Race Baiting on the Radio -- Updated
That’s how Rush treats people — in the Martin Luther King aspiration that the content of one’s character is what matters, not the color of one’s skin. Yet, in the media narrative, he’s somehow the one who’s got a race issue — and the guys who trade on race, live and breathe it 24/7, are held up as our public conscience. The Left calls this “progress.” I call it perversion.
There’s only one way this nonsense ever goes away: When we say “enough!” and tell the race-baiters their time is up.
— Andy McCarthy
Who has frivolously labeled more people racist in 2009, Al Sharpton or Rush Limbaugh? Prior to researching my latest column at The Daily Beast I would’ve said the former, but now I’d guess the latter. See what I’m talking about here.
This is an issue I’ve always cared a lot about. Its partly a function of seeing college activists, and even some administrators, cynically using race as a political cudgel. I also think, when I see something like the Duke Lacrosse controversy, that those who falsely cry racism aren’t merely destroying someone’s reputation without regard for the truth, they are also leading minorities to believe that more people hate them than is in fact the case.
On the left, I think cynical, false charges of racism are used pretty routinely. The most recent example I can think of is ACORN’s CEO insisting that the whole pimp and prostitute controversy is actually rooted in bigotry against the largely non-white folks that the organization serves. What alarms me on the right is the tendency to immediately dismiss all charges of racism… and the simultaneous trend, relatively recent in origin, to use charges of racism as cynically and irresponsibly as anyone. I’m afraid that Mr. Limbaugh is one of the men driving this trend, and if you read this, I think you’ll find that proposition quite difficult to deny.
UPDATE: Also see David Frum, who does a good job explaining why many conservatives are reacting to the fake racist quote attributed to Mr. Limbaugh as they are.
UPDATE 2: I tangle with Adam Serwer here.
Did you see the Interns Wanted ad at Frum’s place? Where do I sigh up!
— Tony Comstock · Oct 16, 06:22 PM · #
Who cares?
Look, I’m not a conservative; I think conservative philosophy is muddled and reactionary. But if you’re talking about accusations of racism outside the narrow slice of 2009, I think it’s clear that Sharpton is and has been more pernicious than Limbaugh (though to hell with them both).
When Limbaugh calls a black person racist, he’s seeking to dilute the term, to inoculate conservative whites against the charge, and to keep from them the burden of complex, extended thought. This is defense-as-offense, a transparent, neener-neener, they are the racist ones’ ploy. Simply, his shtick is unity through superior stupidity, and with this he makes his audience feel golden.
On the other hand, when Sharpton accuses people of racism he is trying to start a bonfire in the streets. He doesn’t want his audience to feel superior, he wants them to feel rage. He wants them to boil over with fear and loathing and hatred so he can parlay our mob-angst into a place for himself at the table. Limbaugh snickers at racism, even apologizes for it. Sharpton requires it, and tricks people into seeing it even when it’s not there.
That’s why Sharpton is worse than Limbaugh. The blacks in this country were treated about as badly as it gets, and it’s going to take a lot of effort, a lot of grace and a lot irrational forgiveness on their part — and a lot of humility and patience for whites — for us to fully heal as a country and a people. This is plain, unadulterated truth.
But here’s the thing. Limbaugh sucks because he rips off the bandages; Sharpton sucks because he poisons the wound. The former is bad, the latter is worse.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 16, 06:42 PM · #
Rush’s race-baiting really has less to do with race (though I suspect Rush wasn’t raised with the most racially sensitive attitudes) and more to do with the fact that Rush chose many, many years ago to be a polemicist instead of an entertainer.
I first heard Rush on the radio when he had only been on the national scene for a few years. That guy could have chosen to be a conservative version of Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, somebody who makes fun of liberals but also makes fun of everyone else. Rush chose only to make fun of certain people and certain groups, likely because being an entertainer is harder than being a polemicist.
By restricting himself like that, Rush’s humor curdled over the years and it became less about being funny and more about simply being demeaning, derogatory and belittling to everyone (minority, gay, female) that his audience defined as The Other.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 16, 06:44 PM · #
Kristoffer,
Your analysis certainly applies to some Rush Limbaugh rants about race, but how about ones like the “white kids are getting beat up in Obama’s America” rant? That seems to have the effect — and perhaps the intention, though one can’t be sure — of Al Sharpton like incitements.
Anyhow, I take no position, as yet, about whether Sharpton or Limbaugh has the worse overall effect on discourse. Which is to say: you may be right!
