The key to a healthy heart is to regularly elevate your heart rate. So I’ve started reading Kathleen Parker’s columns. Today’s musings? Can we critique Obama without being racist? The obvious answer being, “I don’t know, can you?” After all, Republicans never figured out how to criticize Hillary Clinton without using outrageous misogyny. But, of course, a full answer depends on what Parker means by “we”. Since Parker is a fairly forgettable face among the cadre of right wing water carriers who flood our media, I can only assume she means “we Republicans”, so the question becomes: can the party of David Duke run a campaign against a black man without making it about his race? Good luck.
Of course, Parker isn’t interested in creating that productive dialogue; she’s actually trying to take a cheap shot at Obama’s supporters by asking if she can criticize Obama without being accused of being racist. Whether that critique is actually based in racism, of course, is left unaddressed. But this is a silly question, because of course you can run a non-racist campaign against a black candidate. In fact, I’ll do it right now: Barack Obama supports civil unions instead of full marriage rights for homosexuals, and that’s wrong. Of course, Republicans would never say that, but the point stands. If you stick to discussing how and why he’s wrong on the issues, there is no chance of being called a racist. Parker must know this, so what she’s really asking is “can we run our traditional agenda-of-rage, hate-filled campaign of scurrilous personal attacks against Obama?” The answer is no, that scares the crap out of Republicans, and that’s why Parker and her ilk have all been writing the same column: “Obama’s supporters are over-sensitive will call any criticism racist!” The writing that Parker and the Republicans see on the wall is this: In this election, the race card is going to be the great equalizer. They saw it happen with Harold Ford Jr., and it almost cost them a safe Republican Senate seat. Republicans launch the scurrilous personal attacks that they rely on to win, and Democrats can respond with (potentially scurrilous) accusations of racist campaigning. The 2006 Tennessee Senate race notwithstanding, an accusation of racism is more damning than Willie Horton, the swiftboat vets or anything else in the Republican playbook.
But the lunatic fringe of the right wing needn’t worry, because Parker has also come up with a brilliant defense. In a previous column, Parker explained that voting for John McCain over Obama because you think the president should be “a full-blooded American” for the simple reason that…it’s not racist. Quite remarkable, no? Simply make a claim more reminiscent of Josef Mengele than Jim Crow, then follow it up by saying “that’s not racist”.
But saying “I don’t mean to be rude but…” doesn’t immunize whatever rude thing you’re about to say, and saying “…but I’m not a racist” doesn’t suddenly make racial purity a legitimate campaign topic.
Parker answered her own question: Can we criticize Obama without being racist? Apparently not.
In the midst of Parker’s latest lunacy, I found this gem:
“Watching Obama give his celebration speech Tuesday night, I became aware that I was smiling. I slapped myself, of course, but the fool thing wouldn’t go away.”
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this argument. I’ve read several letters to the editor now from people who profess great admiration for Obama, in the first paragraph, only to conclude their thoughts by saying, “but all Democrats are evil, so I’m voting for McCain.”
Kathleen, smiling generally means you approve of what you see. Slapping yourself because you just realized that a Democrat just impressed you means you’re pathetic.
