The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    Why refuse to call out Trump as racist?

    By jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 8:58am |

    Surely the low point, at least as measured by plain speaking, of last night's debate was the strange reticence that seized both candidates in re: the manifest racism of Donald Trump.

    Even if one were to give a pass for the enabling reported vis-a-vis his gangster casino customers disgusting behavior, surely the enunciation of two BLANKET policies ( the Muslim ban and the universal deportation) not to mention the rapists and drug smugglers trope which informed the very launch of his campaign ought to qualify him.

    Also the brown folks get a wall, the white ones don't.

    Not to mention "ALL lives matter" which is a deliberate misconstruction of the fundamental fact that historically police have used deadly force against people of color with confidence in their future impunity from any responsibility.

    And, of course, David Duke.

    Help me out, here, folks.

    Am I being too hard on our aspiring paladins?  They both looked like punks to me.

    Comments

    Is there some tactical downside to be feared?  I just don't get it.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 9:23am

    The GOP caters to the bigots. They openly suppress minority voters. Their hero Scalia said black people were stupid from the bench of the Supreme Court. When police shoot unarmed minorities, the GOP supports the police. They differ very little from Trump on the issue of immigration. They cannot call Trump a racist without calling themselves racists.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 9:44am

    I understand why the pugs are silent. Why were Bernie and HRC so "charitable "?


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 10:02am

    If you didn't see that part, Ramos asked both of them "is Donald trump a racist?"

     

    That shouldn't be a hard question...


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 10:05am

    I didn't watch the debate. From what I heard, the responses were predictable. When an opponent is in the process of destroying himself, there is no reason to join the fight. 

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/09/3758489/trump-racist-question/

    Republicans would reflexive stop their attacks on Trump to call out Sanders and Clinton for attacking a Republican. Let surrogates call Trump a racist.It was better that Martin Luther King Jr label Barry Goldwater as a person who supported white supremacists. An identical comment from LBJ would not have the same power. Trump is doing all that needs to be done to call out the racism in the GOP. It was Republicans in the SC legislature who opposed taking down the Confederate flag. Let the battle and the stench stick to the GOP.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 10:20am

    Well, there is the tactical explanation (which I guess has merit).

     

    I still think that its hardly an open question...


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 10:35am

    Additionally, if they said it, the news would be about them and the Republicans would rally around their racists. Certainly no reason to step inside a circular firing squad.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 1:14pm

    I don't think that holds up.

     

    I spend a fair amount of time listening to right wing radio, and the pearl clutching among stomp down racists when the label is applied is instructive.  One might well infer that they actually apprehend some potential detriment from the truth, and also rely upon some kind of convention of discourse to provide them an escape hatch.

     

    If true, this seems to me to argue for more rigor in the face of obvious racism, the more so when it is the " dog whistle" kind.

     

    Trump, in particular, has benefitted from a practice of couching his filth in terms just vague enough that the day after an outrage he can feign innocence.  I don't see how the quality of our public discourse is thereby improved, and I'd like to see push back.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 1:41pm

    Labeling someone is useless unless one can make a convincing argument that the label fits. Labeling someone is often counter productive as it can get in the way of making that convincing argument. If a convincing argument can be made it's not necessary for the politician to apply the label as the people will apply themselves in their own mind and to their friends. Which is a much more effective strategy.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 1:57pm

    Maybe in the mix of things, but when confronted by the naked question?


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 1:59pm

    If either candidate had applied the racist label the republican response would have been: Liberals are always calling people racists. That's what liberals do.

    That's what would have been discussed in the media.Do liberals constantly call conservatives racist? Instead of a discussion about what Trump has said and done.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:19pm

    Suppose this answer ( which may have been what Hillary was saying)

    "Racists are odious lesions on the body politic and I would not wish to arrogate to myself the presumption that I can see into his foul excuse for a heart.  I can only say that if it walks like a duck and really is NOT a duck, it shouldn't so often quack like one or people might well think it was."

     

    Too explicit?


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:19pm

    To put it differently, I did not get the impression that Tumulty was asking a " gotcha" question.  I think SHE considered the correct answer to be " of course ".


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:06pm

    Yes, she really really wanted the candidates to call Trump a racist. I didn't like the question and I especially didn't like how she pushed them to get to her desired outcome. I was pretty sure Hillary wouldn't go for it. I was nervous that Sanders might. Fortunately both refused to be pressured into going down that road.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:14pm

    I don't think that makes her ( Tumulty) a bad person.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:22pm

    No, not a bad person. Just a bad debate moderator.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:23pm

    Here is a Trump supporter sucker punching a black guy at a Trump rally. The police do nothing. The crowd cheers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporter-punches-protester-in...


