Now I’m starting to get mad.
This whole kerfuffle over Elizabeth Warrens Cherokee heritage is, to be perfectly blunt, a racist meme: it relies on a subtext of inferiority and class subservience long engrained in our culture… especially our Massachusetts culture. This is Massachusetts where, it was once said, “The Lowells speak only to the Cabots and the Cabots speak only to God” which was an equally blunt way of saying the not-Lowells and the not-Cabots were, decidedly, not equal. It’s not a small thing… not nothing. It’s directly relevant to the culture we have. It’s directly speaking to Hispanics and Blacks and others in our culture who aren’t White: they are being told, straight up, that being non-white is less important and that it makes them less of a citizen.
Consider: the postulate is that Elizabeth Warrens relies upon the slimmest thread to game the system for an unfair advantage. What other option is there? 1/32 Cherokee, we are told, isn’t ‘enough’ to justify effort on her part… it must be all advantage-seeking and gamesmanship. It couldn’t possibly be equivalent to a pureblood thoroughbred whiteness. That’s the message raw and unwrapped.
This is a racist frame. If you don’t reject this frame, you are a racist… or, at the very least, you are an enabler of racists.
The alternative is simple: Elizabeth Warren has pride. Elizabeth Warren is proud to be Cherokee, among other things, and says so deliberately. It’s a different kind of pride than that which the racists enact: it’s inclusive and encompassing. This pride in a mixed heritage cannot be understood by racists: the only pride worth having, the subtext reads, is pride in being through and through White… That’s the whole of the kerfuffle: she’s not all-white and maybe proud of it.
If Scott Brown supports this frame I can’t escape the conclusion that he is either racist or amorally willing to use racist memes to further his campaign… either way, I feel an encompassing shame for the CommonWealth.
I don’t care whether Mr. Brown is personally racist or not. I do care about the cynical way that he exploits the racism he assumes in the Massachusetts electorate.
Scott Brown is betting his campaign on the wager that a majority of the voters who turn out next November are racist — and sexist, xenophobic, ignorant, and anti-intellectual. He has carefully sculpted his campaign and public persona to appeal to that crowd.
This campaign is an insult to every resident of Massachusetts.
If your starting premise is so harsh, why would anyone care about your commentary?
You’re like the Red Sox fan constantly screaming “Yankees Suck.” Would I have a discussion with you about the merits of each team? Unlikely.
By the way, now that I’ve looked at Elizabeth Warren’s educational background I no longer consider her an elist. If anything, I now look down on her inferior college education. I have been in the Boston area 30 years and now value only degrees from top notch universities, which she does not have.
is in jest – some sort of droll reverse elitism commentary.
… there were merits on each side, we’d probably discuss with more or less ordinary rancor. Fine. But we’re not talking baseball we’re talking real world issues that have moral consequences for everyone: the whole and entire premise, however harsh (boo hoo), is that there is, demonstrably, NO MERIT WHATSOEVER to one side of the argument.
And I should “stop commenting”?
Talking with Brown supporters is like talking with someone who says “the Expos suck!”
Even the Expos uniforms were awful.
(1) “demonstrably.” (2) “NO MERIT WHATSOEVER.” In both cases, it’s only your opinion.
This is the problem with progressives. Everyone else’s opinion/beliefs are invalid. Not worth of discussion. Null and void. Like NPR, it’s exclusively “Our Things Considered.”
thinking your beliefs are invalid. It’s the fact that your arguments are invalid. Your evidence, when you have it, is a joke. When it’s not a joke, it’s not completely considered.
Face it, you guys can try, but you can’t keep up. And when you can’t keep up, you call everyone names and hope your vocabulary can somehow keep up with your failure to make the unreasonable sound reasonable.
I thought you were gaining on us, but when it comes down to it, your positions are almost always stupid and unreasonable.
The world is more than six thousand years old.
The Apollo astronauts did actually walk on the moon.
Anthropogenic climate change is real.
Affordable contraceptives allow women to be major economic players.
Barack Obama is an American citizen and is not a Muslim.
John Kerry served courageously in Viet Nam.
