Racism Everywhere!
Media Matters for America has, rather eccentrically, identified the following line by Chris Matthews on Hardball are meriting scrutiny.
They’re the working-class white voters Hillary won and Barack didn’t. Can Obama win over the regular folks against John McCain?
Shrewdly, Media Matters doesn’t explicitly call this line racist as that would be flatly absurd. But they seem to be suggesting that Matthews has crossed some line by referring to working-class whites as “regular folks.”
Note, incidentally, that Matthews was asking me — a college-educated brown man — about working-class whites, presumably because I know something about them. If I can know something about them, perhaps his suggestion that Obama can’t connect with them has less to do with Obama’s race than with his ideology or sensibility. But we’ll leave that to the side. I happen to think Obama is perfectly capable of connecting with working-class voters, and indeed that he has connected with working class whites, in Oregon and elsewhere in non-Appalachian America.
To the regular folks line, I often quote a statistic I first encountered via Ruy Teixeira: in 1940, non-college whites represented over 80 percent of American adults over age 25. Today they represent roughly 48 percent. To be sure, 48 percent isn’t a majority, but it is darn close. “Regular” implies the norm, what is most common. Note that when we talk about young people in elite media, we focus almost exclusively on the college-bound. Anya Kamenetz of Fast Company and Douglas McGray of New America have both talked about how narrow and misleading this prism can be. The same obtains for the overall population.
That is, Matthews is implying that college-educated whites — who dominate our culture, and our cultural “mindshare” — are not regular. So is this classist? Clearly not. Rather, it is a suggestion that we spend some amount of time thinking about another large and important group that happens to consist of 48 percent of American adults over 25.
Is Matthews implying that Asian Americans over 25, like myself, and African Americans and Latinos are “not regular”? In a manner of speaking, yes. He is implicitly suggesting that they are minorities, and as a result face unique challenges that are not identical to challenges faced my members of the majority. Which is incontrovertibly true. To be sure, these challenges aren’t separate and distinct in every case — many are the same, as we all share a broad economic environment.
But is this racist? Or mildly offensive? Clearly not. Is Media Matters, staffed by very bright people who do a lot of valuable work, being anything other than obtuse in this instance? I certainly think so.
I obviously have a bias here. I was on the segment, and I used to work for Matthews, who was a great boss. But I’m also biased because I am an American of South Asian Muslim origin and I have encountered some actual hostility and discrimination based on my background. This kind of charge trivializes that, and it trivializes experiences that have been far worse than mine.
<em>“Regular” implies the norm, what is most common.</em>
Alternatively, it implies “not aberrant,” with all the distinctions between “aberrant” and natural, clean, native, and the need to avoid or shun implied. This, I think, has been a non-trivial problem for African-Americans (whom I suspect have a better claim to be blood-and-soil Americans than a significant percentage of your “regular Americans”). Think, for example, if there were continual questions—and the frequency of the question matters, as does the reason for raising the issue—about David Brooks’s ability to actually faithfully represent and articulate the concerns of “regular Americans,” given that he’s Jewish (as opposed to African-American). It doesn’t seem to me to be that hard gin up a justification for doing that, however unfair such continued questions on the basis of his religion might be. Or you could run the same game with women, men, and Hillary Clinton, treating women as irregular if only because at least 48% of the population is male. Again, I think you’d reasonably catch flak.
— SomeCallMeTim · Jul 2, 04:49 PM · #
Reihan,
I get what you’re saying, but maybe Matthews assumes that you, as someone who is a conservative (setting aside the obvious comparisons in educational background, etc. that you have with the Democratic presidential nominee) are more likely to understand “regular folks” than an “elitist liberal” like Barack Obama. So, in one sense, there’s the implicit (or sometimes explicit) implication that conservatives (God! Family! Country!) are the “true” Americans or the “regular folks”, while folks like Obama with their high and fancy degree and upward mobility and condo in costal cities are vaguely…something else. Let’s face it, when pundits talk about “regular folks” they’re almost exclusively talking about a romanticized caricature of white Americans in fly over country. They’re not talking about black folks, or Latinos or any other minority. Now, I don’t think Matthews is a racist nor do I think he meant anything by the comment, but it’s just like you said about the assumptions members of the media make when talking about young people. There are lots of non-white working class people who aren’t getting full consideration in this particular formulation
— Mike P · Jul 2, 05:57 PM · #
“This kind of charge trivializes that, and it trivializes experiences that have been far worse than mine.”
yes.
— razib · Jul 2, 06:37 PM · #
Good performance. You were pretty clearly nervous, Reihan, but you did pretty good. Take a deep breath, buddy.
— Daniel · Jul 2, 06:46 PM · #
<i>If I can know something about them, perhaps his suggestion that Obama can’t connect with them has less to do with Obama’s race than with his ideology or sensibility.</i>
Actually, Reihan, seems to me that “understanding” working-class white Americans — which is what a policy-minded writer like you can do easily — is quite different from connecting with them (which is what Barack Obama needs to do, to get elected), isn’t it? And a part of the reason he may not be able to connect with them could be because of his race — although I agree with you that this is not necessarily racism.
— scritic · Jul 2, 07:17 PM · #
Let me see if I get this: it’s NOT racist when Chris Matthews says it, but it IS racist when Hillary makes the statement? All you Clinton haters who unfairly handed the nomination to Obambi will reap what you sow, along with the rest of us. You want to see racism…wait until Obama and Michelle bring Black Liberation Theology to the White House. Oh wait, I forgot…there is no racism against whites.
WAKE UP!!!
