A simple test for racism: "Did they do it to Clinton?"

I'm always amused by people making accusations of racism who ask "do you really think this would have been being done if the president were white", and those denying them who claim that they wouldn't without reference to evidence. The last Democratic president left office only 8 years ago, and - despite rhetorical claims to the contrary - was not black.

That gives us a fairly good way of guessing whether a given form of opposition to Obama is motivated by racism. It's by no means 100% reliable - many racists hated Bill Clinton, and there are other differences between the two presidents too - but it's a good start, and certainly better than "do you really believe that...". It doesn't necessarily reveal "is person X a racist", but it *is* a good way of testing "is action X *evidence of* racism".


So, for example, the fact that Barack Obama is getting massively more death threats than any previous president, including Clinton (I believe about 5 times as many as George W. Bush was) *is* solid evidence that many of those death threats are motivated by racism.

The frequency with which Republicans interrupted Clinton's speeches means that interrupting Obama's *is not*, in itself evidence of racism.

No-one tried to cast doubt on the fact that Bill Clinton was an American citizen, or any other previous white president. I think that's fairly good evidence that a large part of the Birther movement *is* motivated by racism - "he's a funny colour, so he can't be from around here".

Ditto for accusations that he's a Muslim.

The total lack of respect and virulent hatred which the Republicans showed for Clinton (and which the Democrats showed for Dubya, for that matter) means that hating or not respecting Obama *is not* in itself evidence of racism.




Don't bother asking "would they". Ask "Did they".

in History.The bar on sleaze grows with time ,especially against Democrats ,can you imagine if it were Hillary?

more Rethugs would feel free to be especially foul and personal with their attacks. There may be a few that have qualms about being considered racists, but wouldn't have an issue with being accused of sexism or misogyny.

I think the overall "noise" level would be the same, might be a bit less for a white man. The Rethuglican party has reached new lows and is even nastier than during the beginning of Clinton's term. They tasted power and they blew it and they're pissed!

there probably are many who have qualms about being considered racists that wouldn't think of the possibility of being accused of sexism (because so many people seem to have a higher 'bar' for calling out sexism).

Only makes me cringe all the more when considering the state of the nation...

All of the sudden Hillary was looking less evil to them. Considering their hatred for Hillary - why the sudden switch, when Obama is a family man with no blemishes that they could find.

He attacked Obama virtually never, while posting pictures of a tired, wrinkled Hillary and condemning the anonymous photo of Obama in Somali clothes that he attributed without naming names to the Hillary campaign.

And Limbaugh only took Hillary's side when it was clear Obama would win.

David Brooks was nice to Obama.

Peggy Noonan and Maureen Dowd ripped Hillary on a constant basis.

Kathleen Parker liked Obama more than Hillary.

Geroge Will virtually never criticized Obama, while lying about Hillary (see mediamatters with the Will/Hillary/Yankees/Cubs falsehood.

Etcetera.

MODERN History, perhaps.
Clinton's press was a lovefest compared to what Lincoln had to deal with.

I was answering did Bill Clinton have to pass a race test ,no but for Modern time I figure his whole two terms were constant Ridicule from MSM.

And you'll note I stipulated Clinton takes the prize for modern times.
Although my mother reminds me that Truman was essentially treated as an ignorant hick.

I'm sure Lincoln faced a shitstorm... else we wouldn't've had a civil war... but Adams also faced a shitstorm, as Hamilton rallied his Federalist forces to try to make a monarchy-like executive out of the presidency...

I'm curious, as you bring up Lincoln, to see some example of what made you think of the shite he faced...

that Lincoln was called just about every name imaginable in the press of his day, including: A 'grotesque baboon', a 'third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union', a 'coarse, vulgar joker', a dictator, an ape, and a buffoon. The Illinois State Register labeled him “the craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an office."
I recall seeing a quote from an editorial of the day that said: "Honest Abe, forsooth! One may as well speak of Faithful Iscariot! Tiny Goliath! Decent Nero!"

