Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Blow-n Away

I am accustomed to disagreeing with the designated race writers in the mainstream media ? the Washington Post?s Eugene Robinson [also here, citing several others], the Boston Globe?s Derrick Z. Jackson, the Chicago Tribune?s Clarence Page, the New York Times?s Charles Blow come quickly to mind ? but I do not usually find their columns sputteringly incoherent. That, however, is the only way I know how to describe Charles Blow?s Obama?s ?Race? War in the New York Times on July 31.

I?m sure I would disagree with it, too, if I knew what Blow was trying to say, but I don?t. I don?t even know why ?Race? is in quotes in his title.

As I read it (help me on this in the comments; I?m open to correction), I think he begins by trying to place his all-wise, all-knowing (rather like he?s trying to emulate Obama) self above the fray, looking down at how the muddled masses on both left and right are mangling the wise and ?noble? conversation we should be having about race (or ?race?).

In any event, here?s how it begins:

Americans are engaged in a war over a word: racism.

Mature commentary on the subject has descended into tribal tirades, hypersensitive defenses and rapid-fire finger-pointing. The very definition of the word seems under assault, being bent and twisted back on itself and stretched and pulled beyond recognition.

Many on the left have taken an absolutist stance, that the anti-Obama sentiment reeks of racism and denial only served to confirm guilt. Many on the right feel as though they have been convicted without proof ? that tossing ?racism? their way is itself racist.

Well, yes, but so what? It?s certainly true that many on the left are convinced that criticism of Obama is fueled by racism, and we Tea Partiers and other conservatives, as well as run of the mill Republicans, believe that reflexively calling us racist is baseless dirty pool. Blow?s power of observation, that is, seems to be in tolerably good working order, but once he moves beyond the by now rather trite observation of how everyone feels, his point, if there is one, is lost, at least to me.

He does, to be sure, give predictable obeisance to the current litany of liberal talking points ? the right?s failed ?witch hunt? for racists in the NAACP or on the left, leading to Breitbart?s ?Sherrod Charade?; dismissing the brouhaha over Journolist, ?a now defunct listserv? with only ?a handful of people? that ?was hardly a vast left wing conspiracy?; asserting that the dismissal of the New Black Panther case is a ?nonstory?; ?And then there?s Glenn Beck ....? He?d have to provide his normal Blow by blow account of the sins of the right ? otherwise, how would we know we?re reading Charles Blow? ? but by coming down from his faux above-the-fray stance whatever point he was trying to make simply disappears into the mundane miasma of left-wing cant.

Whatever he?s been trying to say, everything in his piece is preface to the following conclusion, which Blow and his editors obviously must believe says something worth saying (or at least something):

Blacks, stunned by this new topsy-turvy world of racial politics, continue to rally around Obama. In opinion polls, they consistently rate Obama?s performance and policies highly, I suspect as much out of solidarity as conviction.

Whether the president likes it or not, he?s the nexus of this debate. I, for one, think that he should stand up and redirect it from the negative to the noble. There will be some grumbling to be sure, but there already is.

It?s your choice, Mr. President. I say stand up ? for America, for common humanity, for civil discourse. To paraphrase the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they can?t ride your back unless it?s bent.

If there?s more here than simply a Blowhard Blowing smoke, I don?t know it is. What, that is, is the ?noble? thing that Obama should say about race (or ?race?)? Blow wants Him to unbend His back and ?stand up ? for America, for common humanity, for civil discourse,? but then what? His posture now improved ? and with America?s, common humanity?s, and civil discourse?s fate hanging in the balance ? what should He actually say?

Blow never says, and thus blows it.

Full post as published by Discriminations on August 03, 2010 (boomark / email).