Grounds for Complaint

Let me acknowledge now that Prometheus 6 has *enormous* *justified* grounds for complaint--not just in 2006, but now and for as far in the future as eyes can see.

I'm reminding you of this now so I have all the grounds for complaint I need in 2006 | Prometheus 6: There are three posts from my archives I'd like you to read, in order.

Come get yer identity politics right here http://www.prometheus6.org/node/1564

Atrios and Tapped never read my blog (with comments by Brad DeLong) http://www.prometheus6.org/node/1577

I think I have too many RSS feeds http://www.prometheus6.org/node/1578

The point?

1. The issues that inform the posts have never been addressed

2. I have always been difficult-don't expect that shit to change

All are well worth reading.

Also worth reading...

The Carpetbagger Report notes Dan Froomkin's jaw drop at the idea that 31% of Americans think that George W. Bush doesn't care about African-Americans:

Carpetbagger: Dan Froomkin raised a point today that should be a striking wake-up call to the entire Bush gang: a significant percentage of the public seems to believe the president is willing to leave African Americans behind. Froomkin pointed to a Gallup poll that asked respondents whether they believe Bush does, or does not, "care about black people."

Among blacks, 21 percent say he does and 72 percent say he doesn't.

Among whites, 67 percent say he does and 26 percent say he doesn't.

Overall, 62 percent say he does and 31 percent say he doesn't.

Obviously, that's a pretty dramatic rift. But consider the absolute numbers: Three out of four blacks, one out of four whites, and one out of three people across the country regardless of race actually believe that President Bush doesn't care about black people.

Sorry, but the question: "Does the president of the United State care about black people" should be a no-brainer. Of course he does should be the overwhelmingly common answer.... Here's a question for Washington's punditocracy: What percentage of people believing that the president doesn't care about black people should be considered alarming?

And Ezra Klein observes Dan's brother Michael saying:

Ezra Klein: How It Is: Michael Froomkin is 200% correct here:

The Bush administration has an admirable record of appointing African-Americans to top posts. And despite the occasional strange incident, I don't think it is a racist administration. Rather, it's thoroughly classist. Kleptocratic even. For as far as I can tell, what George Bush -- and his team -- don't care about is poor people. All poor people. No sympathy (in the sense of a sympathetic or shared understanding) at all.

I think that Michael is correct: Bush's lack of care about poor African-Americans in New Orleans is a result of his not caring about poor people, not of his not caring about African Americans per se

But Ezra adds an important corollary: George W. Bush is very willing to--eager to, even--send the standard Republican signals that if they don't like Black people, the Republican Party is their home:

The one thing to remember, though, is that Bush is happy to exploit racism in favor of kleptocratic ends. He didn't, for instance, run for president to screw over black people, but he did win the South Carolina primary by embracing Bob Jones U., home of the nation's most racially regressive dating policies. Intentions-wise, it's not quite the same, but it ends up looking awfully similar.

Comments

[CalDem]

you are entirely too optimistic about Bush's rascism. Read his mom's comments to the astrodome a couple of times. Then ask yourself is this the type of family that tells rascist jokes around the dinner table. I would guess so. I went to prep school with lots of little gearge bush types in the 80's, and they were quite rascist, I'msure it was worse in the 60's when Bush was at Andover. Plus, review his actions towards the families of those black men who were lynched and tell me he isn't rscist.

[MTC]

I guess I am in agreement with Dr. DeLong--I cannot help but wonder to what extent Condoleezza Rice, nominally an African-American, is indeed African in background. Aside from her inherited pigmentation, that is.
Still, it is probably not correct to say that melanin expression is only an ancillary issue for slave state Republicans. The visit to Bob Jones University and the whispering campaign against John McCain's adopted child show that while slave state Republicans may accept the principle of legal equality of non-Caucasian peoples, they are nevertheless grossed out by (I'll use the pejorative term here) miscegenation. It is one thing to mouth the rhetoric that all men are created equal, we are all the same under the skin, we are all God's children...et cetera. It seems to be quite another thing to embrace the biological truth of those phrases. Did not Wendy Graham become the target of vicious attacks when her husband was testing the presidential political waters?

[bad Jim]

Colin & Condi's appointments should be considered nothing more than naked pandering, explicit window dressing. The loyalty his base shows him underlines their confidence that Bush is reliably racist.

[Tim B.]

What is this weird fog that Bush exudes? It seems to cloud the minds of even sharp critics like Mr. DeLong.

Let's ask another question that illuminates the original one. What about gay folks...Does Bush personally hate fags?

Maybe not personally in a Phelps kind of way, but he certainly doesn't see them quite as human and deserving of rights. Their struggle is invisible to him. Gay pride and gay empowerment are threats to his moral order and political power. Supports legislation which disempower, hurts and excludes Gay people and explicitly appeals to the homophobe vote.

Yet when has the Compassionate President uttered the words "I hate fags" in public? Why never, so he can't be a homophobe, right?

With racism, it's the same game. Yes, Bush is a racist. He supports policies which are racist in intent and result. He's a lot like a Holocaust denier--"yeah it happened, but it wasn't as bad as the victim-mongers say, it was a product of the times, and besides they probably had it coming somehow".

He doesn't confront the racism in his own party. The GOP is built on a "cultural supremacy" doctrine that welcomes racists with open arms. It's key that homophobes and racists feel comfortable in the GOP. BushCo makes sure the signals are sent.

Examples:

Explicitly visits Bob Jones University, a racist institution. Mmmm, sensitive.
Snubs the NAACP. Hmmm, respectful.
What's his stand on the confederate flag again? Winks and nods.
Executed how many black people as Governor? Riiiiight.
Were James Byrd's murderers executed? Hmmm.