Also, did not the Federalists call Jefferson every name in the book also?

I know FNC probably was in operation during Clinton's years, but they seemed to reach a peak around '99/'00.

However, now, there's a 24 hr news network devoted entirely to Obama-hate... Not to mention all the hate websites and radio shows as well.

after all, we elected him as Prez (and I was very proud of my fellow Americans). But when a person was confronted by the facts of any particular issue, he/she chose to ignore it and move on to the next complaint, so I began to believe it was racial.

But you bring up a good point. Just look back at the primary -- the hatred and vitriol were all there for all the Dem candidates. Hmmmm. Gotta chew on this awhile.

Was the level of HATRED this intense toward Clinton? I wasn't aware.

The Right was insane over Clinton, insinuating that he was basically the leader of some sort of Arkansas Mafia who regularly had his enemies whacked.

I didn't realize they'd been so whack for so long -- I attributed the all-out insanity to the Bush Administration. Thanks!

I think they had spent all that time framing Hillary with the public and then when Obama pulled ahead they hadn't prepared for that.

They were afraid of breaking anything too racist out against him yet and he beat their campaign and won.

I clearly recall when Obama pulled into the lead because all of the anti Hillary emails stopped. There was a huge spam email campaign they started using all the old conspiracy stuff from the Clinton days.


Obama is just getting it NOW instead of at the elections because in true Republican style (ex Iraq/Katrina) they are unable to deal with changes well.

Clinton personally (because they could) since Obama's got a pretty clean track record personally, they're going after his policies and distorting that information instead IMHO

...both for the similarities (right-wing hatred for a charismatic, smart Dem leader) and the differences (far more death threats against Obama).

The Right really is a big tent; there's room for corporate fascists and for racists.

I suppose that's one reason why the concept "pattern of behavior" exists in jurisprudence.

In other words, the test you suggest provides at *most* only a positive test - definitely not a negative one.

Some people may hold racist beliefs but never act on them.

The standard I'm proposing doesn't provide a reliable way of testing whether or not someone is a racist, or even a reliable way of testing whether or not a given action is motivated by racism.

What it *does* provide is a way of determining whether a given action is *evidence* of racism.

Best really to simply include that in the entire toolkit of questions to ask. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that's the only good question to ask. And there's even less reason to believe that there existed a fixed-ahead-of-time set of questions that would accurately answer the question, both positively and negatively.

I dont agree.

What do you consider your "evidence"?

Disagreements? Outbursts? Violence? ... the list is endless. Lets exclude direct racial comments from the test
for the moment.

If I get angry at someone who happens to be of another race at work does that make me a racist OR is it just
because there's been a serious situation brewing that management has not dealt with?

You have not defined any parameters of your "test".

This so called "test" generates too many false positives.

This event was a verbal outburst and calling someone a liar is hardly considered racist.

A better test is the examination of patterns of behavior of individuals.

That isnt to say Wilson isnt a racist but it does say your test offers no proof of anything.

You appear to be criticising me for saying things which I have actually said the opposite of, and for not specifying things I have specified.

To recap what I've been saying: I believe that a form of criticism of/hostility to Obama is evidence of racism if Clinton was not subjected to similar criticism/opposition.

As I said earlier, lots of people *did* interrupt Clinton's speeches, so doing so is not evidence of racism.

If you get angry with someone of another race at work and previously, in a similar situation, got angry with someone of the same race, that isn't evidence of racism; if previously in a similar situation you didn't get angry with someone of the same race then that is quite possibly evidence of racism.

"To recap what I've been saying: I believe that a form of criticism of/hostility to Obama is evidence of racism if Clinton was not subjected to similar criticism/opposition."

Why? Clinton wasnt even close to being liberal. Hell he was almost a Republican sometimes.

That fact will AUTOMATICALLY make BO more of a lightning rod for criticism from the Repuks.