The racial identification of Elizabeth Warren had nothing to do with her career at Harvard.
These are all plain facts. Those who reject these claims offer invalid arguments, irrelevant “evidence”, and an enormous amount of “FUD” (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). They accompany these by generous applications of epithets, name-calling, and appeals to the basest instincts of whatever audience they target.
Mark is right on the money. The arguments offered by the right wing here are “almost always stupid and unreasonable”.
I’ll make it real simple. Try to keep up:
People are upset and casting aspersions, insinuations and accusations.
The only way in which anyone has any cause to be upset, to any degree, over the pride that Elizabeth Warrens has in her Cherokee heritage is if that pride is illegitimate.
The only way that such pride could be illegitimate is in a perceived inferiority wrt membership in the Cherokee nation. Which is racism. QED.
I have just DEMONSTRATED the fact of your argument having NO MERIT WHATSOEVER: If EWs pride is legitimate, this would be a page 11 human interest story and nobody would get their knickers in a twist in the slightest. The whole story is about having pride in something other than whiteness.
Clever. Did you think that up yourself?
For the record: if your opinion/beliefs are racist… you should not look to me to validate them; you should only expect hostility from me if you come at me with racism.
But I don’t think they do at all.
We’re had dozens of discussions about Brown, and people at BMG are always screaming that he should “do the right thing”, and I am lambasted for pointing out something like “those people aren’t voting for him anyway.”
Most of the comments here about Brown mention stupid/clueless, hater, right wing conspirator and that the campaign is at turns poorly run or an evil plot to deceive voters.
Brown is not Jim DeMint, yet I see
“This campaign is an insult to every resident of Massachusetts”
“NO MERIT WHATSOEVER to one side of the argument.”
What are you saying to the the people that vote for him?
While I acknowledge that some people are taking great delight in Warren’s current stumbles, opposition to her centers around her vision and maybe the perception that it’s not the right way, benefits certain groups, etc. All legitimate topics.
Note that most conservatives in MA think Brown is too far left. What if he was more aligned with their standards? What would you say then?
“This campaign is a punch in the face to every resident of Massachusetts”
“NEGATIVE MERIT to one side of the argument.”
I think some people need to spend more time talking to regular people and get out of the bubble. You opinion of voters in this state is quite low. Right now the candidates are tied. That means equal numbers are buying what they are selling.
David- Yes. Note like you I spent some time in Ann Arbor.
You seem to think ‘bipartisanship’ means Scott Brown gets to say whatever he wants and nobody should call him on it. I reject that definition. And I further say that you will one day regret your vote and your voice in support.
Consider: nobody today, after the fact, defends Richard Nixon who used similarly scurrilous tactics to gain advantage. Why, then, should you defend Brown? Nobody, after 8 years of fear and smear, defends George W. Bush. Why, then, should you defend the smears of Scott Brown when you know you’ll try to disown them two, four, eight or however many years from now….? Absent the immediacy of the campaign you’d run from such tactics in a heartbeat. Why don’t you save yourself the shame and distance yourself now? Before you do something you’ll later wish you hadn’t…. and probably later deny you did?
There’s only two Democrats I regret supporting, and I never supported them directly: John Edwards and Joe Lieberman. I supported John Kerry and I supported Al Gore and they chose two losers for running mates, forcing me to support them. But I don’t ever support someone who engages in behavior or tactics I’ll know I’ll later regret. That, it seems, is the difference between you and I.
Really… then why aren’t we talking about all these ‘legitimate topics’? Why are the airwaves dominated by discussion of provenance and heritage, pride and sub-rosa projections of shame? You yourself vacillate between feeling EW is “elitist” and that she is “inferior”, two decidedly illegitimate topics… Why do we suddenly hear “Squaw” and “Fauxcahontas”? What’s with that? And, no, I don’t exempt our media from charges of racism here.
I say: Don’t do it. I’m saying: He’s lying to you (more so than to me, for sure…) and I say: he’s trying to manipulate you. Don’t be manipulated. If I saw you sticking a knife in a live electrical socket, I’d say “don’t do it”. If I saw you accidentally, or even deliberately, ingesting poison, I’d say “don’t do it.”
that you have a clue, but you’re stepping into the BMG bubble and thinking that’s where we all exist and what we are.
