I wrote: >> that said, I don't know if it fits Allen West or not, but
it's common for white folks -- including conservatives -- to cultivate
black spokespeople who agree with them, simply to avoid the "racist"
label (either in the eyes of the public or their own). For example, I
can see no other reason why Thomas Sowell has been able to publish so
many books and get so many honorariums. He's quite mediocre as an
economist and a writer. And why did Michael Steele become chair of the
GOP? And why was Clarence Thomas able to join the Supes?<<
David Shemano responds: > The theory presented is that the TP is
racist. You appear to be saying that the very fact that the TP (or
conservatives) go out of their way to favor minorities evidence the
theory. What is the test that would disprove the thesis?<
Bizarrely (and I hope not disingenuously), David omits what I said
before the quoted passage, i.e., >> though there are racists
associated with the TP, I don't think the TP is itself racist. (And
there are racists associated with the DP, too. ...)<< Those sentences
are what "that said" refers to in the first quote from me above.
That is, I was not trying to prove the thesis that the TP is racist. I
do not know where David got the idea that I was trying to do so.
By the way, when Carrol Cox writes that >The election of a black man
triggered the appearance of the TP,< I think that's a misunderstanding
of the TP. Similar right-wing forces have been around for a long time
(e.g., the John Birch Society of 1950s). The newest wave seems to have
been a reaction to _Bill Clinton_, packed with a lot of White _male_
resentment (partly in response to the decline of the old "middle-class
jobs" that some working people had, partly in response to affirmative
action rules (that helped _women_ more than ethnic minorities), etc.)
The actual creation of the TP was triggered by the 2008 bail-out,
fueled by among other things, the economic insecurity of the petty
bourgeoisie in face of a big economic collapse.
Economic crises always spawn the rise of reactionary forces. Such
forces usually incorporate the bigotry of the era (racism, sexism,
homophobia, whatever). Then, the most reactionary billionaires like
the Koch brothers rush it to help finance them (and to shape their
opinions).
While there's a racist tinge to the TP, it's a mistake to reduce that
phenomenon to racism. There's a lot of money libertarianism involved
(so we see such phenomena as the resistible resurrection of Rand)
along with suburban angst and isolation and even more.[*]
David: >There is clearly a conservative fascination with black
intellectual conservatives, precisely because they are black and
rare.<
It's much more than merely a "fascination." Because conservatives of
various stripes have had so much power in the corporations and their
government (and the non-conservatives have increasingly bent in their
direction), they're able to put their "fascination" _into practice_.
It's thus more like an informal kind of affirmative action (but often
with state force behind it): reward even the most mediocre Black (or
other ethnic minority member) who toes the current conservative line
with not only high esteem but a job, which can be a high position
(such as life tenure on the Supreme Court).
Unlike official affirmative action, there are no explicit rules,
explicit processes, or explicit chances to appeal. It's more like the
"old boy network" phenomenon, in-group rewarding its friends (and
punishing its enemies), or the practice of Ivy League colleges of
favoring "legacy" students. There's no democratic accountability (a
dirty phrase to the conservatives, who hate any kind of real
democracy).
David: > I would argue that it is conceptually no different, at worst,
than the Leftist fascination with a guy like Norman Finklestein when
it comes to Israel.<
I agree that there's a tendency for the left to favor Jews who
criticize Zionism. But if a non-Jewish public intellectual does so,
his or her opinions will automatically be dismissed by very powerful
political forces as being "antisemitic." This most likely closes doors
and ears, along with fair treatment by the official media. Even a Jew
such as Finkelstein is dismissed as a "self-hating Jew." But that's a
much weaker criticism, one that is less likely to keep people from
reading him or listening to him than the accusation of "antisemitism."
(The word in quotes should be replaced by 'anti-Jewish bigotry," since
the Palestinians (the object of Israeli conquest and domination) are
Semites.)
Despite this weakness, Alan Dershowitz seems to have succeeded in
punishing Finkelstein by driving him out of DePaul. Similarly, Juan
Cole was denied a big job at Yale. Of course, the details of those
cases are unknown -- after all, informal affirmative action thrives on
secrecy. [g-mail's spell checker wanted to replace "Dershowitz" with
"howitzer"!)
> However, to the extent your criticism is based upon Sowell's mediocrity, that
>doesn't work, because that is not how conservatives think of Sowell. Sowell
>has been a public intellectual for more than 30 years and nobody on the
>conservative side thinks of Sowell as a mediocrity, or that they are
>condescending to Sowell by reading his articles and books.<
The conservatives probably don't _see_ Sowell as mediocre (and they'd
never admit to doing so). Their adulation of him ("wow, a Black man
who toes our Party Line!") has been taken to heart: "Oh, he must be
good, since we've been saying so for so long." One of the most common
political phenomena (afflicting Leftists too, alas) is believing one's
own propaganda.
David: > With respect to Thomas on the Court, no different than Obama
appointing Sotomayor.<
But Sotomayor is much much more qualified for the position (by
mainstream corporate standards!) than Thomas is.
Carroll Cox also writes: >I don't see, really, why people bother to answer D.S.<
I guess CC doesn't have to talk to people who disagree with him very
often. Or maybe he doesn't feel he has to deign to convince them that
his viewpoint makes sense. Unfortunately, I swim in a sea of very
conservative people (of different stripes). So it's good practice to
try to convince David. It's not because I expect him to burn his
libertarian party card. Instead, like all my e-missives, I aim to talk
to other readers, who may not be convinced or needs intellectual
ammunition.
--
Jim Devine / "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -- Albert Einstein
[*] It's interesting that the TP uses accusations of "sexism" to
defend spokespeople such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. I guess
it's a sign of success for the feminists that one of their key words
has gone mainstream. Not a happy success.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