Is he David Duke? No, but his policies are about the same and the neglect is calculated. I guess intentions and PR don't count for much in my book--the results of his actions and inactions, and their results, have said it all. At least David Duke is honest about where he's coming from.

It's amazing how much people still want to believe that Bush has redeeming features. That his faults are just incompetence, not personal malevalence. Nope. Absolutely wrong.

In a different age, Bush would have gone to and enjoyed lynchings...as a cheerleader...with a case of beer. And totally disconnected from how it was a reign of absolute terror for black Americans.

That's the kind of man he is. And isn't.

[Fifi]

Some blogger (can't remember who) had a very good formula to sum up Bush's approach to racism, calling him an equal-opportunity sociopath.

He doesn't care one way or the other. He's not an active racist but if race baiting is needed to achieve his goals, he (or his henchmen) would have no problem playing that game as they did in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

[p.lukasiak]

although framing the Bush/racism debate in class terms may be useful, I don't think that "class" is even the issue.

George W. Bush doesn't care about people PERIOD. All he cares about is himself --- and rewards those in a position to help Bush. The fact that the wealthy and powerful are most capable of helping Bush means that the wealthy set the agenda. But that doesn't translate to "caring" about wealthy people---Bush can no more "feel the pain" of wealthy liberals than he can of poor people.

There is little question that Bush is, in fact, a racist. Midland Texas, where he spent his formative years, was segregated to the extent that blacks could not appear in public in "street clothes", only work clothes. His father ran for the Senate on a vehemently anti-Civil Rights platform---a position that Pappy later renounced, but Junior learned very early on that exploitation of racial animosity was a perfectly acceptable means of attaining power. The Texas Air National Guard was so segregated that it wasn't until 1972 that it enrolled its first black female (keep in mind that the US Armed Forces were integreted in 1948....) And at no point in his early career is there any evidence that suggests that Bush was concerned with the impact of the racism and segregation that surrounded him --- to him, it was the "natural" environment.

[piotr]

I agree with lukasiak. However, in the case of Katrina victims, they were to a degree victims of the local racial/class prejudice, trapped in appalling conditions near functioning bridges acessible via functioning highways. Then when someone shot at a helicopter, rescue operations were suspended for at least a day, if not two, while perhaps 10 guardsmen would be more than enough as a escort -- and they coud easily drive there. Why they have send helicopters to a location accessible by trucks and buses to begin with? I think not to give the trapped black folks an idea that they can depart through surrounding white communities.

So the president is faced with this issue, and what does he do? Basically, orders to wair until 30 thousand troops can enter New Orleans. 30 thousands? Against 10 thugs? 100 thugs? I think it reflects incredible prejudice against poor black people.

Rich black folks are OK, and poor whites are barely tolerated, but minorities have truly special treatment. Compare the treatment of "white Taliban", John Walker, with Jose Padilla. The first was treated appalingly, but he got a modicum of fair trial. Padilla was basically excluded from human race -- with complicity of equally racist courts. By the way, racism is not entirely consistent, and Arabs are apparently "honorary Blacks", whatever they actual racial affinity may be (like with Jews).

[Amen Brother]

Tim B is completely correct. And Brad, you ought to know better than this right now. George Bush is racist both beyond a reasonable doubt and by a preponderance of the evidence.

[c&d]

There are two different ways of understanding, "care about black people."
Q1. Does the President actively care about black people as a cultural/racial group with particular interests or needs?
Q2. Does the President care about people, of which black people are a sub-set.

A: I would say "no" to both, but I can understand why most people would say "yes" to #2.

There is also Ezra's,
Q3. Does the President care about poor people, of which there are many black people?
A: no.

[BillCross]

"Then when someone shot at a helicopter, rescue operations were suspended for at least a day, if not two, while perhaps 10 guardsmen would be more than enough as a escort -- and they coud easily drive there. Why they have send helicopters to a location accessible by trucks and buses to begin with? I think not to give the trapped black folks an idea that they can depart through surrounding white communities."

I thought that the shooting at helicopters had not been proven to have occurred and that there was reasonable evidence to indicate that it had not occurred?

[Oskar Shapley]

AFAIK Colin Powell is half-Scottish. He even got a title from the Queen.

[Randolph Fritz]

These are good and important issues...and in the winner-take-all US electoral system, one can only win by catering either to the majority, the largest minority possible, or a geographically distributed, largely rural minority. There is no way to be gain major national power in the US system by catering to an urban minority, even a very large urban minority. So politicians can't deal with black issues. Commentators have a choice: do they want to be propagandists, and support the politicians they believe to be the best, or to be fair-minded analysts and be politically marginalized. Me, I try to be fair-minded. But it's a flaw of US democracy that prometheus6 is angry about, and I wish I had a solution for it.

Cue Lani Guinier, Fairvote, proportional representation advocates, etc., etc.

[Julian Elson]

Perhaps Bush is just too non-racist to understand racism. Like, he doesn't get race, to the point where Bob Jones' interracial dating policy seems silly, rather than offensive and retrograde. Like, if a university implemented a policy forbidding people whose last names start with vowels from dating people whose last names start with consonants, then most of us would probably be more baffled than offended. Maybe Bush's is so non-racist, so much less racist than even you or me, that he actually has a tin ear on racial matters.

Just kidding!

[weco]

Put it this way: George Bush is the kind of racists that preempt any criticism by saying he has many African-American friends and therefore can't possibly be racist, then spill out racist policy.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I cannot help but wonder to what extent Condoleezza Rice, nominally an African-American, is indeed African in background. Aside from her inherited pigmentation, that is."

"Colin & Condi's appointments [to the highest positions ever held by African-Americans in the US government] should be considered nothing more than naked pandering, explicit window dressing."

Who are the racists again?