Now you'd be right IF you could show that criticism was LINKED to a pattern of behavior that all showed traces of racism.
But to say that if you criticize Obama but didnt criticize Clinton is racism is a HUGE stretch. The only way that might
even be REMOTELY true is if Clinton and Obama delt with EXACTLY the same issues under the same political climate. Then you might have something.

in large part. You only need to look at the demographics of each party to figure that one out. It's not rocket science by any means.

it's in their actions specifically. Deranged slobs each have their own reasons for hating Obama and Clinton.

Edit~to clarify.

It's only after we got a black president have you heard even whisper of such loony talk. Of course it's racism. There's nothing wrong in calling it what it is. Everyone knows, but only a few want to admit it.

The bad logic here is that: because X happened for the first time during certain President, then X is racist. Certain bad things will happen for the first time during the tenure of every President.

Was the bombing of a Federal building racist because Clinton was black and Jimmy Carter wasn't?

Did he... recover?...

I understand that republican politicians (and other republican officials) hated Clinton's guts and did all they could to bring him down; however, did your average republican (regular American citizens) show this much disdain for Clinton as well? I am sure he wasn't liked, but were they this batty and crazy acting in everyday settings? I work and have family in a very conservative area and I seem to run into many people that have an irrational hatred for Obama. I am really wanting to know this from anyone who was into politics at the time, because I was young.

Several groups decided that succession was a great idea in the 1990's. Jesse Helms directly stated that Clinton could be fragged if he visited a North Carolina military base.

so in a way I agree with you that it's not about Obama's being black.

And I think they see all conservatives as white. So Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele don't scare them because they're not really black.

I'm overstating it a little, but I think it's kind of true. Deep down, all this RW nuttiness is a fear of blacks.

image of America.

They didn't get the part about Art imitating Life.

sort of ironic of how Jack Bauer is their new icon, but the actor that plays him is a Canadian socialist.

they can't stand the thought of that either. ;)

that explains the hatred he got.

obama being the first real black president is now getting exponentially more hatred than bill did.

Recently, I read an article where H.W Bush's people tried to say he fathered a child with a black woman. W Bush did the same to John McCain in 2000. Adding black seems to make it worst.

Toni Morrison coined the phrase in a New Yorker article. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/morrison.html

Yet in 1994 a guy opened fire at the white house and was convicted for attempting to kill him.
And the "Bill killed Vince Foster" accusations began way earlier: http://www.newsweek.com/id/116417

http://www.newsweek.com/id/116417

One big difference between Barack Obama and Bill Clinton is the latter having both parents born in the US. And there has been a significant time in his childhood that Barack Obama was raised outside this country in a Muslim culture.

Bill Clinton has been attacked as being anti-American for his time at Oxford, including the false charges of avoiding the draft by being there, and other 70's era misbehaviors, such as protesting the war on foreign soil and engaging in drug use. That looks similar to me to what President Obama has been smeared with, it seems that xenophobia (which I will concede is racism's first cousin) may be the motivating factor there.

Not that I recall.

than what we saw happen to Bill.

wore a bullet-proof vest to give some of her stump speeches in support of health care reform. From her Wikipedia page:

"The plan was quickly derided as "Hillarycare" by its opponents; some protesters against it became vitriolic, and during a July 1994 bus tour to rally support for the plan, she was forced to wear a bulletproof vest at times."

Burned in effigy:

***Kentucky Tobacco Rights Activists Burn Effigy of First Lady at Rally

August 29, 1994

OWENSBORO, Ky. — As a congressman, a state senator and a gubernatorial candidate stood nearby, an effigy of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was doused with gasoline and burned at a tobacco rally protesting President Clinton's health care plan.

"Burn, baby, burn," chanted Stan Arachikavitz, president of the Kentucky Assn. of Tobacco Supporters. About 100 people gathered at twilight Saturday to protest Administration plans to hike cigarette taxes to fund health reform.***

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-29/news/mn-32578_1_central-kentucky

Health care reform drives some people CRAZY, apparently.

After the Brady Bill, Assault weapons ban and some of the other gun law changes during the Clinton admin it really activated the gun owning base and they really gained a lot new members, more money and more influence.

