Thursday, July 15, 2010

The Tea Party Resolution

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a good take on it. And like I pointed out yesterday, nothing has done more to legitimize the NAACP resolution than the response of the TP leadership. It is unbelievably outrageous.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

22 comments:

joe said...

Wow. The guy's response you linked to has about the same pedigree of "I just call them n*****s because that's what they call each other."

9:49 PM
Superdestroyer said...

I guess the irony of an organization that supports separate and unequal government program and race based reparations calling some other group racist is lost on the left.

I guess it really is true that the left will tolerate any level of racism just so long as it comes from the left and the racist are not white.

5:18 AM
N. Friedman said...

Coates comment is certainly an interesting one. I think, though, that he has made a better case that the Tea Party is "America's far right-wing, speaking with all the emboldened ignorance that is fast becoming their stock in trade" than an organization that tolerates too much racism among its devotees. The tolerance of too much racism label fits most political organizations that want to be a fairly big tent, after all.

I think, more importantly, that the strategy of raising race against President Obama's most extreme opponents - even if there are a large number of racists among them, which may well be the case - will almost surely backfire, by creating even greater divisiveness in the country than already exists. That could further drive away Obama's support on the notion that he is more a catalyst to divisiveness than leader. Obama was, you will recall, supposedly within the school of thought that asserted that we should not divide people. That was supposed to be a core NAACP mission as well.

As for the Tea Party people who think the NAACP a great evil, they are way off base. The NAACP is very much responsible for destroying the legal underpinnings for Jim Crow and is thus due a tremendous debt of gratitude by anyone who actually cares about civil rights. The unqualified attacks on the NAACP by Tea Party supporters suggests their ignorance or disinterest in civil rights or, perhaps, even their hostility towards civil rights.

8:48 AM
joe said...

N., it was pretty obvious to anyone who paid attention to the "New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation" story on FOX over the past couple weeks that the right now barely bothers with any pretense when it comes to racialized attacks on the president. It was a non-story, but FOX was slobbering to suggest that Obama -- and, they are sure to mention, Holder -- would eagerly pardon radical blacks (because apparently Obama is happy enough with our prison system imprisoning a vastly disproportionate number of black men, but will throw himself in front of the most marginal group of crazies). They can't get enough of playing that clip of an NBPP member shouting about killing "cracker babies" -- a clip which, not incidentally, has nothing to do with the actual criminal charges since it's not anything he was saying outside the polling place -- because they want to stoke the fear and resentment of their white audience, so they'll be more receptive to Glenn Beck coming on an hour later and saying Obama hates "the white culture."

It is nothing more complicated than trying to associate a politician with a scary black man, and we've seen that before.

Since FOX basically is the Tea Party, or at least its mouthpiece/puppetmaster, and has demonstrated it is not playing nice, what possible reason does the NAACP not have to call them out for their crap?

9:28 AM
N. Friedman said...

Joe,

I am not a Fox News watcher and certainly not a fan - although I have seen Fox News at the gym when I work out.

Fox News, from what I have seen, is pretty much the equivalent of MSNBC. Both networks have the tendency to allow politics to dictate which stories are worried to death. I tend to doubt that either network makes things up out of pure straw.

Fox News clearly does follow stories that make the Obama administration look bad. By way of example, Fox News pushed the story regarding the 9/11 Truther which Obama foolishly hired as a policy czar. The other networks eventually followed Fox News' lead. On that story at least, Fox News was proven right to go where the other networks more friendly to Obama chose not to go - until those networks pushed into covering the story by overwhelming evidence.

In a democracy, one's friends are rarely the most critical. So, one would not expect Obama's friends among the media to push stories that embarrass Obama or his administration. Your contention would have to be that we should merely ignore what Fox News says because our politics is not parallel to that network. As a lawyer, I am reminded that most attorneys do not rat out their own clients. So, I cannot agree with your approach.

In any event, I do not see your point regarding the New Panther's incident. Michael Thomasky claims that the decision to drop the case was the work of career employees, which, if correct, likely means that politics likely did not enter much into the matter. Others - e.g. Jennifer Rubin - disagree with Thomasky. And, now there is at least some support for her theory - a person from the Justice Department who claims that politics was involved -, which of course may or may not prove accurate.

