Democracy Corps, in its 18-page report on "The Very Separate World Of Conservative Republicans," based on focus groups with conservative Americans and released today, outlines many beliefs and psychological facets central to the conservative Republican mind--and racism isn't one of them.
The study breaks down the contemporary conservative anti-Obama drive into several pillars--Obama's alleged deception and hidden agenda, the fast pace with which he's pushing that agenda, his desire to drive government to the brink of failure and exert governmental control over everything, and his alleged ultimate goal of socialism and an end to liberties. But, when given the opportunity to discuss race, even the older, white, non-college-educated Americans (who, the firm says, "score highest on scales measuring racial prejudice") didn't raise it as an issue. Rather, they brought up the media's consumption with race as a motivator of anti-Obama sentiment, and the notion that they can't criticize Obama on his merits because they'll be labeled racist.
Democracy Corps, the research/polling/strategy firm founded by James
Carville and Stanley Greenberg, doesn't say positively that racism is
absent from absent from the contemporary conservative movement, but it
does seem to imply it. And while they may be right that it's time to move on from the now-repetitive "Are Obama's critics racist?" media narrative, the issue is a bit more complicated than that conclusion, derived from these findings, gives it credit for.
From Democracy Corps' summary:
Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters' beliefs - but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson's incendiary comments at the president's joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion - but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.And from the full memo:
In the wake of Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during the president's joint session health careThis does not mean, conclusively, that racism is absent from anti-Obama politics. Asserting that's the case means taking up a patently false assumption about racism: that it's always overt. Democracy Corps' report seems to walk that line, even if it doesn't cross it.
address and other strident personal and political attacks against President Obama, many in the media and Democratic circles advanced an explanation that this virulent opposition is rooted in racism and reactions to President Obama as an African American president. With this possibility in mind, we allowed for extended open-ended discussion on Obama (including visuals of him speaking) among voters -- older, non-college, white, and conservative -- who were most race conscious and score highest on scales measuring racial prejudice. Race was barely raised, certainly not what was bothering them about President Obama.
In fact, some of these voters talked about feeling some pride at his election.
They were conscious of the charge that opposition to Obama is racially motivated and that bothered conservative Republicans and independents alike. They basically could not let it go and returned to this issue again and again throughout our conversations across myriad topics.
Racism is about complex systems of recognition, categorization, and association. If you ask someone what they think about Obama, and they don't say, "I dislike him because he's black," it's not quite safe to check the "not racist" box and move on. Quiet conclusions are often made--and they can be just as racist as the ones spoken aloud.
So the fact that no one brought up race doesn't necessarily force a conclusion on the matter.
This is the state of race consciousness in the pro/anti-Obama debate: moments of overt racism in the 2008 campaign, and continued opposition by anti-Obama protesters with odd taste, like the people who wave posters with Obama creepily enshrined as the Joker, plus the presence of birthers and Obama-is-a-Muslim believers, have led to accusations of racism, which have led conservatives to say "we can't criticize Obama, otherwise it's called racist." Some of them say it gleefully, in a kind of anti-political-correctness impulse; some don't.
It's hard to know where racialized thinking began for each person involved in the conversation. Without overt signs, it's pretty difficult to conclude.
Why is there always the assumption that racism is binary? Racism is just one of many biases that every human on the planet holds.
Even though I try to be as open-minded and self-aware as I can, I'm sure to some degree I'm racist. And I probably harbor biases when dealing with people who are tall, or short, or thin, or fat, or long-haired, or balding, or well-dressed, or disheveled, or any number of other attributes. And in general, I'm pretty sure those biases tend to manifest as "doesn't look like me".
But fundamentally, I don't see a bright line between "racist" and "not racist". And it's odd that everyone seems to believe there is one.
I wonder how many people distrust Obama (or the media) because they feel a sycophantic media put him over the top in the primary and election? Personally, I could definitely see the McCain campaign fall apart, so I think whoever the Dem candidate was could have easily one at that point, but watching the media faun was both disgusting and somewhat frightening.
"watching the media faun was both disgusting and somewhat frightening"
msully, I wonder whether you attribute this to a "liberal MSM," or do you recognize that many people felt that this same media fawned over Bush during the run-up to Iraq in 2002-2003, and effectively fawned over him during the 2000 campaign with their endless recycling of the meme that Gore was some kind of laughable serial liar?
In fact, many people found the media disgusting and frightening then, but did not dislike Bush because of the fawning -- they disliked him for his policies and manners. If voters dislike Obama because "the media made him president," then they are unmooring their opinion from any grounds on which we can have a constructive conversation and moving it instead toward that swath of Venn Diagram where you will find conspiracy theorists of all stripes -- many of whom are also racist (i.e., the embittered and ignorant who believe Obama is a "puppet" of rich elitists who secretly control the economy, and are usually Jewish or foreign).