That said, I should stress that "not to my knowledge" is emphatically not the same as "no" in this case.

Washington Post: http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N57/assass.57w.html

Another crashed a plane into the WH south lawn, dying, in a possible murder attempt as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder

It kills me the way some people are just obsessed with denying racism when it happens. What you guys do is point to any other reason you can find that may also be a factor, and then because you've decided that something else comes into play, you decide that ipso facto, it's not racism. You give no wait to the racist element and all weight to other factors.

When things are the way they are. And you are getting shitted on for being liberal, shitted on for being democratic, and all the things you say Clinton and other white men have been subjected to, but then totaly ignore the extra added weight of the racist factor, which oftentimes is the straw that breaks the camels back.

Doesn't matter to me if it's straight out racism, or the little extra added straw that breaks that back. They both have the fucking result.

So go and deny away if it makes you happy. It was only 2% racism or whatever percentage you want to give it.

It's really not a fucking Rorschach test.

Of course it's Racist.

Heh - that's why we say such things. :P

Any racism is racism.
Any racism is a hate crime.
Any racism should be outlawed.
Anyone who commits racism should be jailed.

The arguments about free speech simply do not apply to racist speach.

It's been explained more than once and they refuse to see it. They don't want to see it. I ascribe it to their own sense of superiority but I'm sure they'll deny it. What's more irritating about this is that when you point out how disrespectful their dismissive attitude is they refuse to listen, they won't come correct and they expect you to be nice to them. I'm fed up with it and am ready to rip a new one for any asshole who behaves in such a way. No doubt it will make me the bad one in any situation but then I don't give a shit anymore. I'm tired of twisting myself up in knots to make rude faux allies comfortable with their own racist bullshit. It's easy for them to make their little lectures, the racism doesn't affect them directly does it? It's an academic exercise at best for them and for the rest of us, we're on our own. That is until we're actually needed for something and then I guess we'll hear about how we're all in the same boat.

I wonder how much effort I'll be inclined to put in when that happens.

is people who have to conclude that it was racism based on the flimsiest of evidence, and then get MAD at anyone who disagrees.

The bottom line is, there is NO WAY to know, for example, whether Joe Wilson would have screamed "You lie" at a white president, without drugging him and asking him (unless he happened to admit this at some point which is unlikely).

There are so many differences between today and when Clinton was president that the situations are only somewhat comparable at best. The R party in Congress (the base was another story) was a lot more moderate back when Clinton was trying to pass health care in 1993 - the last time there was a D pres and a D congress trying to pass major liberal reform. Then Gingrich and Bush transformed the R party by making it ok to discard any bounds of decency in trying to get what you want.

I agree that someone could conclue that these acts against Obama are motivated by racism, but one could ALSO conclude that they are not. There is no conlcusive evidence either way. I think we need to respect that reasonable people can disagree and not accuse each other of "ignoring racism" because they have a different take.

were president, they would disrespect her also- being that she was the first woman president. These types of Republicans respect no one else or any other opinions but their own.

That said, I still personally feel, there is a level of racism going on here with some of these Republicans and their supporters. They have a problem accepting a black man as their president, and they are using issues to oppose him to mask this racism.

I swear iI never hear them refer to him as President Obama.

that his father was muslim, and that he was born in a part of the U.S. that is not part of the mainland and regarded suspiciously, and because he was raised in Indonesia for several years, and his father returned to Kenya, and his mother traveled.

None of those circumstances applied to Clinton. He was born in plain ol' Arkansas, to a mother who didn't travel abroad at about his birth time, and Clinton was raised in Arkansas (not in a muslim country), and his father, though an alcoholic, was born and raised in America.

There's just nothing there to be suspicious about, as regards his citizenship.

By contrast, MCCAIN too was sued, claimed he wasn't a citizen and therefore couldn't run (either for Prez or for Senate...I can't recall).