— Conor Friedersdorf · Oct 16, 07:14 PM · #
“Look, let me put it to you this way: The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” -Rush Limbaugh
I cannot imagine why the players of the NFL would not want to play for a team owned by that man. Or the owners to associate with such a person. Mr. Limbaugh’s fellow investors made a very simple, very free-market calculation: Mr. Limbaugh’s brand was found to be toxic by enough players, colleagues, and customers that including him in their investment imperiled a quality return. His money was unnecessary, his presence a fiscal liability, and so he was removed.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Oct 16, 07:25 PM · #
I can’t help but notice that you give no actual citations as to the dates when RL allegedly said these things.
Where did you get these quotes? Did you pore over transcripts of his shows? Did you listen to podcasts and actually hear him say any of these, or are you relying on what someone else says RL said?
And you apparently define “race-baiting” as a statement that – even though factual and accurate – makes black people uncomfortable.
— tomaig · Oct 16, 07:26 PM · #
Tomaig,
I heard the actual audio for all these statements — and others that didn’t fit into the piece. For example, on
Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief, Salon.com: “The real racist is Ms. Joan Walsh, with her race-based materialistic — or maternalistic attitude toward black people, who have, in her small, little mind, no responsibility for their own actions.”
— Conor Friedersdorf · Oct 16, 07:39 PM · #
“I can’t help but notice that you give no actual citations as to the dates when RL allegedly said these things.”
Oh, for pity’s sake. There is a plethora of audio, video and authenticated transcripts of racially-charged comments from Rush Limbaugh that a two-fingered monkey could find using a search engine from 1999.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 16, 07:43 PM · #
Exactly. This was the market at work, not some insidious conspiracy of would-be totalitarians. Brand, image, labor relations, money, money, money — these are rational capitalist concerns in a free market animated by humans. And the kvetching about Olberman is absurd. Conservatives revel in Limbaugh’s large influence, and then bitch when he attracts attention. Olberman is a political pipsqueak by comparison, a monkey on a roof to Limbaugh’s Kong on a Skyscraper.
Conor, you might be right: it’s plausible that ranking them is counterproductive when a ‘both bad’ will do. And they are truly ‘both bad’ for political discourse (though I don’t expect to ever see the underlying sickness cured; you know, humans and all).
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 16, 07:44 PM · #
It’s not immediately obvious that this is false, I guess. O’Keefe didn’t ambush the offices of the ACLU or the HRC, after all. I’m frankly mystified by the impossible bar otherwise-“reasonable” conservatives want to put for identifying racism, given how little opprobrium and sanction actual racists experience in our society. Indeed the real tragedy of racism these days is that far more anger is directed at those who get angry about racism than it is towards racists. Nobody seems to give a shit when a Louisiana judge refuses to give marriage licenses to married couples decades after Loving V. Virginia; but the thought of a man getting angry that a racist cop assumes he’s breaking in to his own house is apparently so troubling that even the President can’t be allowed to agree.
Also, which quote was the fake one? The “take the bone out of your nose” quote, or the “McNabb is overrated because of affirmative action” quote? Or a different one?
— Chet · Oct 16, 08:03 PM · #
It wasn’t Al Sharpton who was falsely accused of saying that James Earl Ray should have been given an award, or that slavery was good for the country because the streets were safer.
It wasn’t Al Sharpton who was barred from buying a football team because the media reported stories that had no substantiation whatsoever.
It wasn’t Rush who perpetrated a fraud that ruined a policeman’s career and life when he was wrongly accused of rape by Tawana Brawley.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Conor:
I’m surprised you’re still referencing that story about the black kids beating up on white kids in the bus. You have completely misrepresented what Rush said, and you’re almost as guilty as Rick Sanchez from CNN, Michael Wilbon, Drew Sharp…on and on and on…in perpetuating a dishonest portrayal. What they’ve said about Rush is libelous. But in your impeccable timing, you excoriate Rush. Incredible.
— jd · Oct 16, 09:16 PM · #
Chet, how lovely.
Conor, good work, and you’ve convinced this conservative who rarely listens to Rush. Very telling and dismaying. Totally undercuts the conservative outrage about this.
However, the comparison of Limbaugh to Sharpton is really quite low. (I thought there was a comment on that earlier—something weird going on comment-wise on this thread.) It pretty much looks like a “hey everybody, notice my column in which I say this outrageous thing!” momement. Understandable, like J. Goldberg choosing “Liberal Fascism” for the title of his book, or A. Coulter “Treason” for hers, but if you’re true to form you’ll say all consistent logic backs you up on this and so forth.
Well. Can we frame things so that both Sharpton and Limbaugh are members of the class “egregious accusers of others of racisim?” (Here’s your “I’m just promoting a discussion” excuse for making the Sharpton comparison.) Yes, we can do that. They both do belong to that class. But, by analogy, two members of the class “committers of violent crimes” may be very differently deserving of blame, and it may show very poor and uncharitable judgment to suggest their moral equivalence.
