Blowback
Charles Krauthammer looks at the recent identity politics flap caused by remarks made by Hillary Clinton and explains that it wasn't racism. That fact has been noted by a lot of people, of course. He says the real problem is one of a different time and place - and a vastly changed political landscape. The starting point is that claim by Clinton that it took Lyndon Johnson to enact the civil rights law of 1964.
In my view, the real problem with Clinton's statement was the implied historical analogy — that the subordinate position King held in relation to Johnson, a function of the discrimination and disenfranchisement of the time, somehow needs recapitulation today when none of those conditions apply.
The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results.
Forty years ago, that arrangement — white president enacting African American dreams — was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement — white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty — is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly.
The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen — and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African American dreams still have to go through white liberals?
Clinton is no doubt shocked that a simple argument about experience vs. inspiration becomes the basis for a charge of racial insensitivity. She is surprised that the very use of "fairy tale" in reference to Obama's position on Iraq is taken as a sign of insensitivity, or that any reference to his self-confessed teenage drug use is immediately given racial overtones.
As Krauthammer and others have pointed out, the Clintons feel entitled to another Clinton taking office. They are enraged that Obama is standing in the way of that. That there is more than a little irony in watching the Clintons squirming under the same kind of charges they are used to wielding against opponents just make this all more amusing. Is it enough to stop her from winning? Maybe not. But the longterm damage may already be done. Clinton herself may have driven the wedge that splits a longstanding political bloc off the Democratic party.
By Scott Malensek, Akron, Ohio, Friday, 18 January , 2008 @ 11:18 am
What this whole thing is about is Hillary’s gaffe:
Hillary tried to say deeds not words
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yDQsAqpJzMc
Obama tried to say words do matter
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb6k2SYeyUU
Hillary tried to make the point by factually pointing out that LBJ did some good things for the civil rights movement, but she did so at the expense of suggesting that the President was more important than the man who stirred the nation. It’s like saying management is more important than leadership. That’s a debate position that can’t win. She squirmed, gaffed, and successfully deflected. Her political machine and Dem partisans raced in (pun intended) to suggest that race was suddenly an issue when her gaffe was about the difference
between leadership and management
between a man who stirs a nation and a man who screwed a nation (when a Dem points to LBJ as a great Dem it’s a clear sign of a gaffee-oughtta be a 2 drink penalty)
It’s the difference between words not deeds
And let those of us who post away on the web, who write articles, and books etc NEVER EVER forget that words DO matter. Words are incredibly important. Words, free speech, the web, authors, songwriters, poets, and yes politicians live by words. Without the words there is no inspiration and there are no deeds;
just apathy, appeasement, acquiescence, and submission