Book of the Month

Orion's picture

The Right: Playing To White Fear

by Orion 11/17/2010 - 8:17 am

The racial component of the Right's reaction to the Obama presidency is one that conservatives obviously like to pretend is synthetic and false. Moderates don't want to go there, and those that do end up being characterized as leftists and fearmongerers who are trying to shut down debate.

I introduced myself in my last blog here. I want to introduce myself further. I am not at liberty to say a few things about my political history, but I will omit the parts that only hurt people.

Growing up in Seattle, I had Asperger's syndrome, a form of high functioning autism. The symptoms have gotten less problematic as I've grown older but I nonetheless experienced a lot of drama and held a lot of intense anger with the public school system, which seems oriented towards maintaining union hegemony over curriculums aimed at students. I've seen the success of charter schools among minority friends who attended them and have seen only resentment and failure from bussing and redistricting that does not address core problems.

Despite it being a reformist position to shake up public education and make it more effective, it is for some reason seen as conservative in this country. I got published in Townhall magazine writing about this issue, and I've written for many other conservative outlets, including the Heritage Foundation. I stand by all my work, but while conservatism was always a marriage of convenience for me, the overt race baiting, anti-Semitism (significantly Glenn Beck denegrating a man, George Soros, whose entire life has been dedicated to political freedom) and playing to the nastiest parts of American life has made it clear that there is little redeemable among what calls itself conservatism today. Its smartest elements, like David Frum and Kathleen Parker, seem drastically out of place among Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell.

People I respect and admire have defended against accusations of racism, and I'm not going to doubt their sincerity. However, one only need to watch clips of the Right's most popular icons to see the racial fear in action. Here is video of Fox News Host Bill O'Reilly talking to John McCain about the left-wing plot to take down the "white Christian male power structure" (his own words).

Of course, here is Glenn Beck dripping with hate towards African American mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Corey Booker. Beck ends by saying to Booker "You got it going on. Word to your mommy."

The list of race-baiting for Glenn Beck is enough to fill a book, which it seems has been done and is available on this website. They've ranged from the big, from Beck reiterating several times that President Obama has a loathing for "white culture" (whatever that is), to the small, with Beck favoriting white nationalist groups on Twitter. There's of course the recommendation on air of books by the like of Elizabeth Dilling, an anti-semite author and the quoting of white supremacist Ezra Taft Benson, which I wrote about earlier.

Then there is Dinesh D'Souza and Newt Gingrich, whose race baiting was enough to make David Frum say that "George Wallace took more care to be race neutral." (That may seem an exaggeration, but I recommend renting the documentary film Crisis and juxtapose interviews with Wallace with today's right wing pundits. Frum's words will ring very true.) I wrote at Little Green Footballs that if Barack Obama's strictly genetic Kenyan heritage (him having been raised by a white mother and grandparents in Hawaii) is enough to characterize him, then D'Souza's elite background within the Indian caste system should be enough to characterize his views on race.

Hate groups have become more mainstream than any time in my memory, with groups like Secure America Forever growing in number. 2007 saw the birth of the National Policy Institute, an overtly white nationalist think tank that sees itself as "the right's answer to the Southern Poverty Law Center" and the "fastest growing advocacy group for America's historical majority." I have attached one of their videos.

The National Policy Institute boasts 7,239 fans on Facebook and has courted even more by creating pages for the Founding Fathers with names such as "Thomas Jefferson - American" and "Benjamin Franklin - American."

America's cultural demographic is changing, and the Right is acting the part that is not only disappointing, but in light of history, none too shocking. The tolerant and non-prejudiced have a duty to stand up and make their voices heard against the chorus of hate.

See video
  • Share this
  • Add new comment
  • 646 reads

I am also disheartened by the increase in both the volume and intensity of mainstream racism in political discourse. I think it is in some ways an inevitable response to the changing racial demographics in the United States. In a few decades, whites will be a very clear minority. Many whites might be feeling uncomfortable about this but most of them wouldn't necessarily feel emboldened to express their fears through anger and hatred without the sometimes tacit and sometimes downright explicit approval of right wing politicians and media figures. 

by Orlando 11/17/2010 - 8:51 am

Ah, that explains how you got from LGF to here.  Welcome.  I think you'll find a lot in common with some lefties you find here.  Some of us are social libertarians and that's often a good place for thoughtful people on the left and right to start discussions.

