts,” or because you think they distort free markets, or because you oppose public education in general, or because you’re a big believer in supply-side economics.
Beats me, I disagree with all that. But I can see where someone could say, “This is what I believe, and I’d believe the same thing even if it only affected white people.”
Sure. But some people oppose them because they think those programs mostly benefit black people and it just grinds their gears to see black people getting shit they don’t “deserve”.
It’s problematic that those people get a pass–and that politicians benefit from sending out dog whistles to them–because the others give them protective cover. It’s what lets them fester, and believe that everyone else in their party agrees with them, you just “can’t say it out loud”.
Agreed. There are lots of racist shitbags out there, and Steve King is one of them. And there’s no doubt that GOP lawmakers are adept at blowing those dogwhistles to drum up support for their policies.
Still, just because some people champion policies for racist reasons doesn’t make those policies inherently racist. Millions of people voted against Obama, and they didn’t all do it because he was black.
Without context, support for the idea of lower aid to the poor is possibly not racist. In America, in 2019, support for cutting aid to the poor is racist.
“Racism” isn’t fully encompassed by “outright racism.” Much of our racism problem today–possibly the majority–is non-outright racism.
But is his hold on the GOP base in his district strong enough that he can survive a primary challenge? I know he came somewhat close to losing his seat, but that was when independents and Democrats could also vote. In a primary, I can see those cranky Iowa farmers voting for him just to spite the Washington establishment.
I agree with you on context. It’s damn near impossible these days to separate merit-based arguments for GOP policies (if they even exist) from the racist, xenophobic hurricane winds swirling around them.
I’m curious what you mean when you distinguish “racism” from “outright racism.”
And I still maintain it hurts our cause when we, for example, defend Head Start funding by labeling opposition to it racist. Questioning the motives of those we disagree with instead of the merits of their argument is the right’s game, and we suck at it.
But those same Republicans, and those in the Senate, surprised no one by their continued support of habitual racist, misogynist, congenital liar, and national embarrassment Donald Trump. The difference is only that King doesn’t have the national base that Trump does, so there’s no political downside and potential upsides to disowning King. It’s not like Congressional Republicans have suddenly acquired morals or integrity or anything. Or have we already forgotten the Kavanaugh hearings?
The difficulty is that, while there are some forms of aid or “handouts” which disproportionately go to blacks, there are other forms that disproportionately go to whites. And the same people who generally favor cutting the former, are all in favor of keeping or even increasing the latter.
Which still might not necessarily be racist. There’s also generally an urban-rural divide here, too. But it sure looks suggestive.
Which conveniently ignores the whole part about Keith Ellison repeatedly requesting and encouraging investigation by law enforcement.
ETA: But hey, if Republicans have to go back to the Forties to find someone even close to the racist bullshit spouted by King last week, it says less about Democrats than they’d think.
Robert Byrd again? Will you all (Republicans / conservatives) ever get tired of trotting him out when the topic is racist politicians? It must be because he’s a good example of how someone behaves when they are genuinely atoning for previous wrongs, so the people who are just faking it feel they have to bash him.
