CK MacLeod on April 27, 2008 at 5:37 PM

You’re dazzling me with your big words. Really.

I didn’t accuse you of calling me racist. I’m pretty sure I didn’t call you a racist, either. I asked you, because I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either the ad is racist (and you’ve come down on both sides of that question, I think you currently say it’s not), or it’s not racist and the dumb blacks are going to think it’s racist.

And/or someone, somewhere, is going to be offended. Someone, somewhere, is always offended.

It doesn’t give you even a moment’s pause when you see that you agree concur with the NY Times editorial page?

I also regret that this discussion has gotten so personal, and has been so dominated either by my posts or by references to them. I think and hope I’m done here.

CK MacLeod on April 27, 2008 at 5:49 PM

I rather enjoyed the exchange. It was an interesting psychological study. Thank you both for taking the time.

How about we just stop making reachy, 6-degrees of Rev Wright ads and attack Obamas own statements, those are more than enough. John McCain concurs.

Squid Shark on April 27, 2008 at 5:03 PM

I concur also.

I also regret that this discussion has gotten so personal, and has been so dominated either by my posts or by references to them. I think and hope I’m done here.

misterpeasea on April 27, 2008 at 4:50 PM

You’ve now convinced me that you may really be incapable of recognizing elementary distinctions. Otherwise, I don’t think you’d try being snarky based on presumptions that have already and repeatedly been challenged directly and in detail. Leaving aside the “racist” slur and your insistence on pretending that you and your friends are the ones being reflexively and unjustifiably called racists, maybe the next time you go poring over my posts you can note the several times that I insisted that Wright and the issues the Obama-Wright relationship raise are “fair game,” even as I strongly disagreeed with the NC ad’s particular approach.

If you do take a look, please feel free not to share the results of your research. As for cereal boxes, you may very well possess the subtlety of mind that it takes to differentiate the top from the bottom, and open from closed. As for matters beyond such simple binary oppositions, based upon your performance here, I can have no confidence in your powers of discernment.

But we all know that associating Obama with Wright is racist, and associating folks who endorse Obama with Obama and Wright is extra super racist.

No it is just extra super stupid.

Remember when we all defended Hagee’s endorsement of McCain? Ok….

Which is why Republicans should not make any ads, because there’s a right-thinking individual somewhere who is going to be offended.

How about we just stop making reachy, 6-degrees of Rev Wright ads and attack Obamas own statements, those are more than enough. John McCain concurs.

Yeah, you’re the only one who understands things. I’m still trying to figure out how to open the cereal box.

Hey, did you see where Obama’s a racist. That racist jerk actually said Wright was fair game.

But we all know that associating Obama with Wright is racist, and associating folks who endorse Obama with Obama and Wright is extra super racist.

Because if anyone is offended, then the ad is beyond the pale. Which is why Republicans should not make any ads, because there’s a right-thinking individual somewhere who is going to be offended.

Calling Obama elitest? That’s racist. Questioning his judgment? Racist.

Now, your turn to ignore everything I say and repeat yourself.

Then again, maybe you haven’t understood anything at all. I can’t really tell, and I hope I’ll be forgiven if I remain skeptical.

Uh, no – let’s not. I reserve the right to ignore nit-picking, gratuitous insults, internet cliches of the “nuance” and “check” and “scare quotes” variety, and to focus, or try to focus, on what I believe are the main issues.

CK MacLeod on April 27, 2008 at 1:12 PM

For those of you born yesterday…And some of you wonder why blacks vote 90% Democrat, year in and year out

Good job totally missing the point.

Yes, totally persuasive to yourselves and everyone else predisposed to agree with you.

Maybe God knows what substitute for comprehension led you to justify that assertion. My guess is that’s how you generally move from one “thought” to another.

Like your allies here, you seem determined to see your usual enemies wherever someone disagrees with you. You seem incapable of processing anything alien to your precepts and prejudices. The others tend to seize upon superficial aspects of an argument, get them wrong, then jump upon an imaginary high horse and presume to condescend. In your case, all you’ve managed to do is echo them, which would make you guilty of being a fool by association,.

As on the other thread, I see on this one the predictable series of celebrations by “real conservatives” of their own inability to distinguish between the theoretical, rhetorical, and effective content of a political ad…Now, maybe you’ll surprise me with something other than more of the predictable personal insults, which, as I’ve said, in my opinion tend to support the case I’m making.

