Haley Barbour and racism
The opposition’s been trying to paint Haley Barbour with the racism brush for quite some time, and now he’s given them some good ammunition in a new Weekly Standard piece.
What constitutes “good ammunition” is different than it used to be, of course. Overtly racist statements are few and far between, so these days the racism accusation almost always relies on candidates making racially-related statements that contain inaccuracies, innuendos, and/or insensitivites, or are badly phrased, or some combination of these things.
Barbour’s seems to have encompassed the last two categories, at least evinced by the correction/clarification he issued today, which attempts to explain that he was not insinuating that the Citizens Councils of the South in his youth were non-racist, just that they were against violence:
When asked why my hometown in Mississippi did not suffer the same racial violence when I was a young man that accompanied other towns’ integration efforts, I accurately said the community leadership wouldn’t tolerate it and helped prevent violence there. My point was my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean I think the town leadership were saints, either. Their vehicle, called the ‘Citizens Council,’ is totally indefensible, as is segregation. It was a difficult and painful era for Mississippi, the rest of the country, and especially African Americans who were persecuted in that time.
Makes sense, but will Barbour get a second chance? I doubt it. He’s already had his previous “macaca” moment:
Both Geraghty and Rubin hammer Barbour for that widely-discussed 1982 episode in the New York Times, in which Barbour allegedly warned that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks. Geraghty says this episode will “come to define him.”
Chris Cillizza analyzes whether it is the case that remarks such as the ones in the Weekly Standard interview for which Barbour’s been called racist (untrue) and insensitive (perhaps true) will wind up defining him and harming his chances in 2012. Will it? I have no idea; it’s a long way to 2012, but my guess is that Barbour is not going to do well.
[NOTE: Here’s a really astounding criticism of a seemingly innocuous remark Barbour made during the WS interview, which shows how broadly racism has now come to be defined:
“I remember Martin Luther King came to town in ’62. He spoke out at the old fairground and it was full of people, black and white,” Barbour said.
When asked to describe the event, the governor replied, “I don’t really remember. The truth is, we couldn’t hear very well. We were sort of out there on the periphery. We just sat on our cars, watching the girls, talking, doing what boys do. We paid more attention to the girls than to King.”
Derrick Johnson, president of the Mississippi NAACP called Barbour’s comments
“beyond disturbing.”
Let’s set the scene: depending on the month King came to town, Barbour was either fourteen or fifteen years old at the time. And yet he actually attended the King speech, certainly not an indication of racism. He mentions a racially mixed crowd, but when questioned for details, instead of making up some other facts or stating general platitudes about an event that occurred forty-eight years ago, he tells the truth, which is that he doesn’t recall much more because he was a young teen, interested in girls, and sitting far away on the outskirts of the crowd.
Derrick Johnson of the NAACP finds this “beyond disturbing.” I find Johnson’s comments “beyond disturbing.”
No doubt Barbour the 14/15-year-old should have foreseen his future in politics, made sure he got a great seat up front, and taken copious notes.]
One problem with accusations of racism is that accusers can mean many different things, and accusers are often proactively vague. Accusers don’t like to be pinned down. They prefer to shift definitions as necessary.
So, when s/o blogs or comments that Barbour is racist, do they mean:
1. Barbour is unelectable?
which is a different argument from
2. Barbour, on the basis of 1982’s “watermelon”, ought not be elected?
which is a different argument from
3. Lets be serious: no white man who was born in Mississippi approx 1950, and raised in Mississippi in the 50s and 60s, ought ever be elected POTUS. They’re just disqualified, and its perfectly fair that they are. They ought have run away from home.
4. “Racist” does not mean a person ought be publicly shamed and shunned, but merely refers to the racial aspect of a statement. We are all racists. I’m merely pointing out, in my blogpost/comment, that we ought be scrupulous in eliminating racially hurtful language. Barbour is no worse than any other human being, myself included.
which is a different argument from
5. Go Dems and Progs! I LOVE accusing the right of being racists! I love watching them sputter and try to defend themselves! They doth protest too much! Where there’s smoke there’s fire! Ha ha ha ha ha!
