Today a few thousand demonstrators came to Washington to demonstrate against something. It's not clear from listening to them what that "something" is, but nominally, the unifying complaint dealt with high taxes and/or high deficits.
Practically, it can't be either of those. Taxes are no higher now than they have been for several years and there aren't any indications that Congress is moving to increase them. And these people sure didn't show up when George W. Bush was busy turning Bill Clinton's surpluses into huge deficits. I didn't notice any of them joining the multitudes protesting Bush's wars, complaining about the hundreds of billions he was adding to the deficit.
But maybe that's not why they came. Maybe they came to protest the socialistic -- or is it communistic? -- tide sweeping across America in the form of, uh, what? Public funding of fire-fighting? Our nationalized military? Tax-supported schools? Federalized air traffic control? State-owned streets and highways? Social Security and Medicare? (Maybe these people are a little slow?) Uh, no, maybe it's a health care reform proposal which is built around, uh, privately owned insurance companies?
Nope. They may be making the noise, but socialism's surge isn't exactly lapping against these shores yet.
Nor was it about patriotism -- not with all those Confederate flags floating around.
Ah yes, they're upset about President Obama trashing the Constitution. I'm not quite sure how he's supposed to be doing that, but isn't it odd how they weren't here to protest George W. Bush's many transgressions in that regard? Y'know, I doubt many of them could tell you anything about the 14th Amendment; or Article 1, section 8, clause 11; or that pesky little clause in the middle of the Second. Nope, it's not about the Constitution.
Or maybe there's another reason. A reason not mentioned in any of the news coverage I've heard or read about these demonstrations, but apparent when one looks -- really looks -- at the photos of the the demonstrators. All white. I looked through every photo of the demo I could find on the web, and not one -- NOT ONE -- non-white face.
Maybe, just maybe, they're upset that Barack Obama, native of Hawai'i, resident of Illinois, did intentionally move into the White House knowing full well that he is of African ancestry.
Let's face it. Race is the unreported unifying factor among the demonstrators. Race -- or diversity -- is the one theme unifying their anger. These people aren't angry about socialism or deficits or health care or the Constitution. They're angry about the reality that America is a very diverse place, with citizens of differing skin colors, differing religions, differing sexual orientations, differing understandings of what America is. They're angry because President Obama's very existence threatens their fantasy about what America is.
Personally, I'm angry that the media don't delve beyond counting the numbers or parroting the slogans, and examine the real reasons why these people came to Washington. Racism is the elephant in the room, but none of the major media are willing to see it.
Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 12 September 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You could be right, but I think it’s mostly that they don’t want any Democrat in the White House. Seriously.
Note: originally submitted by Paula B, 13 September 2009
That’s certainly a part of it, especially as the far right seems to equate the Democrats with all that alienates them from the modern world. However, the level of vitriol seems higher than that, and the “coding” of the language suggests to me that racism is a major component.
Then, I also agree with Krugman’s thesis that the Neocons have consciously used race and racist appeals to build mass support for their policy agenda which, after all, does not square with the economic interests of their reactionary populist base.
Note: originally submitted by Sanderling, 13 September 2009
Yes, I agree with Krugman too, and I agree that the usual level of venom has been surpassed lately.
But this is the first time in 8 years that the Dems have controlled the White House, and they control Congress too. If they were organized for once, they could actually change things for the better, and that has to scare people who think they’re being threatened or who are simply afraid of any kind of change.
Note: originally submitted by Paula B, 14 September 2009
If you’re right, then the reactionary right is doubly stupid. As Will Rogers noted, “Democrats never agree on anything, that’s why they’re Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.”
(Hah! You thought I’d use his “I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat” quotation, didn’t you?)
Note: originally submitted by Sanderling, 15 September 2009
Funny that Democrats are more interested in personal freedom (lack of organization) than in money. If they were after riches, they’d be Republicans.
So really, Democrats are more freedom-loving than Republicans. How ironic.
Note: originally submitted by Paula B, 16 September 2009
Dude, people with no birth certificates are coming over here and taking jobs that could be done by real Americans. Can’t you see that?
Note: originally submitted by AK, 2 October 2009
If I were Navajo or Cherokee or Lakota, I could understand the objection ….
Note: originally submitted by Sanderling, 2 October 2009
Post a Comment