I think I understand now.

CK MacLeod on April 27, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Spot on!

You don’t address arguments specifically, I’ve noticed, so let’s take these one at a time:

Uh, no – let’s not. I reserve the right to ignore nit-picking, gratuitous insults, internet cliches of the “nuance” and “check” and “scare quotes” variety, and to focus, or try to focus, on what I believe are the main issues.

If I were to try to go piece by piece with you through this all – receiving nothing but insults in return for my labors – I’d need to write a virtual book, especially considering the apparent necessity of repeating simple statements and arguments in hopes of finally being understood. For instance:

[you quoting me:]I think a large number of them rightly see themselves painted in the worst possible light, and see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response to the Democrats and their black frontrunner.

[your reply:]So, you think they rightly see themselves painted [in this ad] in the worst possible light, and see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response [in this ad]. But the ad isn’t racist?

I guess I’ll need to repeat myself: I don’t take a position on whether or not the ad is “racist” – among other things because I don’t even know what you mean, or think you mean, by the term.

Though I think it’s a fruitless and picayune endeavor to try to hold someone to every word and phrase that might get uttered over the course of several long responses on an internet message board, in this case I have no trouble standing by the particular statement, even if I concede that it may have been too easy to mis-interpret.

Again, in the sentence you cite, as in others you’ve cited, I speculate about how the ad could be expected to be received by a particular group. I say that African Americans may “rightly see themselves painted in the worst possible light”: I believe that very likely the majority of African Americans see Rev Wright in full rant as a horrifying caricature of themselves and specifically of their aspirations to be treated as equal American citizens with leaders and ideas worthy of respect, in a country where, to see the least, that hasn’t always been the case. I wouldn’t blame them at all if they felt that being hit over the head with Wright again, now in the context of a paid political ad, is gratuitous and insulting.

The failure to understand that point strikes me as a basic failure of human sympathy. To you, maybe it’s a side issue. You and your virtual friends appear to think that blacks and their liberal advocates should just “get over it” if that’s how they feel, so that they and others can hear your wonderful inarguable message about how Democratic candidates who support Obama are “too extreme.”

I suspect that in the minds of Obama-supporters in particular (typically 90% of African American voters), Wright’s been discussed, addressed, exposed, and re-discussed already, and the Republicans with this ad are just counting coup on them, humiliating them. Beyond that, the Republicans are by definition trying to exploit this humiliation politically – using it in a political ad.

But I’ve already explained this at length and in multiple ways. Rather than acknowledge or respond to this main point, you prefer instead to focus on the second part of the statement you quote – another stray phrase – repeating your mis-attribution to me of a viewpoint that I am explicitly attributing to someone else.

I’ve already addressed this particular instance directly. Instead of repeating myself, I’ll expand on the underlying point. Yes, it’s very possible, indeed it’s rather common, for the recipients (in this case some number of African Americans) of a message or expression to “see” it and the message-senders as racist, even though there was no conscious racist intention on the part of those message-senders. Aside from going to a typical elementary misreading on your part, this kind of miscommunication goes to what you dismiss as a dubious “nuance” – the difference between racial insensitivity and racism.

It seems to me that any grown-up American whose been at least halfway around the block should already know and have experienced this difference many times, with excesses of sensitivity and insensitivity on both sides. Sometimes it’s easy to excuse, as when a foreigner uses an expression learned in school that has fallen into disrepute in contemporary discourse. Sometimes it’s ridiculous to the point almost of tragedy, as in the notorious recent instance of a government official being pilloried for his correct use of the term “niggardly” (which of course has nothing to do with the “n-word”).

The idea that the NC ad-makers shouldn’t have known how their ad would be received implies that they’re stunningly ignorant of their state’s and their country’s political history and culture. To me as a voter, that really would be disqualifying. The alternative explanations aren’t much better. One would be that they listened to just a tad too much Limbaugh or Hannity that week, got their combative dander up, and decided to just fire away, regardless of the criticisms, consequences, and political effects. That may or may not be disqualifying. It wouldn’t be something to be proud of, in my opinion, I don’t think it’s a very good way to run a campaign or a government, and it makes me think it’s no small wonder that they’ve been having problems in statewide elections in what’s historically been a dependable Republican state in national elections.

In so doing, the NC GOP and all of its defenders are contributing to the image of the Republican Party as a home for simple-minded self-righteously insensitive hypocrites

There we go.