If a person who believes in Barbour is have an actual conversation w/a person who is accusing Barbour of being racist, then the meaning of the accusation must be understood. Otherwise, either both parties will talk past each other from the beginning, or the party accusing Barbour will gleefully skip from accusatory definition to accusatory definition, as necessary, and possibly all inside the same back and forth conversation.
These racism freaks can be quite entertaining if you don’t let yourself get all buzzed up about them and just look at them sort of like Cirque du Soleil performers: talented contortionists.
When they get really interesting is w2hen they get themselves actually tied up in knots and someone has to come out and get them untangled.
I remember when, during the 70’s, the forerunners of today’s racism terriers pronounced the phrase
a codeword for racism.
Cool! So – if you are for law and order you’re against blacks.
Ergo all blacks are lawbreakers.
Nice going, oh liberal progressive friend of man.
To me, the interesting question is: ought a 1950ish born and raised Mississippi man be automatically disqualified from being POTUS?
If (I’m speculating) Barbour, over the course of his life, held racial views which are repugnant to us today (including being repugnant to Barbour today), yet which racial views – over the decades – consistently moved further and further towards what is today acceptable; and if Barbour’s changing racial views over the decades were always more liberal than the majority views of white Mississippians during any point in time: ought Barbour be undeserving of the electoral support of decent voters in 2010? Ought Barbour be disqualified from receiving the votes of thoughtful voters?
Ace of Spades referenced the Founding Fathers being consistently scorned, by many, for being slave owners and for the 3/5 compromise and for requiring voters to be land owning men. If the Founding Fathers could live for 400 years, and if the Founding Fathers were seeking elected office in 2010, ought they be disqualified from receiving the votes of thoughtful voters?
Any time a competent conservative sticks his or her head above the parapet, the lefties go into full ad hominem attack mode to demonstrate their moral superiority and cut the legs out from any one who might be a threat (e.g. Sarah Palin).
The fact is that Haley Barbour is an excellent governor who has balanced the budget of a very poor state unlike the governors of many rich states. He did an excellent job of guiding his state through the Katrina aftermath unlike the Democrat officials in Louisiana.
He has no chance of being president because of his home state, accent, and weight, but he would be a very good one.
Controlling violence in a racial tinderbox is no mean feat. The yahoos were a threat to both whites and blacks. During that era the leaders of many northern and western states and cities were not very successful. I remember Detroit, Newark, Cleveland and Watts.
Most people don’t know it, but the schools in the north are more racially segregated than in the south. Net migration of blacks is to the south from the north. Black parents in places like Chicago and Detroit send their kids to live with relatives in Alabama or Mississippi to get them out of the rat holes. Mississippi has more black elected officials than any state in America. When you get pulled over by a deputy sheriff or highway patrolman, there is a good chance he is black.
Mr. Frank,
I am with you re your major sentiment.
For anyone who has traveled our nation, who has experienced much of our nation, the idea that persons who live outside the South are somehow racially morally superior to persons who live in the South … is a joke. Is a cartoon of bigoted assumption.
Its anecdotal, but I think of Hugh Macleod, who is a former marketing guru and current artist who has a cult internet following. Macleod grew up in England, has worked in London, Chicago, NYC, other places, and currently lives near his aged father in Alpine, TX, and says: “There is less racism in Alpine, TX than in any place I’ve ever lived, and its not even close.”
Interesting. If we invalidate all candidates from former slave states, (hey, you never know what cultural or genetic baggage may be lurking there), can we at least show preference for someone who has lived a life and learned something from it to someone who has done nothing and can’t be taught?
I agree with gcotharn and Mr. Frank. The not-South does not have a monopoly on moral superiority. I’ll continue to favor competence where I can find it.
Finally, can we lay off watermelons. One of the fondest memories of my childhood centers on a watermelon. My family was somewhere in dry high Arizona on the old Route 66 on a hot summer day after a visit with relatives in hotter, and a more humid, Oklahoma. My father stopped the car at a roadside picnic table. Mom set out a watermelon, and we gathered around while Pop carved it open.
