Brandon Ferdig wants to discuss what he thinks is one of more dangerous, race-based articles you’ll read all year.
Slate.com published a piece by Tom Scocca on Friday the 2nd criticizing the White men who vote for Romney.
Most people acknowledge that a level and amount of grouping of people is acceptable when measuring trends in society. We hear about the “Latino vote” the “Catholic vote” and so forth and respect that though there will be exceptions to these trends, the trends are still there.
But usually when discussing a negative trend of a group, or criticizing a block of voters, writers try to be respectful and careful—or at least they should—by saying that they aren’t equating certain critical behaviors to group membership. We learned this years ago. It’s racism or classism 101 to see the folly in assuming all members of a group will act a certain way because of their appearance, sex, etc. Our breaking free of this should be a badge worn proudly in our quest to make the world a better place.
Then, from Slate, we read this: “White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans. Without this narrow, tribal appeal, Romney’s candidacy would simply not be viable. Most kinds of Americans see no reason to vote for him.”
A bad commentary—which this is because of it’s narrow-mindedness indicated in the last line—is one thing. But to cast all of a group under a bus is quite another. It’s dangerous. Scocca continues:
“White people don’t like to believe that they practice identity politics. The defining part of being white in America is the assumption that, as a white person, you are a regular, individual human being…Whiteness, to white people, is the American default.”
“It’s a strange, inverted world, the white-people’s bubble, full of phantoms and rumors.”
“Romney is speaking fluent White.”
Can you imagine reading “Blackness” or speaking “Black”? It would be called out immediately if it made a popular site like Slate. So here I am in my attempt to discipline the child because if we let him continue, he’ll be encouraged to do so. This is not okay—no matter what group is being talked about. We’re supposed to be past this.
It should be stomped out because it stokes racist fires under the acceptable veil of attacking an acceptable target. And in doing so, the comments beneath the article are glaring in their race-language hearkening back to pre-civil rights:
Euro12
Men, and in particular, the white ones, will do anything to keep their power…
–
K
Angry middle-aged white men are dying off and they’re not being replaced by middle-aged white men.
–
Randall
I don’t want a regular white man for president again for a long time.
–
Then there’s this ironic post:
whitegirlForOBAMA
Wow I love this. Don’t let yourself or your kids get brainwashed by the media. This election is all about race and it makes me so sad. I am losing faith in this planet i mean how could so many still be stuck on skin color??
–
The comments are made with no consideration of how stereotypical they are.
What makes this piece saddening is that it is published on a reputable site, evermore encouraging people that it’s okay to think this way. If I’m an alien looking down on Earth, I’m scratching my head as to why and how this piece was written this way.
All I can say is, “Wake up.” Racism and the overall tendency to let fear stereotype groups of people doesn’t end when you improve your relations with historically disadvantaged groups. It extends to all, and when it is “Progressive” authors and websites that purport to advance this message and behavior, it speaks ever-loudly to the “isms” we’ll continue to accept even with values that supposedly call for their end.
Stay conscious of this tendency to let fear become an outlet to other areas that finds a welcoming. Stay on top of it, and don’t let the sway of anyone or anyplace skew your heart to harmful places. Slate is the latest victim.
Don’t let it be you.
p.s. And because it probably makes a difference to some: no, I’m not voting for Romney.
–
Photo by BU Interactive News / flickr
About Brandon Ferdig
Brandon,
Thank you for this.
I think that there is a real disconnect in this country about how we talk to each other, and it’s killing political discourse. It’s become far too easy to dismiss your opponent as “ignorant” or “racist” rather than to genuinely hear him out.
I’ve personally felt very trapped this election season. I don’t believe in socialized medicine; I think Spain and France are great cautionary tales about why progressive plans won’t fix the economy; I feel like President Obama lied to America about his commitment to helping undocumented immigrants (the help that came took 3 years, applies only to a small fraction of undocumented people, and is a far cry from GW Bush’s stated goal of “a path to citizenship). I was a union member for 3 years during HS and college, and I feel that the union ripped me off the entire time. I believe in free speech without limits, so I think that Citizens United was the right decision, and I abhor so-called “hate speech” laws and the more recent anti-bullying legislation which is just another limit on free speech in disguise.