No matter how much you want to make this an “stupid rednecks pushing away the black vote” argument,

No one is making this argument but you, Vol.

This isnt anything of the sort, it is just a stupid ad with no real point and a huge waste of money that wont fool anyone (I hope)

WisCon on April 26, 2008 at 5:10 PM

I didnt say I thought they were idiots before this ad, I didnt think about them at all, so you can call me brain-dead and a moron all you want. I still contend that any political organization that would run that ad is not in my party.

No matter what colour Jez Wright was, he’d still be a stone cold crazy nutjob and no matter what colour Obama was his judgement in associated with said nutter is definitely questionable.

I suspect the race baiting BS will fall flat on its face, otherwise we’d have elected the most holy Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson way back when.

You don’t address arguments specifically, I’ve noticed, so let’s take these one at a time:

I think a large number of them rightly see themselves painted in the worst possible light, and see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response to the Democrats and their black frontrunner.

So, you think they rightly see themselves painted [in this ad] in the worst possible light, and see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response [in this ad]. But the ad isn’t racist? I have to admit, I’m not seeing the difference. Could you maybe explain the difference? And then we can move on to the next nuanced example.

Before we get to my stupidity. And your ability to read the minds of the makers of the ads and divine their motives.

As I’ve stated, and re-stated, and as you’ve quoted, I believe the ad is clumsy, offensive, and inflammatory. I don’t think it’s even intelligent enough to be considered representative of any particular ideology, including racism. I do accept the obvious, however, which is that the ad is and will be and has been taken to be racist – as when I suggest, in one of the passages you quote (with typical incomprehension), that African Americans may “see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response to the Democrats and their black frontrunner.”

I don’t know or claim to know what was going through the heads of the NC GOP’s ad makers. I have described how I expected their ad to be received.

The fact, however, that you don’t understand the difference between racism and racial insensitivity, and apparently also don’t seem to understand the difference between saying something wrong and saying something in the wrong way, probably helps explain why you can’t understand why people would be offended by the ad for any reason other than over-sensitivity. You don’t think you’re a racist, you don’t think the NC GOP is run by racists, you don’t think conservatives are racists, so you can’t imagine why anyone would think that something you or they said was insensitive – because to you it’s the same thing. It’s not, though one can easily lead or turn into the other. Racists do make racially insensitive remarks, but not everyone who makes a racially insensitive remark is a racist. And there are doubtless many, many racists who refrain out of self-interest from revealing their thoughts. Indeed, some of the most racially sensitive people also happen to be the worst racists – in both parties, and all over the world.

The makers of the ad may be a lot like you. Maybe they’re convinced that they’re not really racists – though it might be hard to figure out what they think “racism” really is. Maybe they associate racism with weirdos in Nazi drag who believe that there really are well-defined human races, and who follow some brand of white supremacism. Maybe they associate racists with segregationists or the KKK. Whatever the explanation, they don’t think that by merely showing Wright giving his spiel and then by showing a candidate embracing Obama, they suddenly turn themselves into segregationists or neo-Nazi weirdos.

If all they really wanted to do, however, was make the logical argument that Obama associates with extremists as typified by Wright, and that Obama’s endorsers should be held responsible, then they could have presented Wright’s words and other relevant facts without, for example, showing the video – which, after all, has already been widely seen and is readily available to anyone who wants to view it. Instead, they chose to feature the video, and so entered into the realm of aesthetic choices that don’t have any absolute or necessary relationship to what they supposedly most want to argue: They wanted the audience to see and feel the hatred. They wanted to associate Obama with the worst of Wright, without having to confront any question of differences between Wright and Obama, without having to confront Obama’s self-defense, without having to propose any solution to the problems they represent other than rejecting them and everyone who has anything to do with them.

In so doing, the NC GOP and all of its defenders are contributing to the image of the Republican Party as a home for simple-minded self-righteously insensitive hypocrites – people who talk about moving beyond race but don’t hesitate to feed racial hatred, who produce political ads that anyone who really was a racist could approve of wholeheartedly.

Congratulations.

That’s just another one of your misreadings turned into a straw man.

Uh. CK? I think someone hijacked your nickname:

Regardless of what African Americans should see when they see that ad, I think a large number of them rightly see themselves painted in the worst possible light, and see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response to the Democrats and their black frontrunner.