Some time later in conversation, it emerged that Pop had used the same pocket knife to help Mom’s brothers turn bulls into steers. Didn’t affect my watermelon, but Mom felt better when he told her he’d scrubbed up after with soap and water. I love being a country boy.
I found that watermelon anecdote rather humorous. Had Haley Barbour simply said, “Shut your mouth, boy,” he still would have gotten flack, even though he would have said it to a white. My uncle called me and my brother “boy” when we were well into adulthood, and we took no umbrage from it.
Mr. Frank:
Could be. My guess would be that while nothern school have overall better test scores than the outh, the white/black testing gap woulde be smaller in the south than in the north.
Relatives in DC and in NYC had no hesitation whatsoever in enrolling children in private schools.
Mr. Frank
I bring this up to northern holier-than thous pontificating about southern racism. Do they consider blacks to be masochists that they would willingly move to a place of much greater racism? From The New Great Migration: Black Americans’ Return to the South 1965-2000.
As the offspring of a northern and southern parents, who has split my life fairly equally between both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, I am rather alert to northern charges of southern racism, and would prefer that both sides be agnostic about it. My touchstone for northern allegations of the non-racist, enlightened north compared to the racist south is what a childhood friend, the offspring of a Tuskegee airman, told me when we were decades into adulthood. My friend told me that I was only three out of a class of 30 in our small town “who treated me like a human being.” So much for the enlightened north, I thought to myself.
There are racists everywhere. Similarly, there are enlightened persons everywhere. We carry both racism[group identity, fear of the stranger] and enlightenment within ourselves
When Barbour was born, racism was at a point higher than it had ever been. In 1924, Virginia passed a Racial Integrity Act and a sterilization Act. The “one-drop” law and eugenics ideology represented the culmination of an insidious separation between the races which no times of chattel slavery could match. And yet, the law and the ideology were not popular but progressive movements. People in high places wanted to use government power for their purposes and, as they do today, used the media, law, and education to promote and enforce stereotypes.
Barbour, raised in that setting, would have absorbed (from no fault of his own!) at least some racial monstrosities. He probably got it from some type of government channel–the same ones that later (but not much later) created the liberal plantations (see Star Parker’s book).
So I give Mr. Barbour commendations. He has refudiated not embraced a most virulent and poisonous ideology about race, an ideology which came up with the term “final solution.” If he had been born to an intellectual of the day (say, Woodrow Wilson) rather than a poor commoner he probably would never have escaped the programming.
Today as then, separation between the races is accomplished by the progressives.
Many folks need to pump themselves up by finding someone to look down on. On whom to look down. On whom downward looking is possible.
For a great many lazy liberals, the South fills the bill with no effort whatsoever.
Problem is, when all that nasty discrimination stuff was going on, it was dems in office from dogcatcher to governor and in congress.
Somebody said that c&w music has a theme or themes.
Play hard. Don’t mess around on your significant other–or if you do, no good will come of it. Work hard. Get right with The Man. Show up for the wars. Children and old folks rule.
Not much there that can’t be mocked by libs.
1. …Overtly racist statements are few and far between, so these days the racism accusation almost always relies on candidates making racially-related statements that contain inaccuracies, innuendos, and/or insensitivites, or are badly phrased, or some combination of these things.
The Left does its Gramscian best to turn language into a minefield. For example, heaven help the naif who says ‘colored people’ instead of ‘people of color’.
2. From the WaPo column that Neo quoted:
Yes, yes, yes, and, above all, yes, sez our political system.
I suspect that political professionals across the spectrum are mutually complicit in the reduction of everything to gotcha sound bites because it makes their lives easier: easier, for example, than debating
a) whether a former Washington lobbyist is a suitable GOP nominee in the Tea Party era, and
b) why the governor of perhaps the poorest state should become president of a country whose future prosperity will depend on technological progress.
I am way beyond sick of the BS.
Barbour of MS is ineligible.
But Clinton from the state next door was so eminently eligible.
Who did a better job as gov?
Obviously Billy.