This is a Democratic blog. What do you expect people to say? There’s going to be shots taken at Republicans ALL the time. We’re smarter, more thoughtful, and less nasty than RMG, but we’re still people. We’re going to get frustrated and say stuff we don’t exactly mean.
You guys tend to think that liberals always have to be rational and fair. It isn’t going to happen. You’re not a “regular” person any more than we are when we’re on BMG.
I don’t know about others on here, but I live far outside the bubble. I know regular people. I have regular people in my family. I’d buy a truck if I could afford to drive one.
You wrote:
I disagree. It is the Scott Brown campaign, and the GOP in general, that is betting its future on the bigotry, racism, sexism, fear, and greed of the Massachusetts voter. I think that is clear evidence of the low esteem the Brown campaign holds for Massachusetts voters.
It is the Elizabeth Warren campaign, and the Democratic Pary in general, that is betting its future on the ability of Massachusetts voters to reach beyond their fear and suffering and restore our state to a place that values, celebrates, and thrives on diversity.
Elizabeth Warren calls Massachusetts Voters to a standard of excellence, and models that call in her own behavior. Scott Brown attacks Ms. Warren as “elitist” and attempts to turn “Professor” into an epithet. His behavior, until and after being elected, exemplifies “mediocrity”. Like the rowdy’s at the back of the room who cruelly harass students pouring their hearts into presentations for the class, Scott Brown’s assaults and insults are the only game he has. That fact, together with the fact that he is the standard-bearer for the Massachusetts GOP, is itself evidence of the contempt the GOP holds for the Massachusetts voter.
Deval Patrick and Barack Obama both triumphed by making similar appeals to our highest aspirations for ourselves and our communities. Both have been similarly attacked by the rabid right that now dominates the GOP.
I agree that some of us display an insultingly low opinion of the voters in this state. I emphatically disagree that David, Elizabeth Warren, the Warren campaign, and the majority of this community are among that sorry lot.
is responsible for the tuition bubble.
That figures.
deamnding links, etc. there is an awful lot of broad opinions that get put out there. I only try, in the spirit of compromise (because I am genuinely curious to know if the center exists anymore).
Am I hearing this correctly:
People that vote Democratic: smart, well informed, good hearted
People that vote Republican: if they’re not stupid, clueless, rascist, and mean spirited, then the reason they did that was bacause the evil Republicans used dastardly campaign tactics to deceive them.
I only suggest at times that the voter see it differently.
The general rule (as I hear it espoused here) is that progressives think more and use data, while conservatives are rooted in bias and misinformation.
But I see only a solid party line of thinking here, which is fine, as was stated about this is a Democratic blog, so it make sense that virtually all the posts support them without question.
He’s in the White House. The GOP ate the center, and now it’s devouring the crust. As Nate Silver points out, they are almost all gone from the Republican Party.
I’m not even sure I’d call all of these six people are truly moderate, but you guys are exterminating everyone else. As Julie Nixon said recently, her father was the last liberal president. Any true centrist would support Obama.
Petr is right about the “racist frame” of this issue. It’s not that you yourself are a racist if you think this issue matters. You think it points to an issue with Warren’s improperly using her ethnic status to get a job, right? That’s not racist. If this issue has any effect, it will be because of the Native American angle. Just like people tried to suggest Obama was strange because he was from Hawaii. And yes, it will appeal to people who are less thoughtful than you are.
Large portions of the right-wing Fox-news echo-chamber insinuated that:
1. Obama was Muslim (because of his name and the color of his skin)
2. Obama was un-American (because of his ancestry and the color of his skin)
3. Obama was undesirable (because of the color of his skin)
Do you think the Jeremiah Wright controversy was about religion? Do you think that was about nationalism? Wrong on both counts — countless numbers of far-right preachers have said far worse things about America and the “Godless”. The Jeremiah Wright controversy was about an uppity negro preaching in an unfamiliar way to a disturbingly (for some) black audience. A white preacher speaking the same text to white audience would have been a non-story.