Sharpton made accusations of rascism (and worse) in the context of an angry mob outside Freddy’s Fashion Mart, and the result was destruction and murder. As for what his broader “career” has done to the health of American society/politics, well…and do note that “making accusations of racism” essentially IS Sharpton’s career, whereas Rush has been tangling with the daily news and his callers, usually making smart arguments about policy positions that…er…you and I probably agree with more often than not, year in and year out. His career is not built on racial controversy.
But let’s just look at that one activity of his, and ignore the rest of his career: the accusations of racism he likes to toss around. Rush seems to make on-the-radio (not, before-the-angry-street-mob) accusations of racism quite a bit. Why? What seems most probable is that he wants to highlight, with a PC-defying verve that he feels is admirable and necessary, the ethnic-pride tribalism (and thus) hypocrisy of certain “multicultural” activists and Dems. It’s suffused with a (unduly strong) resentment about the hypocrisy of liberal accusations of racism, and charged with a boldness that implicitly calls for whites to not be cowed by PC-run-amok, but to stand up fight for their interests, AS AMERICANS, not as whites, but definitely with the idea of “multiculturalism where one of the major players comes to the table unarmed is a sucker’s game” being suggested. It IS a dangerous idea to play with, even implicitly. HE SHOULD NOT DO IT. I say that because I know some will want to misconstrue what I say, especially what I say next.
And the result is? No incidents of Rush-inspired hate-crimes known. But do note that hidden “incidents” of channeling of what COULD OTHERWISE BECOME “white” anger (defined-as-such) into enthusiasm for Rush’s frank-talking populist conservatism are quite possible. (Again, this is not known, but see Carol Swain’s book on the New White Nationalism for why this argument matters. A conservative movement that purges all frank talk about racial matters invites the formation and prospering of fringe white nationalist groups who can become the “owners” of certain real topics of concern ruled “out of bounds” for acceptable discourse.)
And why draw the comparison to Sharpton? Is it not the case that many prominent African-Americans in public life make many undue/suspicious accusations of racism in others(while not making a low career of it like the Charlatan does)? Are they to be excluded from owing sports franchises, or making some other equivalently visible business move? What if someone like Ice Cube wants to buy one? Are we gonna research his quote mine?
It’s true that the situation where whites have to be more careful about these sorts of statements is unfair, but that’s because our nation’s history was unfair, and Rush and many of his fans have to grow up and face that reality for what it is. But it’s also true that we cannot have this sort of disparity in what’s acceptable going on in, say, 2040-2080 in the way we’ve lived with it from 1970-2010. The newer generations of blacks and other minorities are going to have to give up the patterns of social idenity and interest-group bargaining that their parents understandably indulged in. Part of that means not freaking out everytime they hear a white person, even a public figure, talking about race in the same frank manner that blacks/minorities feel free to do among themselves.
So much for my opinions on our racial politics…it’s probably all reworked Shelby Steele. I am left with a sad reflection. Here’s good work by Conor, work that really serves one of his biggest agendas, and yet he apparently feels the need (or the irresistable instinct) to frame it in this outrage-attracting way. Is this really what journalistic fame/notice requires? What good discussion requires? I guess it’s a game and you play to win…but…alas.
— Carl Scott · Oct 16, 09:21 PM · #
This is literally amazing. Conservatives just don’t get race. They can’t help but say racist shit, as a result.
— Chet · Oct 16, 09:42 PM · #
“The hypocrisy is unbelievable.”
Whay hypocrisy? In Sharpton’s case, he specifically limited his complaints to the two cases in which Rush denigrated the NFL (the McNabb thing and the Crips and Bloods comment). Sharpton never made an argument that Rush’s larger body of racially charged speech should be held against him in this instance.
And frankly, all this talk about Sharpton seems deliberately ignorant of how he’s cleaned up his act when it comes to racial issues in recent years. That certainly doesn’t excuse everything he did or said in the past, but he actually has become more responsible on the subject. Contrast that with Rush, who actually seems to have become more inflamatory and more reckless in his rhetoric on race.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 16, 10:09 PM · #
“What they’ve said about Rush is libelous.”
Then why doesn’t Rush sue? He’s certainly got the time and money to do so.
The reason he won’t is because all a defense attorney would have to do is show the jury a long, long, long list of authentic Rush quotes on race and then shrug his shoulders and say “Hey, it was an honest mistake”.
