RSS Feed MenuWhat on earth is the fuss all about?
The latest uproar in the politically and racially-sensitve U.S. is Senate majority leader Harry Reid (“Dingey Harry,” as Rush Limbaugh calls him) commenting that Barack Obama was elected because he’s a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect.”
Since Reid is a Democrat, these remarks are interpreted by some zealots (mostly Republican) as racist and unacceptable. At very least they supposedly show a double-standard, on grounds that if a Republican said them. All hell would break loose.
As it is, Reid apologized for his choice of words and fellow Democrats have forgiven him – including President Obama, who seems the coolest of everyone in the matter.
What’s to forgive? What Reid said is accurate, even though “Negro” is an outdated term that isn’t used any more. But it’s not a slur.
Just as accurate would be to say that a key reason why Obama was elected is precisely because he’s an African-American (with a white mother and raised by whites), is seen as a moderate, unifying influence who speaks well and during the campaign generally said what people want to hear.
With no accent, So what’s the problem?
To some, the generosity shown to Reid contrasts with the outrage heaped on Trent Lott when he was Republican majority leader in 2002 and remarked on 100-year-old Strom Thurmond’s retirement after 48 years in the Senate.
If Strom Thurmond had been elected when he was challenging to be a presidential candidate in the 1948 election, Lott opined, “and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”
Considering that in 1948 Strom Thurmond was a raging segregationist (States Rights Democratic Party) and got 2.4% of the nation’s vote, Lott’s remarks – while perhaps meant to be meaningless flattery to the old geezer – had a distinct racial flavor that Reid’s didn’t.
Comparing the reaction to Reid’s remarks with Trent Lott’s is apples and oranges. There’s no comparison. Reid’s choice of words were outdated, but it’s hard to dispute their accuracy.
Lott’s tribute was different – an endorsement of policies that even when Thurmond wanted to be president were unacceptable and racist, and would have added to America’s problems rather than diminish them if he’d ever gotten the job. So the parallel is a false one.
While fodder for conservative talk show hosts, Harry Reid’s remarks about Obama are much ado about very little.
After a year as president, Obama’s racial origins are hardly noticed and increasingly irrelevant. He’s a more persuasive orator than many predecessors and is personally more popular than the policies he is trying to foist on the U.S.
The controversy that engulfs him today is because of what he and his administration are doing, or not doing – not because of his color or accent.
Harry Reid can apologize all he wants, but it won’t change the reality that he was right: Obama’s light skin color and lack of accent or dialect, not only helped him get elected, but are the prime reason he was elected.
And if he is not re-elected in 2012, it will be because of his failure to convince Americans that his policies are sound, not because of his skin color or accent.
DFL // Jan 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm
That Strom Thurmond was the most conservative candidate in the 1948 Presidential race shows how liberal the zeitgeist was at that time. Harry Truman. Thomas Dewey. Henry Wallace. Strom Thurmond. A pretty lousy choice.
sparty // Jan 13, 2010 at 2:51 pm
“Obama’s light skin color and lack of accent or dialect, not only helped him get elected, but are the prime reason he was elected.”
The prime reason:
Bush was elected because he was a Bush.
Clinton was elected because he played the sax.
Bush was elected because…
Reagan was elected because he reminded us of our Grandpa.
Palin will be elected is because she’s hot, fertile, folksy, uniformed, and simple.
mlloyd // Jan 13, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Thanks for this commonsensical post.
mlindroo // Jan 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Worthington is right. Reid was merely describing racial attitudes among voters today whereas Lott apparently was implying Mississippi was justifiably proud of Strom Thurmond and his campaign for racial segregation in the 1948 elections. “And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Which “offense” is worse? There is no contest really.
Besides, the group supposedly insulted by Reid has defended him after he immediately issued an apology (something that Lott did not do). Black Democrats (is that a tautology, grin?) have warned the GOP that it “will not find a welcome mat in the black community” if it tries to seize on the remarks. In contrast, even African American Republicans such as Condi Rice and Colin Powell refused to support Lott in 2003.
MARCU$
CentristNYer // Jan 13, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Good post.
Reid’s remarks are the classic Kinsley definition of a “gaffe”: what you call it when someone speaks the truth. The comparison with Lott’s remarks — even though I do think the outrage about them was also out-of-proportion — is utter nonsense.
rbottoms // Jan 13, 2010 at 4:42 pm
True dat.
balconesfault // Jan 13, 2010 at 5:55 pm
The fuss … is about the fuss.
At this point, the main goal of the Republican Party is simply to monkeywrench the workings of government. It’s what the right wing views as its most direct path to power.
If you can tie up Washington for a few days over some faux crisis, or better yet take out Reid as Senate Majority Leader (not that the Dems might not be better off with a different majority leader anyhow, but that the process of getting one would certainly eat clock time), the Repubs move closer to their real goal – which is to be able to claim next fall that Dems did nothing while they controlled Congress.
Don’t worry, Peter. We’ll have a new faux outrage soon. I imagine plenty of time will be spent whining over the Repubs not getting to slow down a healthcare bill that they have no interest in making any substantive additions to.
evensteve // Jan 14, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Obama’s light skin color and lack of accent or dialect, not only helped him get elected, but are the prime reason he was elected
By this logic, if Obama was as smart as Palin, as lascivious as Edwards, but had these qualities, then he would still have been elected? That’s ridiculous. Even McCain would have beaten a light-skinned, no-accent palin idiot who cheated on his wife (who of course would never had beaten Hillary in the first place).