You can't compare with just ONE other Democratic President. So because of that, I'd say the guns at the town halls and the "YOU LIE" yelling, and "kill him" at McCain's campaign events - those things had never happened to a Democratic candidate or President before, ever. I think those are because of his race.

His father died in a car accident when his mother was pregnant with Bill. It was his stepfather who was an alcoholic.

Bill finally confronted him when he was a teenager after seeing him be abusive to his mother. Bill's father's last name was Blythe, Clinton is his stepfather's name.

Clinton was the first black President?

He may not have been black, but he was too closely associated with blacks for their liking. In other words, to the nutters, he was a "n*****-lover," which is no different than actually being one to them.

Just because people hated the Clintons, doesn't mean they're not racist. Racist can dislike white people who they feel go against their beliefs. I remember years ago there was a KKK member on this show. Of course he said he hated minorities, but he also said he hated liberals just as much for "upholding" them. Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that anyone that doesn't like Obama or his policies are racist. However, I truly believe that racism is part of the issue with some of these disgusting people.

You start off by sniffing at "people making accusations of racism" and then you proceed to detail several instances in which resistance to Obama is certainly racially based, or at the very least inflamed by racism.

So what's your point? That not every anti-Obama act is evidence of racism? We knew that. Thanks.

He sure hasn't forgotten.

:eyes:

The Clintons fuzzy math during the primary was disrespectful. HERE Tim Russert talks about an interview Clinton gave to Ann Curry. Clinton said the math should be disregarded and that it should be based on "feeling and history," in other words that Obama's victory should be disregarded and overturned.

Deny it all you want but that kind of disrespect reeks of racism.

Whatever else Bill may be, racist is not one of those things. Of course that was the meme pushed by the media and the Obama camp.

It's become about as productive as a Sunday afternoon spent in a hammock. There are posters who refuse to think that racism is a major factor. There are people who think racism is always the only factor. Both sides are chuckleheads.

Because it devolves into some weird kind of competition about who was treated worse by Republicans/political opposition and the media.

It's far worse since Obama and Hillary ran, because each group, women and African Americans, have been victims all too often, so the issue of sexism and racism were naturally going to come up early and often. But as you say, it's become an ugly contest with some posters to see who can out-victim the other.

shouldn't ,as long as we're hashing it out, we're thinking .

:)

I was driving through a supermarket parking lot and had one of those awkward moments when I stopped to yield for a shopper to push their cart in front of me. They didn't realize I was waiting, then when they did it was right at the moment I started to go on, they started to go, I braked, they stopped...you know the dance. Anyway, the woman with the cart was a black woman of maybe 35 or so. I went ahead and pulled on through since she stopped again and I immediately heard the woman yelling. I rolled down the window to see what was wrong and she was screaming that I was a racist white cracker who would have let a WHITE woman cross with her basket! I was so taken aback. I told her I was sorry, race had nothing to do with it and I DID try (twice) to let her cross.

You see? One sees what one wants to see. None of us know what's really in the heart of our fellow travelers on this ball of water and dirt. But I know this, there is racism in this world. But I also know this, everything confrontational that happens between two people of differing races doesn't involve racism. I try to be sooo sensitive because as a progressive, I understand history and the righteous anger of the African-American. But some times I beg their understanding that everything that goes wrong in their lives is not due to the color of their skin. Frankly, it's not so much a political/racial issue in so many cases, but a state-of-mind; and, for many minorities, an expectation that will be treated wrongly because of race. I know many white folks fear what they say being misinterpreted - and it often comes to pass - because of the expectation. It's frustrating for both races in a situation like that.

That doesn't mean racism isn't an unfortunate fact of life, it just means all actions "against" a person of color - isn't racism. My anecdotal story from the grocery parking lot is just a simple example. I wasn't sure to feel guilty (though I had not a single racial thought) or to feel sorry for the woman who, obviously, expects racism around every corner. I decided there's too much involved for it to maybe ever be any different and I chose to let it go and not bother me.

