Damn right, and thank you Nathan, unfortunately it takes white people to call each other out on this stuff. I thought Kevin's post was not totally unreasonable; I've been in situations with other people of color where we were pretty damn suspicious that conscious racism was going on on the other side, but decided not to bring up the issue because we couldn't prove it and didn't want to get smacked down and discredited for bringing it up. (Of course, as you point out, that dynamic is part of the problem.)

On the other hand, Tapped's comments were completely out of line. "If this is racism, we'll have to radically revise the term"? How presumptuous to assume everyone knows what racism means, and that it means some guy in a white hood scheming to go lynch some people -- and that anything short of that is "not racism." "Racism" may not be a very useful term for that reason; as you mentioned in a post below, everybody has to deal with the ingrained expectations (high or low) we are taught from birth to associate with people based on race/ethnicity. When someone sets themselves up as the arbiter of what is and isn't a proper discussion of racism, based on their own assumption that everyone agrees with their definition, they become part of the problem.

When Dennis Kucinich was accused of race-mongering, you were willing to chalk it up to "harsh bruising ethnic warfare" and put it in the proper context. When Cruz Bustamante used the word "nigger" in a speech, you acknowledged that it probably indicated some level of racism but wrote that it doesn't "reflect[] his conscious politics or views." But when Arianna Huffington said she would only quit the Governor's race for Dianne Feinstein, you detected a whiff of racism and called upon her to drop out of the race altogether. You're right - there does seem to be a double standard here.

Your position seems to have evolved into "there's racism everywhere and it's a tragedy that anti-PC conservatives have bullied liberals out of acknowledging it." True enough, I suppose. But if your point all along was really to open a dialogue on the pervasiveness of racism in our culture, I doubt that you would have done so by calling on Huffington to drop out of the race and suggesting that she would otherwise be seen as a "racist spoiler." It seems clear that you were accusing Huffington of some sort of racism that rose above and beyond whatever degree of racism is "prevalent in American society." So if you're surprised at the hostile reaction you got (although having read the TAPPED post, I would point out that they really didn't criticize you at all, but merely disagreed with your analysis), you should bear in mind that the terms "racist" and "racism" are loaded. They do conjure images of Strom Thurmond and lynchings, whether you mean them to or not. If you want to start a meaningful dialogue about racial bias and prejudice, I say more power to you, but don't do it by casually tossing out slurs like "racist" and calling on people to drop out of campaigns.

I don't know, Nathan; I thought your accusation was completely off-base too, though I didn't bother commenting on it at the time. While I understand that you've now dug into a trench and probably won't be willing to come anywhere near listening to the voice of reason, understand this: I think your charge of a "whiff of racism" on Arianna Huffington dilutes the issue of racism.

In effect, you are harming my cause, and the cause of other progressives, by making what I think is a completely unfounded accusation.

Had you left this as simply one among many of your entries, I wouldn't feel compelled to address this. However, you're now attacking me for having a different opinion from that of your own, and that I find distasteful enough to remark upon.

Few- my defense of Kucinich was based on his actions since he did his ethnic skirmishing-- and he's been an outstanding progressive on race issues. So his actions today outweigh any racial politicking back when he got started.

And I hold the same standard on Bustamante and Arianna. With Bustamante, he's been progressive on a range of issues related to discrimination, so why hold one word said against him, since he immediately apologized. Conversely, Arianna has a history of supporting bad, racist policies in the past, which she has made up for partially in recent years by progressive advocacy. But my statements on Arianna were in the context of that overall history of mixed positions in practice.

And my point on Arianna dropping out was definitely to say that, by taking the action of staying in the race, she would be creating a divisive racial situation, especially given her comments on being willing to drop out for Feinstein.

And to repeat, I never said Arianna was "a racist" -- which is an overall evaluation of a person's identity for a lifetime of action, i.e. Strom Thurmond. I said her ACTIONS and STATEMENT had the "whiff of racism" and she might be PERCEIVED as being a spoiler based on such.

EVERYONE makes racist statements and even makes racist actions at points. And having a real and vibrant discussion on that is required.

Tapped has always been touchy on racial issues.

I'm happier disagreeing with those I respect than I am agreeing with those I don't; and besides, I'm not sure if this time you weren't right. Either way, your response to Tapped et al. is on the money.

Nathan - I'm intrigued by your interpretation of Arianna's refusal to withdraw, but I can't say I buy it on its face. I'm guessing you've seen Arianna exude this kind of whiff before, and I mean recently. After all, she's renounced her right wing past pretty convinvingly. Fill us in please?

On Bustamente, Time mag has this to say:
"As the only major Latino candidate, Bustamante has a head start, but he is not guaranteed the loyalty of such voters. His origins in the conservative Central Valley place him to the right of many Latino Democrats. Apart from his opposition to Prop 187, "he has not been a strong champion of Latino issues," says Luis Arteaga, executive director of the nonpartisan Latino Issues Forum in San Francisco." "
Not sure I trust Time to speak to this issue intelligently or accurately. Thoughts?

>>After all, [Huffington has] renounced her right wing past pretty convinvingly. Fill us in please?

