Thus, for many of those among us with a sense of the past, recent events are creating an increasing level of frustration about the galvanizing effect that can result from official pandering to the lowest elements of America's electoral base. There is concern about the level toward which these events are continuing to escalate. A fear about what may result from what on paper seems a GOP strategy for the failure of the Obama Administration that includes racially-charged political brinkmanship. Based on the dismissive reaction to Carter's statement, it's clear that many are generally unwilling to fully consider the entire realm of consequences that can come from denying what is obvious.
Yet, to ignore America's fairly overt history of reactionary racism or its "my bad!" style of political, judicial or legislative redress, amounts to functioning within a haze of head-in-the-clouds delusion. Considering this country's history, particularly when it comes to the kind of people some like to term "strong black men," such delusion is a cause for concern.
The light-handed manner in which the Wilson incident was dealt with by Republicans stands out as particularly revealing in many ways. If Republicans truly believe that a mere apology to the President -- instead of a full rebuke for violating protocol -- is sufficient, should they not advocate extending this concept of skirting personal responsibility to include infractions such as armed robbery, drug-dealing or, maybe to former presidents who lied under oath about affairs while in office? Why not allow these kinds of violators to "Just apologize and we can all move on?"
Certainly this is a dramatic leap being made regarding the seriousness of the infractions -- drug-dealing and robbery are hardly the same as protocol breaches -- but it's not a great leap at all with regard to the principle within the concept that rules are made for a reason and that a violation of certain rules require a penalty that goes beyond a sheepish, "I'm sorry."
Welcome back, Carter
Perhaps emerging from the same instincts that for some, transformed the falsehood of Rep. Wilson's "you lie" outburst right back to the much more satisfying -- but factually incorrect -- position that Obama indeed "lies" about health insurance for illegal immigrants, came the harsh backlash from many of these folks against Carter's brutally honest and much-needed-to-be-stated observation on race.
Indeed, Carter cut no corners. The position he laid out strikes me as the antithesis of PC speech. It is ugly, direct, and blunt, but it needed to be put out there. Yet ironically, it has been harshly rebuked as supercilious and factually ass-backward by, among others, many presumably anti-PC supporters of a Republican candidate who promised to always deliver "straight talk." Hmm. Maybe they were looking for "hate talk."
Then again, perhaps it's not irony at all, but hypocrisy instead. Maybe Carter's form of "straight talk" goes well beyond the parameters of polite discourse established by the fringe right. Perhaps it violates a taboo regarding the type of radical behavior that must be tolerated. Maybe in essence, Carter is being told: "You can't call racist, these good, God-fearing, gun-toting, taxpaying, American citizens who are holding placards that show Obama with a Hitler mustache or depict him as an illegal alien, and that use zoo animal references in expressing opposition to Obama. No sir! Never! Not under any circumstances!"
There is a line in a Bob Marley song which goes: "Only a fool leans upon his own misunderstanding." Other than for quite obvious reasons, provoking thoughts of Michael Steele, I would interpret this as implying that people who know better will often knowingly promote falsehoods to prove a point or win a battle. In many ways that would seem to well-describe the dialogue concerning the issue of racism among some Obama's critics. Despite a steady dose of blatantly obscene examples upon which to draw, there is no shortage of GOP apologists soft-peddling the motivations of people expressing their outrage over Obama and his policies through overtly racist behavior.
"Playing the race card shows that Democrats are willing to deal from the bottom of the deck," insisted GOP Chairman Steele in his best grown-up voice. "This isn't about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president's wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose."
House Republican Leader John Boehner, obviously having fully digested Steele's talking points, made it known that he "resoundingly" rejects the race charge. "The outrage we see in America has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the policies that he is promoting."
Nice try, boys. This misconception of reality could be understandable were it coming from unelected Republican supporters like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah "Death Panel" Palin or Sean Hannity. And, considering his role, perhaps Steele deserves a pass. After all, he is the GOP's primary "hype" man. However, the endorsement of this misconception by an elected Republican leader like Boehner, who clearly knows better, is rather disturbing.
Of course, Boehner is as guilty as any the aforementioned entertainment personalities of pandering to the fringe by promoting the kind of misconceptions that have led to the "outrage" he described, thus his playing along comes as no surprise. Moreover, Boehner is an elected official who wishes to keep the phrase "former congressman" from being attached to his name. Thus, he undoubtedly calculates that for his own immediate political survival, it might be best to "lean upon" the disingenuous nature of his remarks.
Stand and deliver
In this case however, it's not Boehner's or any other Republican's political survival that is of importance, what's at stake is the physical safety of the President along with the preservation of the traditional political processes and protocols as they apply to the office of the presidency. Unfortunately, the character-siphoning effect of personal narcissism can drive politicians of both parties to pander to the positions of dangerous fringe elements. In this case, it prevents a Republican like Boehner from providing the kind of responsible leadership that would compel him and other Republicans to clearly and unconditionally rebuke the polarizing, hate-inciting rhetoric and behavior exhibited by anti-Obama partisans. And, to do it in a pro-active manner -- in other words before this behavior escalates to acts that should be considered unthinkable.
But, if not someone like Boehner, then who will take this crucial step? Can anyone of major influence within the GOP be counted on to lead and deliver to his or her Party its true "Sister Souljah" or better yet, its Henry Gasparian moment? Has anyone among them reached the point at which it is finally time to declare that enough is enough? Who among them will step up to directly challenge the dangerous racial overtones lacing the rhetoric of many Obama critics?