He dished out more BS.
We’re drowning in it.
Maybe Brad will help us out here.
Obama has said way more racist things than any of those examples.
Here is another thing: Beware people for whom nothing is ever good enough, like the NAACP. No amount of non-racism is ever going to be good enough for them (because it would spell their own nonexistence). This goes for things other than racism too.
and this is the way to end racism…
hypersensitivity to the point no one talks..
no one commiserates… no one will help anyone..
and the commissars sit fat and happy that we cant even get together to stop them… but rather, are too busy being afraid (red terror) of the left…
helvetica Says: “Here is another thing: Beware people for whom nothing is ever good enough, like the NAACP. No amount of non-racism is ever going to be good enough for them (because it would spell their own nonexistence).”
Beg to differ. If the erstwhile racist publicly adopts and pushes the leftie agenda, all is slobberingly forgiven. Exhibit A — Robert Byrd.
OK, this may not be popular, but Haley Barbour really should not be the face of either the conservative movement or the Republican Party. Just on the basis of his family and regional background alone he starts with a handicap, but more important is what he has done (and not done) with his life.
Sorry, but he has grown up in a white culture that did not respect their fellow Mississippians who happened to be black. He thrived in a white world of schmoozing and back slapping, becoming very effective in the lobbying business, and raising money for the GOP. While the country as a whole has struggled through the civil rights era and its aftermath, and through continuing demographic changes, he thrived without ever needing to empathize with or learn from the experiences of those who lacked his privileges.
This is not a resume that works in the post-Obama age, nor should the GOP wish it to be the party’s face.
Some say he has been a very good governor. I would contend that Mississippi continues to be the recipient of a lot of Washington largesse, thanks to Barbour’s own persuasiveness and the craven behavior of Senators Cochran and Wicker. Mississippi itself has not generated its recovery and progress, Federal assistance has made it possible. Put Barbour in the White House, where’s he going to find the resources for the Federal Government itself? He can’t duplicate this turn for the country as a whole.
Barbour is another one of those who look good at first glance, who talk the talk that many conservatives like to hear. But dig a little deeper and what you find is not a successful President for the entire nation in its present circumstances.
His background would make him a divider, not a uniter, since he has never stepped outside his comfort zone.
We are better off looking elsewhere, and Haley Barbour will be himself best served seeking to contribute in another way rather than running for President.
I agree with Dan D. Haley Barbour has never been on my short list for President. I honestly don’t know what makes him think he could win.
At the same time, I’ve grown weary of the constant charges of racism leveled by members of the party of slavery, secession, and segregation. I no longer suffer from white guilt, and I think that blacks are by far the worst racists in America today.
And I have no patience at all for those who find watermelons offensive. They probably don’t like kittens either.
Dan D’s major point addresses what I think is the most interesting argument: ought a 1950ish born Mississippi man, i.e. a man who was raised in Mississippi and who (speculation) formerly held racial views which are repugnant to us (and him) today … ought thoughtful voters automatically disqualify such a man from consideration of receiving their vote?
I’m not asking if Barbour can or cannot win. I’m asking if thoughtful voters ought automatically disqualify Barbour?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Separately, Clinton was mentioned. Clinton marketed himself as the first black President in U.S. History, i.e. Clinton marketed himself as an independent minded southern boy who – in matters of race – was never a man of the South. Barbour’s dilemma is that he has not racially distanced himself from 1960s Mississippi.
It is hilarious that Clinton was marketed and celebrated as that racially independent southern boy who was not a man of the South ………………………. UNTIL Clinton campaigned against Barack. Then Clinton became just another Arkansas cracker. I cannot exaggerate how I enjoyed seeing that Arkansas cracker dynamic explode in Clinton’s face. Schadenfreude.
Dan D:
I can’t help but wonder if you are as unforgiving of our current president who has a long history of associating with and being sympathetic to domestic terrorists, socialists, communists, radicals, and America haters.
Dan D:
Where y’all live at?
Bet it’s a thousand miles from MS.
You deem the messenger more important than the message.
The opposition’s been trying to paint Haley Barbour with the racism brush for quite some time.