I agree with you that all the talk of white culture encompasses a lot of silliness.  But I guess we do have to face the fact that at least in the short term some societal changes do entail gains and losses for some individuals.  We tend to erroneously believe that these gains and losses are spread evenly among groups, particularly cultures and ethnicities, but they do definitely impact individuals in a very real way.  It does no good to ignore that.

by destor23 11/17/2010 - 12:19 pm

Someone at LGF posted my CNN article. Michael read it and contacted me on facebook. After reading his work, I invited him to cross-post.

As you probably read in Blowing Smoke, Charles Johnson of LGF is one of the few prominent conservatives to challenge right-wing paranoia. Dismayed by the racism and homophobia expressed by his colleagues, he officially split with the right in November 2009, writing "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won't be going over the cliff with them." Of course, he is now vilified by many of the bloggers that he helped to establish themselves.

But I had no idea that Michael had written for the Heritage Foundation or Townhall.com, which features Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and other fun folks. It's easy for us lefties to attack right-wing paranoia but much harder for those with associations on the right. So I applaud you, Michael, for taking a public stand against it. Plus, you're an excellent writer.

by Genghis 11/17/2010 - 1:07 pm (re: destor23)

No problem. I agree completely with Johnson's comment about the Right going "off the rails." I can't speak for him by any means but his Twitter page has had him posting and asking how he can get off of conservative ad lists. He probably lost alot more friends than I did, because he was definitely way more immersed in conservatism than I was.

Also, he has hit a sort of epiphany on climate change and has done a pretty good job of tying it to dependence on oil and involvement in the Middle East. Honestly, if Al Gore had framed his argument like that in An Incovenient Truth, it would have had more pull than graphs of cities that will be flooded by 2050.

As for the stuff I've written for conservative publications, the anti-authoritarian stuff could all translate well to an organization like George Soros' Open Society Foundations, which is apparently the dustbin of evil to prominent conservatives like Glenn Beck. The advocacy for charter schools and education reform (which is extremely dear to me and an issue I spent nearly a year writing about when I had a newspaper column in Seattle) seems to get some sway among progressives who deep down know that public employee unions have a stranglehold on public education. I'd rather engage in left-wing heterodoxy than find myself among the loons of the Right because of a few assorted issues.

Thank you for the praise on my writing and for standing up against right-wing racism. I will admit that Charles Johnson was a big inspiration in my doing so.

by Orion 11/18/2010 - 9:58 pm (re: Genghis)

Great to see you here, Orion. Thanks for explaining your story.

by Doctor Cleveland 11/17/2010 - 1:25 pm

Speaking of "overtly white think tanks," doesn't it seem a little incongruous that NOT ONE of the Southern Poverty Law Center's top ten, highest paid executives is a minority, and certainly not an immigrant?

 http://wp.me/pCLYZ-67

 In fact, according to the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, despite being located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King's home church, the SPLC has NEVER hired a person of color to a highly paid position of power.

Even the Tea Party is more diverse than the boardroom of the SPLC.

by Richard Keefe (not verified) 11/17/2010 - 2:58 pm

That appears to be a valid criticism of the SPLC.

Let's be clear what it's not, however: a justification for other organizations to lack diversity. I don't know you, Richard, so I don't know what your intent is, but I'm just preemptively usurping the ability of the "they-do-it-too" crowd from using this as a justification to do it themselves.

by Atheist (not verified) 11/17/2010 - 3:11 pm (re: Richard Keefe)

Off topic but I get a real big kick out of seeing comments from Atheist (not verified).

It's like the Internet is cracking jokes.

by destor23 11/17/2010 - 4:04 pm (re: Atheist)

You can choose to be agnostic about my existence, but don't you dare (positively) believe I don't exist!

by Atheist (not verified) 11/17/2010 - 4:44 pm (re: destor23)

So what?  Maybe you could focus on how this lack of diversity invalidates the SPLC's opposition to hate speech, hate crimes, and racial antagonism in general? 

by brewmn 11/17/2010 - 3:42 pm (re: Richard Keefe)

Let me ask you this, Richard:  If the SPLC's board invited someone who fits your bill to take a seat at the table, would you feel differently about the work they do?  If so, how?

by Ramona 11/17/2010 - 3:59 pm (re: Richard Keefe)

Those are several good comments. I have two main problems with the SPLC. The first is that they promote themselves as experts on "hate groups." when there is no legal defintion for "hate group." Even the FBI doesn't track "hate groups" for that reason.