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 16, 10:12 PM · #
MBunge,
In that case, one wonders why there was a necessity to fabricate a quotation. In reality, Rush understands the difference between the PC line (which one can cross and mostly get away with it) and the line for society as a whole (which one cannot cross without completely marginalizing onesself;) much of his shtick is infuriating PC enforcers by crossing one line without crossing the other. Nobody who understands Rush would have been taken in by the hoax.
— Aaron · Oct 16, 11:19 PM · #
Carl Scott,
I agree that the worst race baiting of Al Sharpton is qualitatively different than the average Limbaugh race-baiting. Perhaps due to my age, I wasn’t really thinking of Al at his worst when I made the comparison — I was more thinking of Al Sharpton of the last 5 years, the guy who ran for president and continues to race bait, though not in the “leading the mob” way that he once did.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Oct 16, 11:34 PM · #
Limbaugh race-baits racists who don’t know they are racists. Limbaugh is blunt when it comes to race, and it appears insensitive to the sensitive liberal type — but those who don’t pretend to be sensitive, but rather in tune with individuals as individuals, understand the straightforward attitude — most black people I know respect the straightforward approach more than the pretentious, overly-sensitive approach. The only way we’re ever going to improve racial relationships is to talk to another as equal individuals without all the racial nail-biting going on.
There are some of all races who are looking for a reason to be offended, but this is their problem. If I’m confronted by someone of a different race for saying something insensitive, I will look at it honestly, be upfront with the accuser, and if I’m in the wrong I’ll admit it, but I won’t be bullied by over-sensitivity when it’s off-target.
— mike farmer · Oct 17, 12:55 AM · #
I get the sense that the impulse to deny that there’s anything blameworthy, or at least racist, in Limbaugh’s comments about race isn’t rare on the right, including among articulate members of it. I can’t imagine that everyone who makes apologies for him does it for the same reason, but it strikes me as not just a mistake but a kind of moral blindness. And the kind of blindness at creates obstacles to success. If I’m right, there’s gonna have to be lot more posts like Conor’s before it’s all over.
— K · Oct 17, 08:49 AM · #
K, do you really think that Limbaugh is a racist? I mean, do you think he is racist in the common meaning of the term, like a George Wallace, Sen. Byrd, or Sen. Hollings, Jessie Helms or Lester Maddox? It’s not that I can’t see where his statements would be taken as racist, but I just don’t believe they are meant as racist, and I don’t believe he is racist. I take his intent as a way to show-up hypocrisy on the left — right or wrong, that’s his intent. So, to keep harping in his “racist” statements begins to appear to be a smear campaign — and I think that’s abominable. We have serious racial problems, but Limbaugh is not one of them.
— mike farmer · Oct 17, 07:25 PM · #
Isn’t that the problem with the conservative conversation on race, is that it thinks racism begins and ends with George Wallace and segregation? That someone who isn’t George Wallace, therefore, can’t be a racist, and therefore anything they say must not be racist?
That strikes me as a perspective that’s going to prevent you from apprehending a pretty substantial number of racist incidents. Maybe that’s the point? But frankly it makes zero sense to say that because you think Rush can’t possibly be a racist (why, exactly?), the things he says can’t be racist.
As it happens, though, yes – I, for one, think Rush believes that blacks and minorities get worse treatment in our society, achieve less and are afforded less opportunities, receive more negative attention from police, and are generally disadvantaged by negative assumptions and stereotypes about them as groups – and that this is all because they fundamentally deserve it, and that the real unfairness is when they get anything more than the least whites get. He’s a pedophile sex tourist, Mike, why wouldn’t he be a racist, too?
— Chet · Oct 18, 01:48 AM · #
“Nobody who understands Rush would have been taken in by the hoax.”
No. No one would have been taken in by it if people had accused Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura, Mike Gallagher or even Mark Levin or Glen Beck of saying those fabricated quotes. That’s because those conservatives, whatever other criticism you may want to make of them, don’t have long histories of race-baiting.
Just take Rush’s most well known race-baiting – the Donovan McNabb comments. Rush’s defenders insist he was just attacking a politically correct attitude in the media, but consider…
1. Isn’t accusing the media a being biased in favor of a black guy EXACTLY the sort of thing an actual racist would say?
2. Could you ever imagine Rush ever accusing the media of being biased in favor of a white guy?
When you say stuff that sounds exactly like what a racist would say and you only indulge in such rhetoric about minority groups…why wouldn’t people regard you as a racist?
Mike
— MBunge · Oct 18, 04:09 PM · #
Hey Conor:
Do you agree with this little tidbit from David Frum? Seriously, do you think this way as well?
— jd · Oct 18, 08:41 PM · #