That same story, like the policy czar story, has now crept into the major networks including, for example ABC News, not just Fox. So, your contention that it is a non-story is contradicted by the interest of ABC News in the story.

In any event, this is a long way away from the Tea Party being taken to task for not doing what every other broad tent group fails to do. And, as The New York Times noted quite a while ago, it is not all that clear that the Tea Party is any more racist than any other large group of Americans. They might be, as some argue. Then again, they might just represent the far right of the political spectrum - which includes, of course, a number of racists but also people who have marched for civil rights (e.g. people like the late David Brudnoy) as well as a likely very large group of people who are essentially disinterested in the matter.

10:48 AM
joe said...

Without getting to deep into it, the decision to drop the NBPP was made by the DoJ before Obama took office. At the very least, this is an important detail to the story that I have never once seen mentioned on a FOX program. And they've given it a lot of airtime.

So yes, when they omit that, and keep having their "anchors" say there are questions about Obama or Holder's involvement, that is dishonest. And yes, the fact they keep tying it to Obama and Holder, combined with other stuff (like Glenn Beck) strongly suggests they are trying to imply racial animus on the part of the administration. See how they all stick together, goes the unspoken accusation.

Given how weak their evidence is, and the tenor of the story (which you might just have to take my word for if you haven't seen it yourself), this is absolutely race-baiting on the part of FOX. It's the old variation of "black folks are out to get you" only they add "because, you see, they're racist! -- so don't let them turn it around and call us racist" at the end to try to slip out of the shoe that naturally fits this kind of fearmongering.

11:16 AM
N. Friedman said...

Joe,

What you write is contrary to fact. In fact, the underlying incident involved occurred on election day, i.e. November of 2008. The Justice Department indictment occurred only on January 9, 2009, at the end of the Bush era.

Evidently, those charged did not answer the complaint so a default judgment was sought in April of 2009 - i.e. during the Obama administration. In May, the Justice Department changed its mind - again, during the Obama administration.

So, your basic contention is contrary to fact - facts about which there is no dispute. As ABC News reported: "But in the final days of the case, the Justice Department headquarters ordered that the case be dismissed in May 2009." According to Jennifer Rubin's version:

Multiple sources within and outside of the Justice Department confirm the curious sequence of events. In April, a preliminary filing of default was filed by Justice lawyers with the court clerk. No concern or objection was raised within Justice. This decision was approved by both the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, Loretta King, and Steve Rosenbaum, previously acting deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights and recently returned to his post as section chief for housing.

Shortly thereafter, the career lawyers who actually filed the case and obtained the judgment were peppered with questions, according to sources with knowledge of the events. New legal theories were raised disputing how the non-baton-wielding defendants and the New Black Panther party itself could be charged. There wasn't enough evidence, it was suggested, or the case had to be dropped entirely because there was only conclusive evidence against the single baton-wielding defendant. The New Black Panthers had First Amendment rights the career attorneys were told. On it went, as each theory was researched and shot down by the beleaguered lawyers.

As the internal battle raged, the career lawyers presented ample facts and legal theories based on basic principles of liability and citations to other voting rights cases to substantiate the case. In late April, they were instructed by King to seek a delay of the default judgment for two weeks and to make no mention of the change in administrations in the filings seeking the delay. In mid-May, the appellate section weighed in recommending the case go forward. Case discussion, briefings, and mock arguments continued. All of this came to an end when King ordered the default judgment withdrawn on May 15. The decision mystified lawyers in the civil rights division as well as outside observers including the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which sent a letter of inquiry.

So, your position makes no sense, unless Rubin is making things up out of pure cloth - which is doubtful. That does not mean her interpretation of the events is correct. However, the time line is certainly correct.

11:49 AM
Cycle Cyril said...

With regards to the NAACP I would contend that their goals have changed from elimination of Joe Crow laws, equal justice under the law and equal opportunity, to tribalism with the goals of equal results regardless of merit, elimination of any criticism and believing this is a zero-sum society in which if someone has more then it must be stolen from someone else.

