CBS News reported yesterday these incendiary words from Rick Santorum — on the record, flush in the thrill of victory:
I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.
Just in case you have trouble believing he actually said this, here he is on video (start at 0:38 or so):
Never mind that the majority of recipients of these benefits are white. According to the above report, in Iowa 9% of food stamp recipients are black and 84% are white. That doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t fit the racist narrative of today’s GOP.
It gets better. Again according to the above story, candidate Santorum later lied to CNN:
On CNN Wednesday, Santorum said he reviewed the context in which he made his remarks and said, “I’m pretty confident that I didn’t say ‘black.'” The GOP contender said he “was starting to say one word, and I sort of came up with another word and moved on and it sounded like black.”
Watch and listen for yourself. He said “black”. He meant “black”. His “base” applauded and cheered his racist outburst.
Of course, the NAACP reacted immediately. Where is the voice of mainstream America? Where is the voice of THIS community? I’ve already commented on the explicit race-baiting of today’s GOP, and apparently missed the mark.
We have a crop of candidates appealing to “state’s rights”. We have an entire party attempting to block minorities from voting (voter ID is no different from poll taxes and literacy tests). We have seen our first non-white President attacked for his race (is there any other explanation for the birther lunacy?). We have seen racist attacks against Hispanics and Mexicans under the guise of “illegal immigration”. Now we have the newest not-Romney GOP candidate explicitly invoking yet another false and racist canard.
How much more explicitly racist does a candidate, campaign, political process and — yes — mainstream media have to be before we will acknowledge and name the racism? Are we ourselves afraid to rock the boat too much?
This community is visible, widely read, and widely read in high circles of government. Isn’t it time we use our influence to explicitly name and reject the flagrant racism that is animating today’s GOP?
But chuckle that he isn’t even a competent racist, in that he wants to end things that primarily benefit white people.
I suppose if you want it to encourage people to believe that he said that then you can promote that he said that and get away with it, but he just finished saying that “they are just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them” and then it sounds to me like he got messed up and combined the p from people into lives and then corrected himself to say people’s lives.
I just can’t hear it any other way except “black people’s”. Perhaps you can help me out by helping me transcribe it. Here’s what I heard, with “black” replaced by “*”:
“I don’t want to, to make * people’s lives better”
Are you seeing he just made a random noise that sounded like “black”, but didn’t actually SAY it? Did he say it but somehow not mean it? I ask because:
a) The word “black” fits grammatically
b) His audience reacted as if he said “black”. When he said “I want to give them the opportunity to go out and EARN the money”, and a woman in the audience says “right”, are we to believe that this is anything BUT a racist exchange? Why?
c) The word “black” makes the statement fit with traditional GOP dogma about “entitlement reform” — let’s not forget those “welfare queens” of yore.
It seems to me that you’re reaching; you ask us to disbelieve our own eyes and ears, rather than admit the ugly reality of what this campaign is devolving into.
probably a mess up of the words “people’s lives better”. If you don’t take the time to really listen, or if it is taken out of context and that’s the only phrase used it could be mistaken for the word “black”. Now whether or not the audience heard the word black and were applauding that I am less certain. Are people in Iowa generally racists? There are plenty of poor white people too. Many people just generally want to hate all of those dependent on public services, no matter what their race is. I’ve been having discussions about that with conservatives around here, and have successfully explained that not all people on food stamps and medicaid are “lazy” (as they would portray them.} I’ve explained that there are many who work 40 hours a week and are still in poverty and qualify for these services. So then I go on to say that if these people work 40 hours a week, and are still poor enough to receive public benefits, perhaps the problem is that wages are too low and benefits are non-existent. It’s amazing to me that many of them never thought of that before. Honestly, sometime all you have to do is talk to these people and they will get it. It’s better to have a reasonable conversation with them and explain the situation than to point a finger and scream “RACIST” at them.
I’m serious. The image that most conservatives have when they talk about “lazy” recipients of public services is the tired old stereotype of poor urban blacks. I’m not suggesting that you necessarily call them “racist” to their face. Instead, I invite you to ask them what percentage of entitlement recipients are black. Simply ask them to estimate it. I think you’ll find that they dramatically overstate the real number (reportedly 9% in Iowa).
While it’s all well and good to avoid being rude, it reminds me of how we Democrats have been shafted since 2008 because in large part we have been unwilling to similarly call out GOP partisanship. We can of course be pastoral about it, and strive mightily to help them overcome their racism. I think we must, however, stop enabling them by refusing to label their racism for what it so clearly IS.
Unless the topic was brought up specifically in regard to black people on welfare, which is very rare. Usually the conversation gets brought up when talking about middle class tax burdens. Race isn’t the issue. The thing that irritate the conservatives I know is welfare lifers, no matter what race. People who spend their whole lives on welfare without working at all or ever. Often, that’s all they see and don’t understand how the programs are essential for people who do work but are still in poverty. They often didn’t know or understand that people can work and still be poor. Which is why Santorum can take a flying leap because creating jobs isn’t enough, they have to be jobs with living wages that allow people to finally depend on themselves and not on government. You never hear the words “living wage” come off the lips of a Republican candidate or official.
When he says “they are just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them”, he is referring to an apparent effort to force more Iowans to “sign up” under the medicaid program.
I think that, having put “entitlements” on the table, he then moves on to this racist remark. Sorry, I think he perhaps accidentally said what he really feels.