I think Nathan has zeroed onto a major problem with liberal -- rich liberals especially -- and that is elitism which encompasses racism.

For people like Huffington it is easy for people to make excuses because Ms. Huffington is not "in your face" but soft sells racism/elitism.

The fact this "faux" progressive would support Ms. Finestein is telling. Of all the so-called white female liberal senators none of them voted against Clinton's repeal of Welfare -- only the black female senator Carol Mosley Braun. Interestingly mullt-millionaire Ms. Huffington it came out paid less than $800.00 in taxes over the past two years. So while she rails against the so-called corporate elite it seem that she feel most comfortable among them.

Ms. Huffington illustrates liberalism major deficit -- elitism and Nathan was bang on to detect the odious racism that comes along with it.

WB

Wilson, that's not exactly proof of racism. Bantering the term about reduces its power. You seem to be saying that Clinton's welfare reform was racist. Clinton? Racist? I disagree with much Clinton policy, but I wouldn't call it racist. Neither would the huge numbers of black voters who not only voted for him, but felt strong connections to him.

This, on the other hand, is interesting and perhaps relevant: Arianna Huffington supported Prop 187. Read about it at http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/002530.shtml#002530.

Jusiper, with all due respect, the use of condescension (“bantering the term”) is a typical rhetorical device to disparage and dismiss conversations regarding racism and is why it is widely accepted by whites and so-called “liberals” to rollback to programs that have been helpful to blacks and other people of color.

Typically people identifying racism are not those that have “power” but quite the opposite and to ascribe anyone pointing it out with power demonstrates the adoption of post-Civil Right southern strategic mendacity.

The post Civil Right strategy and rhetoric was to use economics and “culture” to advance rollback gains of working class and people of color in the US. In other words blacks are kept segregated via “choice” and that government cannot compel fairness and equality. Whites just happen desire to congregate among themselves and are voting with their dollars. This acceptance and adoption of such capitalistic (market driven) rhetoric is now the “blowback” of the white middle class.

Reaganomic/Clintonomics both help to solidify such attitudes with public policy for the past 20 years favoring group with the greater economic advantages. Thus these attitudes help to foster racism and racial attitudes via greater inequality. Elites become more isolated from the general population as they are comfortable among their own clique who is increasing whiter and richer.

Rhetorical devices such as condescension and disparagement were deployed to deflect any arguments that demonstrated how these policies and attitudes are inherently racist. The key by Reagan and most especially Clinton was to advance such policies while deflecting any allegation of racism.

As I stated in my prior commentary, racism is encompassed by elitism and this is a major problem for white Liberals for a couple of reasons:

• Elitism.
The middle class aspirations to emulate the lifestyle of the rich and famous – typically white and rich. It is easy for whites to assume that they can achieve this by abandoning fairness, equality and concerns for people of color. For people of color the same is also true at a smaller an narrower scale – look at Ward Connerly, Floyd Flake, DLC black Trojans such as Cory Booker, Denise Majette, and other people of color who have aggrandized themselves for wealth, position and power.

However as one climbs (or desire to climb) the economic ladder and as it gets whiter and whiter and isolated from the mainstream of the population – that is increasingly diversified – lead to an adherence to supports policies and strategies that are stratified.

• Capitalism.
The historic role of Liberal has been the preservation of capitalism however you must understand that without radicalism there would never have been “Liberalism”. The cold war also helped to conceal the inherent unfairness of capitalism. Capitalism overtly used racism in its expansion and even today continues as we see with the Isreali-Palestinian conflict and with U.S foreign policy although in many cases ruling class chooses to conceal and outright ignore and deflect such charges of racism as expressed above.

Now with the aforementioned we can see that Clinton welfare reform was not only racist but elitist and capitalistic. Thus the white wealthy female senator voted along with Clinton for welfare repeal while the lone black female senator voted against it. Both Reagan and Clinton used the racist image of the fat, black, welfare mom to disparage all families needing public assistance while corporation got plenty of corporate government handouts – a.k.a: tax expenditures.

Clinton support in the black community is extremely thin because of several reasons:
• No alternative:
Those that vote will vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats.

• Propaganda:
Clinton appearance on Arsenio Hall

• Sell outs:
Floyd Flake, DLC “New Democrat” Blacks

In the case of Ms Huffington, apparently as she attempted to remake herself as a “progressive” cannot divorce herself from her elitism. This is evident by her support of Finestein who has supported various regressive polices such as welfare repeal, her spoiler role in the California race, and the fact that this multi-millionaire paid only $800.00 in taxes during the past two years.

What is unfortunate is how whites are always looking for a “great white progressive” hope and will get lured in by white elitist hucksters and even make excuses for them rather than align themselves with those – regardless of race- who have a LONG record of progressive advocacy.

The latest case in point is Howard Dean.

WB

Nathan Newman,

Don't agree with all your commentaries, but you have a very good site in general.

Wilson Barber,

> What is unfortunate is how whites are always looking for a “great white progressive” hope and will get lured in by white elitist hucksters and even make excuses for them rather than align themselves with those – regardless of race- who have a LONG record of progressive advocacy.

The latest case in point is Howard Dean.

Great post! Keep on telling the truth!