The SPLC uses the deliberately meaningless term "hate group" in their fund-raising materials because it allows them to smear any group they don't like without charging them with any actual crimes.

The SPLC’s own subjective and spurious definition of the term states that “…a “hate group” has nothing to do with criminality… [or] potential for violence...It’s all about ideology.”

No crime. No potential for violence. Just bad ideology.

I guess that's all well and good when we're talking about people like the Klan and nazi-wannabees, but what happens when the SPLC decides that YOUR group is a "hate group." They're already smearing anyone who believes in enforcing existing immigration laws as "nativist extremists."

Someone here commented "So what?" Well, the SPLC sends out its spurious reports to every police and law enforcement agency in the country. Last week they sent out a video that told police they could identify "domestic extremists" by their bumperstickers.

Last summer the Missouri State Police (or Highway Patrol?) released an SPLC based document to their troopers telling them to be on the lookout for people with Ron Paul or Bob Barr stickers on their cars. I don't care what party you vote for, but the SPLC has no right to attack honest Americans for whatever candidate they vote for.

What happens when the SPLC targets YOUR political party? See how this works?

The second problem is the money. The SPLC now has nearly $190 MILLION donor dollars in cash on hand in their bloated "Endowment Fund," and yet the fund raising letters still go out like clockwork.

Last year they took in $31 million in donations, spent a total of $29 million for the year, (including $5.3 million for fundraising, vs. $1.1 million for legal case costs). The Endowment Fund grew by $39 million in tax-free interest.

So what? This means that last year the SPLC could have met all of its annual expenses without soliciting a dime and STILL have $10 million to dump into the Endowment Fund. When you subtract the $5.3 million they spent on fund raising, which would no longer be needed, they could have paid all the bills and still dumped $15 million into the fund.

And yet, the fund raising letters still go out. http://wp.me/pCLYZ-6I

For every $100 check your blue-haired grandmother sends the white millionaires at the SPLC, $40 dollars goes to salaries, $3.70 cents goes to legal case costs, and $19 dollars goes toward getting Granny to write the NEXT hundred dollar check.

Someone asked if I would feel differently if the SPLC integrated its board for the first time in 40 years, and I would have to remain skeptical. If the SPLC stops its needless fund raising campaigns and spends more than 3.7% of its income on legal work, THEN I would have to reconsider.

Thanks for the dialog.

by Richard Keefe (not verified) 11/17/2010 - 4:38 pm (re: Ramona)

No crime. No potential for violence. Just bad ideology.

 

Excellent point.  I distrust the SPLC for precisely the same reason.  Labeling someone or some objective as 'hate motivated' is extremely dangerous.  It sends out (perversely) a signal that "These aren't merely people to disagree with.  These are people we can righteously despise."  If there's a significant difference between that and a 'license to hate', then I don't see it.   I've been disappointed more than once (as it seems Richard has) to find them giving people that 'license to hate' against groups which I knew didn't deserve it.

 

 

 

by Dave S 11/18/2010 - 3:24 am (re: Richard Keefe)

There are a number of us former conservatives around these parts. My full on conversion from conservative to liberal  took less than a  year. Now I wonder how I managed to be so ignorant for so long. Good to see you and will be looking forward to reading more of you thoughts.

by stillidealistic 11/17/2010 - 4:19 pm

Just a typo, but the name of the late 1930's suthor of "The Red Network" is Elizabeth Dilling, not Drilling.  Mrs. "Drilling" would be Sarah Palin.  Thank you for your thoughtful comment about a smelly problem on the Right that is only getting worse. 

by Anonymous (not verified) 11/18/2010 - 2:31 pm

Thanks for the correction, and I agree that it is only getting worse.

by Orion 11/18/2010 - 10:03 pm (re: Anonymous)

You truly have no idea what your talking about.  Obviously you have issues in your past that you have not addressed.  We have laws in this country.  If a person has entered this country illegally no matter what the circumstances, that is against the law.  There is no simpler way to put it.  You calling law abiding citizens with that fact based opinion "hate groups" is just astounding no matter how you try and rationalize it with all your "book suggestions".

by Anonymous (not verified) 12/3/2010 - 10:28 am

Latest Comments

more