Don’t know much about him, but I like the fact that the Reds are already trying to smear him. That moves him up in my estimation. So call me provisionally interested in a Barbour candidacy.
> f the Founding Fathers were seeking elected office in 2010, ought they be disqualified from receiving the votes of thoughtful voters?
Of course, they created that damned stupid Constitution we have to keep using judges to get around.
Did you have to ask?
“Clinton marketed himself as the first black President in U.S. History, i.e. Clinton marketed himself as an independent minded southern boy who – in matters of race – was never a man of the South.”
One of the things I have lamented about over the last few year is that there is almost no way we will get a good President oer the next few terms.
No one that is going to be “good” is going to stick their nose in here – Clinton was the last one. No, I do not think he was good, but he was the last chance. From that point on out being honest is *not* an option. Bush Jr was the last “Honest” (as much as he was) President we will see for a while, no one that isn’t going to whitewash their lives is going to make it.
This realization seems to be something that is slowly coming over the voters for congress and will slowly be so for the President too – you aren’t going to get that Perfect One. Obama represented that to many and his failings are coming out for everyone to see (we are lucky that it happened this early IMO). It may not have been what many on the Right hoped for (a forcing of people to think about leftist idealizations) but at least it has caused many to move back some from perfection.
Sadly, on both sides, people like Barbour are not contenders because they fell short of perfection. Obama was a shot at true perfection and we will need a string of failures at not-so-perfect perfection until we realize that Presidents of the US are Human. Well that or we will end up where I still think we will (and that is violent conflict – but that is still down the road). Until then people like him on both the left and the right are what we need, but not what we are going to get – I’ll be blasted for that idea too (well, at least until we are forced to realize that is reality)..
# Tom Says:
December 21st, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Dan D:
Where y’all live at?
Bet it’s a thousand miles from MS.
You deem the messenger more important than the message.
Tom, I am interested in electing a President to serve the constitutional duties of that office on behalf of all Americans. Don’t confuse the message with the job applicant. I wouldn’t hire someone based solely on their ability to say things I like to hear, performance matters more.
In a weird twist of events, i somehow think Americans would be less race obsessed today had it not been so successful at irradicating racism toward blacks since the mid 60’s.
The demons that got cast out in this time period undoubtedly held some positive traits for societal cohesiveness, as evidenced by masochistic liberals consumed by an overcorrection guilt complex that have emerged on the scene to threaten all of the free world. We seem to have simply traded one set of demons for another even more destructive set.
well, as jeff foxworthy’s politically incorrect brother would say, “you might be a racist if you’ve ever said anything about anything…especially if you’re perceived to pose the slightest threat to the furtherance of bho’s political career”
Let’s set the scene: depending on the month King came to town, Barbour was either fourteen or fifteen years old at the time. And yet he actually attended the King speech, certainly not an indication of racism.
So now we’re holding 14 year olds accountable for their actions?
Let’s put this into perspective. At the same age – and older – Buraq was a druggie, by his own admission. Isn’t that just a teeny bit worse than failing to pay full attention to a speech?
They just make shit up. Instead of apologizing, Barbour should have come out swinging.
You’re right, Trimegistus. We can’t let them put us on the defensive every time by justifying ourselves.
Barbour could have delivered a knockout punch by saying something like, “I didn’t pay full attention to MLK. At the same age, President Obama apparently didn’t pay full – or indeed, any – attention to anti-drug speeches.”
That’s the freakin irony of it, Occam. When Barbour is rejecting the outright demonic lie of race supremacy and overcoming cultural burdens, Obama is slurping up Marxist creed, and, if latent sympathies are said to exist, there is certainly much more evidence for Obama’s sympathy for Islam than there is that Barbour is a bigot. Come to think of it, there’s more evidence that Obama is a bigot.
Since its Christmas and a time of rejoicing and its bad form to end on a bad note, here’s someone who represents American exceptionalism.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/12/22/wednesday-open-thread-bulge-edition/
I agree w/Occam. The best defense is a good offense. Seize initiative. Force the political opponent to react to you.