So they rightly see, you think, a political party trying to inflame a white racial response, but it’s not racist. Nuance.

it over-dramatizes its point with sadly familiar visual – inevitably racial – cues and the most incendiary statement of all of the ones Wright made

But not racist racial cues. Nuance.

On the other hand, if I’m just a little bit human, maybe I’m thinking, “There they go again.”

There they go again being…non-racists? Nuance.

Wright’s been doing an excellent job of keeping himself in the news and harming Obama without the Republican Party having to take responsibility for racially inflammatory politics.

Racially inflammatory, but not racist.

It’s obviously, intentionally polarizing…There are, however, glaringly obvious echoes of traditional racist messages going back hundreds of years. Even the appearance of the Republican chairperson who appears at the end of the tape plays into an ugly iconic tradition…It’s 30 seconds of humiliation aimed at a set of political enemies who are inevitably identified by racial characteristics…It’s political pornography that reduces both its authors and its objects to stereotypes.

But you never called it “racist.” Check.

Neither did the NEW YORK TIMES, for that matter.

Race-baiting…a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state

But not, you know, “racist.” Check.

CK MacLeod on April 27, 2008 at 12:24 AM

That’s just another one of your misreadings turned into a straw man. I never called the ad “racist.”

Uh. CK? I think somebody has hijacked your nickname:

Regardless of what African Americans should see when they see that ad, I think a large number of them rightly see themselves painted in the worst possible light, and see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response to the Democrats and their black frontrunner.

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 5:36 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/25/video-fred-rips-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-1091704

Now maybe I’m missing the nuance, but when you say you think that African-Americans rightly see a political party trying to inflame a white racial response, I interpret that to mean that you’re calling the ad racist. Or is the NC GOP so devishly clever that they can inflame a racial response WITHOUT a racist ad?

If Republicans want to sustain the Democratic talking point – and the Democratic constituency – indefinitely, then they can keep on pretending that everyone will see things your way after they’ve been insulted and scapegoated enough times.

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/25/video-fred-rips-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-1091736

Are you saying you can insult and scapegoat black people without being racist? Again, that’s a whole lot of nuance.

But that’s not what that ad does or can do. Instead, it over-dramatizes its point with sadly familiar visual – inevitably racial – cues and the most incendiary statement of all of the ones Wright made

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/25/video-fred-rips-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-1091784

Inevitably racial cues? But not racist? Man, I’m going to have to start wearing boots to wade around in this nuance.

On the other hand, if I’m just a little bit human, maybe I’m thinking, “There they go again.”

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 6:19 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/25/video-fred-rips-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-1091801

“There they go again” being…non-racist, is that what you were trying to say? My apologies for misinterpreting.

Wright’s been doing an excellent job of keeping himself in the news and harming Obama without the Republican Party having to take responsibility for racially inflammatory politics.

CK MacLeod on April 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/25/video-fred-rips-obama/comment-page-2/#comment-1092106

Racially inflammatory, but not racist, right?
Help! Can’t…breathe! Drowning…in…nuance!

Below from

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2008 at 3:02 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/25/video-fred-rips-obama/comment-page-2/#comment-1092285

There are, however, glaringly obvious echoes of traditional racist messages going back hundreds of years. Even the appearance of the Republican chairperson who appears at the end of the tape plays into an ugly iconic tradition

Glaringly obvious echoes of traditional racist messages. But not, you know, racist racist messages. Ugly iconic tradition. But not, err, racist ugly iconic tradition.

It’s 30 seconds of humiliation aimed at a set of political enemies who are inevitably identified by racial characteristics

But not, I guess, racist racial characteristics, huh?

In addition to painting Republicans as the same old race-baiters

But not, obviously, racist race-baiters.

Neither did the NEW YORK TIMES, for that matter.

Uhm. Not racist, just “Race-baiting….a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state.” But not, of course, racist bigotry.

That’s a whole bunch of nuance you got there, CK.

And gee. No one else here seems to be claiming that it’s racist. And nobody, including you, has explained how it’s racist. Stupid, maybe, racist, no.

Using small words and short sentences: How. Is. It. Racist?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2008 at 9:39 PM

That’s just another one of your misreadings turned into a straw man. I never called the ad “racist.” Neither did the NEW YORK TIMES, for that matter. The people who have been bandying that term about are the people who have been defending the ad and in the process insulting those of us who disagree with them.

I’ve described the ad as insensitive and counterproductive, especially regarding African Americans. That is very much not the same as calling the ad “racist.”