The real fear that Fox News and the right wing pandered to and tried to inflame is a more primal fear of the “angry hordes” — a projection of internalized guilt and racism (more below). It is a fear that black men and women will band together and rise up— it is the fear that the overseer had of his slaves.
People in Massachusetts don’t care about Native Americans (by and large) — there’s not enough of those here to hurt anybody.
A (hopefully small) portion of the Massachusetts electorate does object to “affirmative action” (“minority quotas” and all that). Scratch just a millimeter below the surface, and you’ll find that they fear black workers. Why? Because they and everybody else know that white America screwed black workers for generations (often literally). White workers still have an overwhelming advantage in the market, just as male workers still have an overwhelming advantage over female. White male workers, in particular, fear black female workers in particular most of all.
THAT is the dynamic that underlies this non-issue with Elizabeth Warren. Scott Brown wants all those fearful racist sexist voters to know that he’s “one of them” — and to remind them that Elizabeth Warren is not.
It is, in fact, a racist dynamic and we should reject it.
I tend to see things in larger forces. I don’t see “the GOP” as an actor, but the voters moving along trend lines.
These things are studied a little better in parlimentary democracies, where voter sentiment leads to a change in government, but we still have it here.
I would assert that the rise of the Tea Party is due to GW and the Tom DeLay Congress basically selling out the core princples of the Republican party and setting the stage for the mayhem we have today. Somebody is voting for these people and as we have seen even “Mr GOP” Boehner can’t control them. Add to that the fact that most of the Red/Blue regions are getting more so and you see more partisanship result.
Congress, as bemoaned here and elsewhere, is driven by money. Gone are the days of Sen. William Proxmire of WI (one of my all time favorite politicans) spending $200 on reelection.
Money comes from people who are committed, and committed means typically feel strongly in one direction. So the politicans head that way and stay over there to keep the money flowing.
Once over there and breathing that air, they start to think that way themselves (and why not, you have to think something).
The voters don’t help because they don’t know enough, and what they know depends on what biased source (a whole ‘nother topic) they follow.
Side note: The whole “Richard Lugar was thrown out by the Tea Party” storyline is BS. The guy needed to go a while ago and the guy that beat him has been in politics for years.
I like the Julie Nixon source, but that opinion (Nixon the last liberal) has been around for a while and I agree. I wonder absent Watergate what his legacy would have been, and how many people (in the 49 state landslide) would think that was the best vote they ever cast (more evidence about the how the voters think!).
Net/net Brown tries to be a centerist (in my opinion and I don’t think Obama is, but obviously it depends on the measurements) and still gets blasted by progressives as if he was Jesse Helms. I don’t know what the answer is. I grew up with a lot of attitudes that I now know were racist so I know what it looks like, but I don’t seem it behind all Republican activities. I see their activities more as a “quest for power by any means necessry” and I don’t see that as any different from the Dems. They both play cards that some people find distastful.
I believe that Scott Brown wants everyone to think that he’s some kind of independent centrist, but I think that is basically an image.
Case in point: Scott Brown has signed Grover Nordquist’s pledge to never raise taxes ever. That isn’t a conservative centrist position. That’s an extreme right-wing position. A centrist would say “I tend to believe that raising taxes should be a last resort, that we should instead try and solve our fiscal issues by closing loopholes, rooting out waste and fraud, and by cutting programs that aren’t effective”.
Brown is saying “no way, ever!”. And since that approach is at the core of his beliefs, it takes away all his credibility. Look at the student loan issue. He tried to look “bipartisan” by supporting keeping the rates low. But since he can’t ever vote to raise taxes, that prevented him from funding it in any way other than by cutting something else, and his fetish with health care led him to want to cut preventive medicine services (not something like an unnecessary Cold War era military project)
This isn’t the only example. His support of the Blunt Amendment was not centrist or bipartisan, it was extreme, well beyond anything that anyone had proposed before.
I believe that Scott Brown likes being in the Senate, and he likes it so much that his voting is tailored around self-preservation more than anything. Because of that, I don’t think he’s a very strong Senator. I don’t think he has any signature issues, and I don’t think that he can be counted on.
n/t