John Boyd’s OODA Loop (Observe,Orient,Decide,Act) is used by the military to teach competitive tactics. One of Boyd’s revelations: the most important thing is not to make a perfect decision. Rather, the most important things is to make decent enough decisions .. at rapid enough rate .. to force the opponent to react to you. If the opponent is consistently reacting to you, then you will gradually gain more and more competitive advantage over him.
I believe I have mentioned this before, and so my apologies on retelling the story. Once, to see whether liberals cynically use allegations of racism to silence opponents, I decided to “liberal” a liberal Internet interlocutor. At each juncture I accused him of racism, putting words in his mouth and then condemning him for them, peppering him with incessant allegations that imputed the worst to him. (“Oh, so you’re all for minorities, but you don’t want your sister to marry one, do you? Typical racist! And you want them to stay in their part of town, too! What a racist! You think they’re OK as long as they know their place. I’m disgusted by your racism!” In short, the liberal stock in trade.)
The results were fascinating. He initially tried to dismiss the allegations, but as they proliferated into an avalanche, he went on the defensive and tried to offer justifications, each of which I ignored in favor of several new allegations. Eventually he collapsed, exhausted by having to defend himself from one accusation as I leveled two more, and withdrew.
Moral: the best defense is a good offense.
The nice thing about the drug riposte is a) it’s true, and b) bringing it up effectively stifles the smear campaign in its cradle. Linking the two issues would mean that every time thereafter a liberal brought up Barbour and the MLK speech everyone would automatically be reminded of Obama’s drug use. (Even more effective: sharpening the issue, by referring to Obama as smoking crack. He wasn’t, apparently, but it’s a fine distinction between snorting coke and smoking crack, and one liberals can hardly draw in defending him.)
For that reason, the liberals would drop this manufactured issue like a bad habit.
I don’t think Barbour is a racist. But he’s had way too much contact with the “Council of Conservative Citizens”, which is racist – openly so, in fact.
I’d give him a pass.
John Boyd’s OODA Loop (Observe,Orient,Decide,Act) is used by the military to teach competitive tactics.
yes, but this is strategic, not tactical
wrong tool…
sorry hit enter too soon
this is the point i have been making over and over in tons of variations…
the small person and what they do is tactics, the whole the movement of the whole, is strategy.
the whole time since day 1, like a general i have been talking strategies, ends, etc… and so have they…
strategy is what brings a man to the place where he needs tactics to win the situation
All my talk has been about strategy thats going on NOT tactics
so what the Germans did in Wiemar sans tactics, is whats going on here….
they have a strategy and one tactic of that strategy is to do what they did to barbour, but the larger picture is the why they are doing anything to her, and not some other place, etc.
Its easy to wait till they do something then talk about the situational tactics
its HARD to figure out the overall strategy, and what is being employed where and so on.
there is a huge flurry of laws, and things and everyone wonders about pieces. the whole is a lot more scarier as all the odd pieces which annoy are distractions hiding the pieces that count as making moves.
It was STRATEGY that killed the hydra, not tactics
tactics were used to fulfill strategy which saw the proper target and focus.
The pattern is that stories are being written to remind the Democrats’ key constituencies not to leave home in the face of electoral debacle. First, the Nixon stories about his anti-semitism 40 years ago, now a symbolic representative of the GOP’s “Southern Strategy.” In both cases, the purpose is to nurture ancient resentments. It’s a crude attempt to re-establish the Race Card as a viable weapon, after having diminished it through overuse. No good can come of it: trouble ahead.
I HATE PC-Bullsh**. I Loathe Lib’rul Race-Sex-Weather Mantras.
My God, these wimps who’ve never been in a ‘hood, but KNOW how racist us Cons are, make me f***ing sick.
I’ve got a young ‘crew’ of kids with names like Jarvielle, Kareem, La-La(Lafayette), Za-Za(Zavier) and more and they don’t get extra breaks for behavior or performance ‘cuz of that skin tone thingy. And, they respect and are fond of Mister Neo for him holding them to the same standards as himself. What a concept.