I’ve given my opinion that it exploits racially charged words and imagery in a way that is familiar from racist propaganda – which, for hundreds of years and long before TV ads, often employed the following formula: “Look at the prancing, degenerate ____. Look at the ____-lovers. What are you gonna do about it, white man?”

Which again is not to say that the ad is racist, or that its authors are racist, or that its defenders are racist: It is to suggest that the ad is obviously and embarrassingly clumsy and insensitive, and that one possible explanation for its clumsiness and insensitivity would be racism on the part of its authors and advocates – though cynicism and ignorance would be more a likely explanation in most cases, I think.

In my opinion the ad makes conservatives – or at least some conservatives – look almost as blind and nuts as Wright. It does make conservatives look like racists. It can only reinforce the perception among non-conservatives that the Republican Party really is dominated by racists, boors, and antedeluvian morons.

As the saying goes, it’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.

Some observers will be less concerned about precise distinctions than I am, and will have no difficulty, and some justification, in declaring the ad obviously racist. I don’t quite share that view, and my guess is that the authors chose simply to ignore the racial resonances of their material. Choosing to believe that one can do so is already to put yourself on one side of the issue, however.

Alternative ways of presenting the same arguments and issues touched on by the ad might lack equivalent simplicity and drama, but they might also demonstrate respect for the audience and for the decency or at least the potential decency of those on the other political side. They wouldn’t have to involve “tip-toeing” or, as suggested in earlier discussion on this subject, “pandering.” They might, however, require some brains, and a political vision a little richer and a bit more attractive than “let’s ostracize the extremists (i.e. – everyone on the other side).”

His challenger, Harvey Gantt, a former Charlotte mayor, was, of course, African-American.

“African-American”?

Harvey Gantt was born in 1943 in Charleston, South Carolina.

He wasn’t born in Africa.

I really wish people would stop using the term “African-American”.

Anyone who was born in the United States of America is an “American”.

Anyone who tries to falsely hyphenate that word is trying to divide us, not unite us. Do not be deceived.

“Okay. here we go, for $500. Parakeets poop on it in the Empire State.”

“What is the New York Times?”

DING! DING! DING! DING!

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2008 at 5:09 PM

And gee. No one else here seems to be claiming that it’s racist. And nobody, including you, has explained how it’s racist. Stupid, maybe, racist, no.

Using small words and short sentences: How. Is. It. Racist?

CK MacLeod on April 26, 2008 at 5:09 PM

They make the rather simplistic claim that they just can’t help offending oversensitive people, because after all Wright and Obama are black, and “any” critical ad or other statement would be interpretable as “racist.”

Why simplistic? What’s simplistic is falling for Bambi’s strategy of calling every criticism of him racist.

it claims to be attacking two gubernatorial candidates by way of their endorsement of Obama and the idea that they’re responsible for his poor judgment in attending Wright’s church.

It “claims”? But you know better, I guess. You don’t see the logic in impugning their judgment and values in endorsing Obama, whose execrable judgment and questionable values are clearly and effectively illustrated in the ad?

In terms of actual effect, the ad is a 100% negative, infantile, multiply divisive attack on the sensibilities of precisely the voters and constituencies that Republicans, in North Carolina as much as anywhere else, should be cultivating and seeking to win over, not insulting. It helps turn the clock back on years of effort by Republicans to present their alternative positive vision on race issues.

In your opinion, clearly. Negative attacks are not bad per se, are they? Infantile? Again, I don’t see it. What is infantile about saying to North Carolinians “These people who claim to represent your values and have good judgment have endorsed a leftist wacko, as evidenced by the wacko’s minister of 20 years”? Not sure how the truth is negative, infantile, etc, etc. And how, again, does it help turn back the clock? Is it racist, or not? If it is, how is it? Barry is black, and Wright is black. Associating these black people with white people is racist? The ad, once again, is not critical of the color of their skin, it’s critical of the content of their characters.

“…low-reading-comprehension, pre-fabricated reflexive attacks on me as a (reverse) “racist”…Now, maybe you’ll surprise me with something other than more of the predictable personal insults”

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. There is no reverse racism. It’s racism, period. Not sure how it’s personally insulting to point out that tip-toeing around blacks and assuming they can’t tell the difference between racism and legitimate criticism is a personal attack. How else am I supposed to point it out?

You keep talking about what the ad “claims” to do. But you know the secret, ulterior motives, right?

Talk about predictable.