But I also believe in gay marriage; I don’t think the Republicans will be any better towards undocumented immigrants; I don’t understand why anyone wants to limit abortion rights; I definitely don’t want to see limits placed on access to contraceptives; I think we do need a well-funded education system (though one without unions, see above); and I want to see an end to the drug war.
Now, if I vote for Obama, I’m voting against my own values in the first paragraph. If I vote for Romney I’m voting against my own values in the second.
Yet no one ever seems to hear me on these points. The Democrats I know have called me an ignorant racist for failing to support Obama, and the Republicans I know call me an ignorant socialist for failing to support Romney. The fact that I actually think issues through and have reasons for my beliefs does not seem to bother any of them. The attitude that anyone who disagrees with you must be “ignorant” has become pervasive across the entire spectrum.
Thank you, Mike. It’s very encouraging to hear people thinking independently and not getting wrapped up in the dichotomy of Right v. Left. I also empathize with your political homelessness. When I said I wasn’t voting for Romney, it’s because I’m voting third party.
An excellent article. But I’m afraid your words will fall on deaf ears.
According to cultural leftism, to which Slate mostly subscribes, “marginalized groups,” on account of their disadvantaged status, can never be guilty of racism, bigotry, or any other isms.
Only white people can be racist (as most cultural leftists subscribe to the whole racism = prejudice + power theory)
Only men can be sexist.
Etc, etc.
Or, if non-whites actually are racist or bigoted in any way, then it’s only because their noble souls have somehow been corrupted by evil whites.
All of that being said, something tells me that elections will become increasingly polarized along racial lines.
Thanks, Bay Area Guy (I love the Bay Area: ) I know what you mean. I’ve been floored by what’s been said just on this site about racism. The pendulum has swung so far the other direction that material like the Slate article is written and no one calls it out for its breach of morality.
Oh well, just have to keep writing, I guess. I’m grateful, too, that the GMP has given a voice to these not-commonly-made concerns: )
Mike L.
WRT abortion rights: If you believe that life begins at conception, abortion kills a living person. If you think it might be later in pregnancy that it’s actually, morally “life”, then you think about restricting it in, for example, the last trimester.
If you take Obama’s legal position, if the kid’s accidentally born–See The Born Alive Infant Protection Act–you can let it die.
About the only way you cannot understand restricting abortion rights is to pretend never to have heard of the question of when life begins. Luck with that.
What limits on access to contraceptives do you see? Cardboard cutouts of Romney between you and the pharmacy? Or does it need to be free to be accessible?
I’m not sure how many people who claim it actually think that voting against Obama is a matter of race. Probably one percent. That’s the really, really dumb bunch. The rest are trying to guilt others into voting for Obama despite policy disagreements.
As Ann Coulter says, when whites saw blacks cheering the acquittal of an obvious murderer–OJ–they figured the race card was maxed out. Liberating, in a way, she says. Not sure she’s right about the date or incident, but it’s clearly happened for some reason.
Richard,
You are assuming motivations about abortion that I don’t have. I primarily care about harm reduction, not when life begins. When access to abortion is curtailed, that increases the odds that women will seek illegal procedures that carry high medical risks. These are risks that society ultimately pays for when medicaid must pick up the tab for complications from illegally performed abortions.