Of course it's nuanced. One of the elephants in the room, and I think most people would agree with this, is that one of the reasons Obama got such favorable coverage is because of his race; similarly, it was also why so many of his radical associations were either ignored or explained away.
And yes, Al Gore is a serial liar, although not so laughable anymore; he's likely to go down as one of history's greatest con men.
Jennis, I don't agree that Obama got favorable coverage because of his race. Far from being ignored, his "radical associations" (I'm assuming you mean Ayers & Wright) got quite a lot of coverage, often dominating the news, and it wasn't simply "the media" that "explained away" either one; in the case of Wright, Obama met the situation head-on with a speech in Philadelphia that had to be one of the most intelligent, subtle and honest of any political campaign in memory.
It is a bit tricky to say things like "I think most people would agree," because possibly we (you, me) get our impressions of "most people" by talking to friends, coworkers, family, and watching media outlets of our own choosing -- which is to say, a certain amount of selection has gone on. There's a risk we'll hear fewer opinions diverging greatly from our own, so we'll start to believe "most people would agree," and if most people agree, that enhances our sense that a colossal injustice has occurred -- that the situation is something to be outraged over.
Which can lead to the effectively paranoid state I was talking about above.
I am sorry, the media and the elite have to get out among the people and LISTEN to what they say instead of just demonizing those they disagree with. I could have told you these findings but it is nice to see the Ragin' Cajun doing the reporting.
The left, and especially the media left, have taken wide liberties with what the right is saying and in doing so have driven a huge wedge between the two political camps. The people who have brought race into the issue are the left who have used it to convince themselves that is why the right don't like what they are trying to sell. Instead they are missing:
-Opposition to government takeover of large portions of the US economy.
-A desire to put in a public option in health care by a government that can't effectively run the health care programs that they currently have.
-Spending that is out of control.
-A spending plan for liberal pet projects that was disguised as a stimulus bill (at least Chris Matthews came to that conclusion)
-Secret deals amongst Democrats only in the name of "transparency".
-Indecision on foreign policy.
The right doesn't have enough time to be opposing Obama based on race.
They basically could not let it go and returned to this issue again and again throughout our conversations across myriad topics.
Like the old uncle who constantly denies racism: "I worked with them all my life. Even had to use the same bathroom as them. How the hell could I be racist?"
I must say I don't have an old uncle like you apparently have. He must have been involved in the desegregation of schools in Boston in the 1970s. It appears to me that some hasten to conclude there is no basis for criticizing the president; consequently such criticism must be based on his race. Clearly such a posture is an attempt to prevent any discussion about the issues and whether we as American citizens have a voice other than the votes we cast in a given election. I could dismiss your views because you dislike white people from the South, or because you believe all fat people are stupid, or because you dislike Asian students because they always make higher grades in school than do your children. The point is some believe Obama's plans are bad for our nation. To accuse his critics of racism is nothing more than telling them to sit down and shut up. There are without question prejudiced people in our nation. They come in all colors and from all walks of life. But if I call you a racist and you are Caucasian, anything you say from that point on is meaningless. You are no longer allowed to participate.
Hello? It's about freedom, not race. Some of us have been to public schools, or the DMV. We do not want our doctor's offices taken over by the same bureaucrats who gave us those fine institutions.
Remember Bill Clinton? Conservatives gave him a hard time too. Why? Because he was on the other side.
Remember W. Bush? Liberals gave him a hard time too for the same reason. See The Smirking Chimp.
Uhh, yes it is...
It’s not what they say; it’s the way they say it (and what that means).
They say:
I think you must take the radical right at their word. But what do they mean when they express believe in biblical literalism, anti-evolution creationism, global warming is a hoax, etc.? They say they are values voters, whose culture and world view is scoffed at by elites and mainstream media. Consequently, these “devout warriors” aren’t interested in what you have to say about healthcare, or anything else for that matter. In What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank wrote, “The gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right… against a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.”
The fear of what it means:
A hostile “smack-down” is sure to follow, as mainstream culture threatens their values. The name-calling, yelling, and packing of weapons are just a first stage of intimidation. The sale of ammunition and talk of secession is almost unprecedented across the South. Some governors speak of nullification, as if the Civil War had not settled the matter. Will violence follow? Don’t believe it can’t happen.
The Democracy Corp report is a good read. It's amazing just how nutty these Republicans are.
Take this paragraph for example:
We find further evidence of this pattern of deception in questions they believe have not
been adequately answered or investigated about Obama’s background, including his place of
birth, his education, the authorship of his books, the degree of his associations with controversial
figures including William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, his work as a community organizer, his
links to ACORN, and his service in the Illinois legislature. Again, they see a unique pattern of
secrecy and subterfuge, abetted by either incompetence or willful neglect by the mainstream media.
They do believe in bogeymen!