— cweaver · Jul 2, 07:55 PM · #
I don’t see the drawback of living in a world where Chris Matthews pays attention to Media Matters (and you) to make his speech more precise. If working class whites make up 48% of the population, let him say that. Tim is right that “regular” carries a taint of implied exclusion and abnormality.
— Wrongshore · Jul 2, 08:04 PM · #
I woke up today thinking: “Is there any way to make the mainstream media more politically correct, and more sensitive to whether the use of everyday idioms might offend someone whose profession it is to be offended?” I confess that I was unable to think of a way, but thank deity for Media Matters!
— J Mann · Jul 2, 08:07 PM · #
Boy The MSM media blasted Hillary for using white working class people.
It is amazing to me that the MSM just doesn’t understand the American people and spins everything the way that they think.
The white working people are the Reagan Democrats that live in the Appalachian chain of states. They are the bitter clinging to guns and bible because thy do not understand the rest of the USA.
Mr. Obama should understand what makes up these people and see if he can take back his remarks about them. I hope he has better success in the General than he had in the Primary when Hillary took 75 to 80% of the votes of the Working class voters.
LOL
— s smith · Jul 2, 08:47 PM · #
To Cweaver
I thought black folk was already liberated. What is going to happen to white people when Obama wins the presidency? What are your fears. That blacks are going have their revenge on white people. LOL
— Kimberley · Jul 2, 09:01 PM · #
pat
— pat · Jul 2, 09:49 PM · #
What I love about posts like Reihan’s is that they inevitably trigger comments suggesting that racism is no longer a major problem for our country, but also the immediate refutation of those comments with actually racist comments. (What’s gonna happen with the blacks take over! PANDEMONIUM!)
If I would identify one crucial failure in your scholarship, Reihan, it’s my sense that you think you understand everyone else’s life.
— Freddie · Jul 2, 10:00 PM · #
Fact of the matter is, most of us have a lot more in common with each other than we do differences with each other.
The Democratic Party (and it’s liberal media supporters) is obsessed with playing Class & Race games in order to divide & conquer the electorate. Notice how they are always talking about affirmative action, entitlements, and ‘justice’ for victim groups?
Until the Liberal Democrats quite playing the divide & conquer game, I doubt we’ll ever start coming together as a nation.
— BillSanford · Jul 2, 10:18 PM · #
Media Matters is a business. David Brock and Co. get paid by George Soros and Co. for making mountains out of molehills. That’s what they do for a living.
— Steve Sailer · Jul 2, 11:06 PM · #
to Kimberly,
My point being: that racism is racism! And the comments by Reverend Wright and Pfluger and Black Liberation Theology are racist! But everyone is giving the Obamas a free pass. If he’s going to play the race card,which he has (“oh and remember, he’s black”) then it needs to go both ways and both the Obamas need to explain their racism. My main point, was that he is NO CANDIDATE of change. He beat Hillary based on saying only “hope, change, change, hope” and now he is going back on everything he said. He is nothing but a lying politician who will do whatever he has to to get to the White House. Sad that so many have fallen in love with such a fake!
— cweaver · Jul 2, 11:29 PM · #
To cweaver
If as you say, its Obama who plays the race with his comment of “oh and remember, he black”. Well he actual never used those exact words, I only say that so we can keep our comments true and accurate. When people say thing like regular folks, hard working American, yes they are only talking about white people, with the exclusion of all other peoples. This has been American political speak for decades, where the only people that counts were white people. Are these comments racist??? Yes and no. Yes they are because they exclude all others and say that only white people are hard working or regular American. Is this a direct racist comment? No.
It only show the mindset of many pundits speak “political speak”. But to say Obama plays the race card and refuse to acknowledge the race card being played against him is dishonest. Comments like “he is exotic” or elitist. Is exotic code word for Black? I think so and if you are honest you would agree.
The worst racist comments in my opinion is the tag of Obama being an elitist. This tag given to Obama by Karl Rove is without question code. This elitist tag was not brought out until the primaries came to area with racial issues, such as Ohio, Penn. All of a sudden a black man who is the child of a single parent, who was on walfare is an elitist. What they were saying (code) to hard-working regular American (non-college white), was that Obama is uppity and thinks he is better than you. This is politics and everybody uses these kind of attacks. What disappoints me the most is that after all these years of doing things like this, the regular hard-working Americans have not figured out they are being played the fool again.
— Jamea · Jul 3, 01:33 PM · #
Freddie, I have to say, I think you are way off base in a way that doesn’t surprise me. Me, I’ve had a variety of experiences and been lucky, travel-wise. But I was first drawn to this site, in its early incarnation, by the fact that Reihan and Ross were creepily simpatico with working families’ concerns — something other young writers, left and right, don’t really do well. I’m still sort of amazed by how well they seem to have insight into the issues of broke married people with small children (something I have insight into, by being in that class myself). I would expect them to havee the same tin ear for it that their contemporaries do. And I think in Reihan’s case in particular that insight stems from an awful lot of caution, about making assumptions about what people want or think they need. I am in awe of that and it keeps this one of my favorite sites although my political leanings aren’t those generally on display here.
— Sanjay · Jul 3, 03:43 PM · #
What upsets Media Matters is not who Matthews is calling regular, but who, by implication, is being called irregular.
They have a point.
— Consumatopia · Jul 3, 04:38 PM · #
Replace ‘regular’ with ‘common’ — or, even more anachronistically, ‘vulgar’ — and the angst flows the other way.
Which is why I have a good ole’ fashioned case of the ‘fuckits’.
— JA · Jul 3, 05:49 PM · #