The NAACP has changed to an organization that is rent seeking.

Consequently it conveys little real benefit to anyone these days.

12:19 PM
David Schraub said...

Obama was, you will recall, supposedly within the school of thought that asserted that we should not divide people. That was supposed to be a core NAACP mission as well.

I think that, all else equal, the NAACP would prefer "not to divide people", but I think it is a bit strange to characterize that as one of its "core missions".

Far closer to the core would be for them to say, as Coates puts it, "It's not OK". It's not okay to race-bait, it's not okay to engage in racism, and to say, forthrightly, when someone is behaving in a racist fashion.

The NAACP wasn't founded to avoid division. It was founded to combat racism and Black subordination in American society. Sometimes, that means being blunt, or even "divisive". Or as Coates put it today, "respectfully administering the occasional reminder as to the precise nature of the motherfuckers you are dealing with."

12:34 PM
N. Friedman said...

David,

You clearly date yourself from the post civil rights era. In fact, the strategy of non-violent civil rights movement was to undermine racism by finding common cause between the victims of racism and non-racist whites, not by branding all opponents as racists. And, the case was nearly always that it is in the interest of society to be fully integrated such that, as Dr. King put it, we should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin.

The civil rights movement of the civil rights era allowed the racists, for the most part, to define themselves by their violence, by what they argued and by their racist behavior - actions that were obscene to the average American, both Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative.

By contrast, the NAACP has now seemingly changed strategies and is, instead of advocating to bring us all together as one people, decided instead to label as racist those with whom it disagrees. Worse than that, the NAACP is attempting to pin a label on its political opponents by insinuating guilt by association - which, when Republicans play that game (and they have played that game), we call it McCarthyism. Same strategy, David, even if it is coming from a group which we both admire.


That is an unworthy strategy. And, as I noted, it will backfire for the reasons I already mentioned.

1:04 PM
Superdestroyer said...

It is odd that David would think that an organization that wants to stop racism was supporting the University of Michigan in its race based discrimination of Jennifer Gratz. The NAACP had no problem that the University of Michigan had separate and unequal admission standards for whites and blacks.

The NAACP had the same position in 1979 when it support the University of California in having a separate admission program to its professional schools.

The NAACP goal is to get as many benefits for blacks will use the race card to get them. It getting those government goodies requires government sanctioned racism, then the NAACP will tolerate the racism.

The NAACP faces the long term prospect of the the U.S. becoming a majority Hispanic nation who will have no tolerance for the race baiting and no desire to pay high taxes to give benefits to middle class and upper middle class blacks.

4:26 PM
David Schraub said...

In fact, the strategy of non-violent civil rights movement was to undermine racism by finding common cause between the victims of racism and non-racist whites, not by branding all opponents as racists.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean making common cause with the racists themselves, which is what the NAACP resolution claims "elements" of the Tea Party are (and they're clearly right about that, as the attached links demonstrate).

To say that the NAACP brands "all opponents as racist" is just as false and outrageous as the allegation that AIPAC brands all opponents of Israel as anti-Semites. You should know better. There are racists in the Tea Party, and they should be called out as such, but "elements of the Tea Party" is hardly coterminous with "all opponents of the NAACP".

Any history of the NAACP which pretends like they didn't call the proponents of racism anything but proponents of racism is hack work. In fact, the NAACP was formed in part as a break from Black leaders who were so focused on avoiding "division" that they refused to speak out against racism as well (the old Du Bois vs. Washington debate; Du Bois being one of the founders of the NAACP, and also the man who wrote these words).

"Avoiding division" as a key principle of the movement -- do you get your history from picture books or what? The NAACP was set up "for the advancement of colored people", including standing up to the racist bigots which pervaded society then, and which still regrettably maintain a presence in certain political movements.

4:39 PM
David Schraub said...

In fact, the strategy of non-violent civil rights movement was to undermine racism by finding common cause between the victims of racism and non-racist whites, not by branding all opponents as racists.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean making common cause with the racists themselves, which is what the NAACP resolution claims "elements" of the Tea Party are (and they're clearly right about that, as the attached links demonstrate).