One day we'll figure out that some of these things will not be corrected by political discussion because so often - it simply lacks a political component. It will take a look inwards at psychology and a look around us through a prism of deep philosophical thought and who we are as (1) people first and (2) racial beings second. If only Socrates were here to ask the right questions.

-You're white so therefore you don't know what is racist and what isn't (yet you are still held accountable for being racist).
-Only minorities can decide what is racist and you have no say otherwise because you don't know what is and isn't racist.

Therefore you are a racist because this woman, who is black, said so.


Now if I can only find a black person to say that being a Yankees fan is racist....

I've been in that debate, and when you point out it's unfair, you can get pretty sarcastic responses.

But I have talked to black people who realize they might be taking something as racist when they don't have to. Giving the white person the benefit of the doubt.

My black college roommate claimed I looked shocked when I first met her. But I was not shocked that she was black when I first met her. Yet she says I was. So I must have been? It makes you crazy. We ended up getting along OK, but it's frustrating to think you're supposedly subconsciously doing these "racist" things.

It strikes me as very likely that Republicans and Democrats will be treated differently, irrespective of colour. There are almost certainly things which were done to Bush which weren't done to Clinton or Obama, and vice versa; that's not good evidence of whether race was a factor.

For a test to be valid, you need to control for all other factors. That means comparing Obama to Clinton (or possibly Carter, but that's probably too far back; too much has changed in the intervening time).

for years have played on peoples prejudice of race ,sex ,Attitudes and if they don't woo or scare you ,they vilify you.And what type of litmus test was ever put on a Bush?

Including Bush in the argument strengthens the argument that ultraconservatives mostly act the way they act because they hate those whom they perceive to be liberals.

and note that we didn't have interruptions during white presidencies. It's racism too.

The Birthers (in their many lunatic factions) are clearly motivated by race, so is the Muslim thing and the initial furore over Rev Wright (Wright didn't say anything different or differently than dozens of white preachers do every weekend) and a lot of the coverage during the campaign (especially from FOX and the talk radio blowhards) was blatantly racist. Some of it isn't; I honestly don't think Glenn Beck would be any less crazy if the president were a white Democrat. Some of it is unknowable (did Joe Wilson's previous racist associations contribute to his actions? Who knows).

And then there's a load which is difficult to quantify because while it existed before, it may well be exacerbated by the fact that the president is a black guy. I remember the Clinton years and yes, the right hated Clinton like few others. But the crazier conspiracies (the murder list, say) never got much play outside the fringe whereas the "Obama's gonna kill granny" thing went mainstream. Remembering both (and I can't recommend David Brock's Blinded By The Right highly enough for a recap of the Clinton witchhunt), I honestly think there is an added level of vitriol directed at Obama. Which is not to say Clinton had it easy, far from it but I think there is an added level of willingness to believe batshit crazy lies that Clinton didn't have to suffer through. The lies told in the mainstream about Cinton (Travelgate, Troopergate, Hairgate, etc) were at least vaguely plausable. They remained lies but they were things which could possibly have happened in reality. But death panels? Even if Obama was as evil as they believe him to be, that's completely implausable. But I have no way of knowing if the added level of batshit crazy is because of the president's race or because of other factors.

That said, there is simply no way of removing the contaminating factors here. The media is far more solidly right than it was sixteen years ago; the Republicans are more monolithic than ever and have given up any pretence of civility whatsoever; the fringe right have become more mainstream; the public has, if anything, become more guillable and the right-wing media echo machine has just become more powerful and more entrenched. So it's impossible to say how much of the current powderkeg is due to those factors and how much is due to outright racism.

The racism will spill over into everything else and be the main underlying reason for the disrespect. Bill Clinton was disrespected too, but for different reasons.

in large part. Let's face it. To racists, the Democratic Party IS the party for African Americans. That is why racists flock to the GOP.

So your test is invalid on its face.

in office after that?

kick him out of the House and to the curb! LOL

People tend to say, "do you think if X did this Y would have happened?" as if they know the truth.

is enought to convince me. What else could it be?