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 11:09am

    If they start name calling now, they lose that much more high ground to Trump before even debating him. He can some in with guns blazing because they already called him a racist. 


    by Donal on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:21pm

    But... But.. He IS!!

     

    I can see why I'm not running for anything I would have "gone there" without hesitation.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:28pm

    How about a ( British) House of Cards formulation

     

    " you might well think that...I couldn't possibly comment"


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 2:31pm

    Maybe they didn't want to waste their valuable time talking about Donald Trump.  Plenty of time for that when the primaries are over.


    by Ramona on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 3:36pm

    That horse left the barn when Tumulty posed the question


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 3:48pm

    No, the GOP continues to self-flagellate. If Bernie or Hillary had used the r- word, the GOP news cycle would have turned to them. This isnt their first time dealing with wingers. Rush and company love to feel wronged and under attack more than anything else.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 5:58pm

    Really?  They're required to waste what little time they have on questions about a candidate on the other side just because Karen Tumulty asked it?  Why did she ask it?  Would their answer tell us something about either Bernie or Hillary or would it just add to to the next day's collection of sound bites? 

    Good call.  Shows they're the grownups.. 


    by Ramona on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 7:51pm

    As a matter of time management I see only a limited universe of outcomes once the question is posed.

    1. Refuse to answer by putting fingers in ears and lalala I can't hear you -ing.  I'm guessing you join me in thinking that a bad option.

    2. A simple yes.  Quick and easy.

    3. A simple no. Ditto.

    4. Yes, because. Less quick but doable. Has the advantage of being true

    5   No, because. Ditto, but inaccurate.

    6. Dance around the question, but give neither a yes nor a no.  The option chosen by both, prolly most time consuming ( if we were to apply your metric)

     

    Thus, horse, meet open barn door.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 03/10/2016 - 10:32pm

    7. I will let the voters decide that.


    by Donal on Fri, 03/11/2016 - 6:37am

    8. Exxpect it at the same time as all our speech transcripts and my Benghazi proctology scan.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/11/2016 - 7:32am

    It could be you're not as sick of Donald Trump as I am.  I would have hated even a two minute convo about him during the Dem debate.  I don't see the import of making them call him a racist.  We all know he's a racist.  We all know both Hillary and Bernie think he's a racist.  What was the point?


    by Ramona on Fri, 03/11/2016 - 9:31am

    In my head I hear Bobby Dylan, ( pace DD,) "how come y' have t' ASK me that.."


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/11/2016 - 12:00pm

    Actually, that might have been well within Bernie's repertoire to have reproduced with a reasonably accurate intonation and melody...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/11/2016 - 12:03pm

    For those unfamiliar with the earlier works of the Bard of Hibbing...

     


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/11/2016 - 12:48pm

    Serendipitously Brian Lehrer had a segment on this topic this morning.

     

    Perhaps showing more granularity than Tumulty ( or i) a caller lobbied against "racist"

     

    Bigot was his cogent suggestion!


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/11/2016 - 5:45pm

    Here is but onre instance of Trump availing himself of the cited ambiguity:

     

     

    Huh. Removed.  Wish I could remember exactly what it was...


    by jollyroger on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 8:43pm

    I was remiss in eliding a link to the details of Trump's 650,000 fine for accommodating the racism of his close mob friend.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/11/2016 - 6:08pm

    Bill de Blasio has no doubt:

    Bill de Blasio ✔ ‎@BilldeBlasio I didn’t realize this was in question. Behaves like a racist, speaks like a racist…of course @RealDonaldTrump is a racist. 4:14 PM - 12 Mar 2016 · Brooklyn, NY, United States

     


    by jollyroger on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 4:26pm

    I've been back and forth on whether it's important to call Trump a racist or if it's sufficient to point out the ugliness and hate in his rhetoric and his fascist campaign style.  But JR nails it here.  He's a racist.  At a minimum, if asked, we need to call him one.


    by HSG on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 5:13pm

    Yes!  If asked, temporizing gives cover to the bestial

     

    I guess one could say, " well, I wouldn't have volunteered it, but you've got me backed up against the wall, and I'd be lying to say he is not."


    by jollyroger on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 8:34pm

    BERNIE ON FIRE! "TRUMP A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR"

     

    Right now on CNN Town Hall.

     

    I forgive taking a pass on " racist"

     

    I love this guy!


    by jollyroger on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 8:29pm

    Stab me and sink me!

     

    Its not the first time he's said it ( odd that AFAIK, no one has jacked Trump up about it)

     

     

     


    by jollyroger on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 8:39pm

    Good job Mr. Sanders.


    by moat on Sun, 03/13/2016 - 8:57pm