To say that the NAACP brands "all opponents as racist" is just as false and outrageous as the allegation that AIPAC brands all opponents of Israel as anti-Semites. You should know better. There are racists in the Tea Party, and they should be called out as such, but "elements of the Tea Party" is hardly coterminous with "all opponents of the NAACP".

Any history of the NAACP which pretends like they didn't call the proponents of racism anything but proponents of racism is hack work. In fact, the NAACP was formed in part as a break from Black leaders who were so focused on avoiding "division" that they refused to speak out against racism as well (the old Du Bois vs. Washington debate; Du Bois being one of the founders of the NAACP, and also the man who wrote these words).

"Avoiding division" as a key principle of the movement -- do you get your history from picture books or what? The NAACP was set up "for the advancement of colored people", including standing up to the racist bigots which pervaded society then, and which still regrettably maintain a presence in certain political movements.

4:39 PM
N. Friedman said...

David,

Du Bois was only one of many who founded the NAACP. Much of the early leadership was white and Jewish - and they, since they dominated the group, opted to seek alliances with other non-racist whites rather than driving wedges among those who might be friends, the very same strategy that Jewish groups adopted to advance the integration of Jews into society and to undermine Antisemitism. That is a fact no matter what speech of Du Bois you may find.

In any event, the more important point here is that - and, on this, Joe has understood them correctly - the idea is to paint the Tea Party as racist. The means is to tar them with allegations of not kicking out racists. That strikes me as a strategy likely to backfire for reasons I have already addressed.

9:44 PM
N. Friedman said...

Superdestroyer,

While technically policies such as affirmative action are racist, it is more accurate to view them as remedial. Whether they are an appropriate remedy to past racism is, of course, a reasonable question about which reasonable people of good intention might differ.

The big problem with such policies is that they punish non-racists on the basis of race for the sins of the racists that terribly harmed our society. It, however, is not all that clear how one might bring an end to racism in the US without granting some benefit to the victims of the Jim Crow policy. So, I think that your comments are a bit smug.

10:05 PM
David Schraub said...

Okay. Making alliances with friendly, non-racist Whites is not competitive with calling out unfriendly, racist Whites as racists. This is spectacularly uncomplicated. The NAACP can, has, and does pursue both strategies simultaneously. Apparently, that's a mind-blowing revelation, but for the life of me I can't figure out why.

10:36 PM
joe said...

Yeah, I don't know what the NAACP is losing by not treating with kid gloves the guy who calls them slave owners.

11:18 PM
joe said...

Also, this whole Tea Party puts me in mind of this.

11:23 PM
N. Friedman said...

David,

The other policy of the NAACP was to sue to undermine Jim Crow, arguing that the policy was Unconstitutional. The organization simply did not typically call its opponents racist. You are simply mistaken.

7:44 AM
Cycle Cyril said...

"It, however, is not all that clear how one might bring an end to racism in the US without granting some benefit to the victims of the Jim Crow policy.

N.F.

To a large extent the bias and prejudice against Jews have been eliminated without the granting of benefits to the victims.

I contend granting of benefits to "victims" at this point in our history merely continues victimhood.

It is time to acknowledge that persistently "benefiting the victim" merely creates a dependent class of people who view all of their problems as having external causes and denies any internal remedial solution. A quick view of the NAACP website indicates it seeks advancement mainly via state mandate of "equality".

The lack of emphasis on individual advancement is telling.

12:14 PM
N. Friedman said...

Joe,

For your information...

The Washington Post's ombudsman now indicates that his paper has been remiss in not providing coverage of the New Panther's controversy. According to the ombudsman:

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner.

Again: there is a reason for an administration's opponents to have a voice, even if you disagree with their motivations. Such people can, in fact uncover "significant" stories that would otherwise be buried under the rug.

8:36 AM
PG said...

By way of example, Fox News pushed the story regarding the 9/11 Truther which Obama foolishly hired as a policy czar. The other networks eventually followed Fox News' lead. On that story at least, Fox News was proven right to go where the other networks more friendly to Obama chose not to go - until those networks pushed into covering the story by overwhelming evidence.

Ah yes, Van Jones as 9/11 Truther.

12:33 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)