As for contraception, I simply believe (as Milton Friedman did, though many forget that now) that it may be the job of the government to step in when there is a complete market failure. In some rural areas there is a market failure with respect to contraceptive access. At present, this failure is being rectified by Planned Parenthood, which Romney would seek to pull funding for. As the use of government funds to correct a market failure seems potentially efficient, this should be a decision made after careful economic study. This is not, however, what Romney is doing. He is making a moral argument in response to something that I view as an economic problem. This is inappropriate.
criticizing white men for voting republican isn’t racist, it’s calling out a group that has, and is, privileged, and has bigoted attitudes as a result
Wake up, Robert. My problem isn’t with Scocca criticizing white men for voting republican, it’s for phrases like, “speaking White” and “whiteness”.
No, it’s assuming that a group is privileged and has bigoted attitudes as a result.
The title of the article should have been White Men can Dish It But They Can’t Take It. You start off with “Most people acknowledge that a level and amount of grouping of people is acceptable when measuring trends in society. We hear about the “Latino vote” the “Catholic vote” and so forth and respect that though there will be exceptions to these trends, the trends are still there.” Then you cry “racism” because Slate called out a white male trend . Please.
Republicans are masterful at getting whites to support them, even if its against their interest, because they play on the inherent racism of American society. When they say Americans they are not talking about anyone but white people.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with stating the behaviors of groups. But I make it perfectly clear that it’s not okay to do so in the reckless and disrespectful way Scocca did. (Saying that all of a certain group lack “logic or common sense”, for example.) If you see nothing wrong with his article, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
The difference is that the “Latino vote” or the “Catholic vote” are portrayed as voting about issues that relate to their particular identity. Scocca is essentially saying that white men are voting for Romney because they’re racist.
The problem is not identifying groups as voting blocs; the problem is claiming that a certain group is only voting the way they are out of racism.
Latino voters don’t vote for Obama because he looks like them, nor do Catholic voters vote for Romney because he goes to the same church as they do. Scocca is claiming that white male voters are voting for Romney only because he is a white male.
This idea that to vote for Romney, you must be anti-black, uptight privileged, racist, pro-fat cats is ridiculous, idiotic, short sided at best & at worse it’s more leftist propaganda masquerading as unbiased, impartial & balanced opinion, mean while people on the left who carry these views & spread them are no different then the traditional Tea party fanatics, they are just trying to steal the general public narrative & this is coming from a black man who is for Romney.
It’s easy to criticizing middle or working class whites for voting against their economic interests by supporting the Republicans.
However, what’s not taken into account is the fact that the Democratic party (and American left in general) has done a lot to alienate middle American white people over the past few decades.
Whether it’s promoting non-white identity politics, promoting certain pet causes such as gay marriage, or engaging in various other forms of cultural leftist fetishism, many middle American whites (the types of people “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” had in mind) can’t relate to the Democratic party.
I don’t think that they support the kind of predatory neoliberal economics endorsed by the Republican party (not that the Democrats are much better in this regard), but they vote Republican due to a feeling of alienation from the Democratic party.
Now liberals might say that it’s not their job to indulge these horribly unenlightened white middle American bigots. But they should at least understand why they vote the way they do. People don’t want to vote for a party to which they can’t relate.
Likewise, as black journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates has pointed out on occasion, large numbers of blacks don’t vote for the Democratic party because they have any love for gay marriage or abortion. They vote Democrat because they see the Republicans as pandering to a bunch of racists who hate them.
Like I said, watch for elections to become increasingly polarized. As white numbers continue to decline, expect them to act more and more as a racial bloc. On the flip side, what’s going to maintain the Democratic rainbow coalition as the number of white conservatives declines? What will be the glue that will hold them together when their common enemy fades?
I’m interested to find out.
Nice article – I fit very closely with Mike L above. I voted for Obama in 08 but changed my mind this time around and went Romney (early voted on Friday).
People like Scocca just prove that there are plethora of offensive morons on the left as well.
Voting is nothing short of a confidence game. Most voters don’t have the time or inclination (too busy with life) to properly research and decide what is best. Most voters watch a bit of TV, absorb a few sound bites, and vote – for who appears the most like them.
I think we need to park the fairy tale that voting is a rational exercise.
What BAG said.