It does sort of sound like “black” … but there is also something weird about the way he says it, as though he really was tripping over his tongue. The oddest thing is that there’s no “k” on the end of the word, so it sort of sounds like “blah people’s lives better.” On the other hand, you’re right that it’s hard to figure out what else he might have been trying to say.
So, I don’t know. I’m reluctant to promote this post, because I just can’t be sure about what he actually said, and it’s a pretty serious accusation.
I appreciate your restraint.
Were we, as a nation, so circumspect when Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s words were so widely publicized? Are we so reluctant to chastise Muslims who say critical things? Would we be so cautious if the speaker were Black or Hispanic making a similarly statement to a similarly responsive audience?
I think the time for restraint is over. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck — it probably is a duck.
The guy has an accent different than mine. I guess I could say that he said “Minnie factoring sector” rather than “manufacturing sector”, or “bland” rather than “black”. But I’d have to be trying really hard to say he said something other than what he obviously did.
I’m pretty sure he said “black people”. On dependency generally, I think this points out a clear difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals look at high rates of dependency and ask, “What is wrong with our system that forces so many into this predicament?” Conservatives ask, “Why are all these people too lazy to get off their rear ends and get a job?”
It looks to me as though centralmassdad, sabutai, christopher and I heard “black people”, while liveandletlive heard a fumble. David isn’t sure. The NAACP didn’t seem to have any trouble understanding what was said.
I get that this a serious accusation. I also get that racism is a serious problem — flagrant racism in leading presidential candidates (of any party) is worse than “serious”.
I think we’re waffling, folks. I think the evidence of our own eyes and ears is at least as compelling on this question as the evidence for any significant policy issue is for any elected official. Why do we so easily excoriate our own representatives for not pursuing our agenda aggressively enough (such as with the health care act), while we seem to be so reluctant to nail our opposition when they display such blatantly offensive behavior?
It looks to me as though we ourselves STILL don’t want to admit that today’s GOP is as dangerous as it so clearly is. How far will we allow this hate-mongering to go before we demand that it STOP?
At the risk of triggering Godwin’s law, do we still blame the Germans of 1932 for their reluctance to believe what their civilized nation was willing to do to its scapegoats?
Indeed, I think the funny sound is him realizing what he is saying once the word was already half out of his mouth.
A Kinsley Gaffe.
I won’t go so far as to ascribe that view to all of “today’s GOP.” In any event, I don’t think that it is a winning tactic as it inevitably sounds like whining, and therefore doesn’t work.
that’s not what he said, but I can see why it could be misunderstood that he said it.
I’m not talking about this because I think it’s a “winning tactic”. I’m talking about it because I’m appalled, angry, and not a little scared. The rapt audience he was preaching to heard it just like I heard it, and cheered — it isn’t an applause line any other way.
It doesn’t matter whether it “sounds like whining” or not. It is racist, it is pervasive, and even we here are reluctant to say so.
…so Santorum knows of what he speaks.
I agree with you, Tom, that he said it. Does that make him a racist? Many people who are not racists believe that the liberal democrats have created a plantation mentality in the minority communities. They sincerely believe that the road to economic success is not to be found via government handouts. I am not sure that these people are racists. By the way, I am no fan of Santorum.
When he says “black people”, he outs himself as racist. When you use the phrase “plantation mentality”, is your reference to slavery (and therefore race) intentional? You do understand that MOST recipients of “government handouts” are white, right?
It is not the rejection of “government handouts” that is problematic, it is the offensively false connection to race that makes it racist.
A bold statement, I know but how about some quick facts about the program Santorum is so disparaging of here:
On the Medicaid program in 2010, 43% of non-elderly recipients were white, 28% Hispanic, 22% Black and 7% other. This compares to a 2010 U.S. population 65% white, 16% Hispanic and 13% Black and 7% Other. In other words – all other factors including income aside – Blacks and Hispanic seem to be almost twice as likely to qualify for Medicaid as their population alone would indicate. Whites meanwhile appear to be significantly underrepresented.
However, the reality is that our economy is such (tinged with racism and inexorably linked to weak and segregated local educational systems) that actually more than 70% of those with incomes under the federal poverty line are Black or Hispanic. Therefore, the fact that only 50% of Medicaid recipients are Black or Hispanic actually suggests that the Medicaid program is itself racist. One might reasonably ask why does the U.S. operate a health care system for the poor that serves white poor people at a much higher rate than poor Blacks and Hispanics?
I think the main reason for these blatant racial disparities is that, unlike Medicare, the Medicaid system is a hybrid system with lots of state control. With many exceptions, states with relatively higher Black and Hispanic populations tend to have more restrictive Medicaid eligibility rules than those with relatively higher white populations.
I can’t help but conclude that Santorum-style racism (the underlying presumption that providing heavily-subsidized health insurance – especially to black people – is not so much needed assistance as it is misguided dependency creation) is presenting itself in these statistics.
The Medicaid program is racist because the state administrators who determine the scope of each state’s program are racist. On average and across the states, they see the program as more important (and more needed) if it helps more Whites and less important if it helps more Blacks and Hispanics.
A sad state of affairs that deserves more remedy than the ridiculous proposal to cut Medicaid so that the Blacks will stop “depending” on it so much and get their health insurance from the free market.
I came across the same information in my own exploration.
The common thread, of course, is the underlying racism in our culture. The Medicaid program is racist because, whether we admit it our not, a huge portion of the population is racist. It’s the same reason that the GOP race-baiting is so intense, and an important part of the hyperinflated hatred for Barack Obama.