Tim Wise on the Presidential Candidates

[preciousjeni]

Well...not really. It's Tim Wise on the nature of the presidential race.

For those who haven't seen this yet:

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives close to Russia, you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because suddenly your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36 minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and then Harvard Business school, and yet, still be seen as just an average guy (George W. Bush) while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then to Harvard Law, makes you "uppity," and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.) and that's OK, and you're cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly twenty years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you "dangerously naive and immature."

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

[UGAalum94]

I'm not buying what he's selling.

[KSigkid]

I'm not doubting that racism is playing a role in the minds of voters.

But - many of the points that Wise makes can be attributable to the usual party criticisms that are leveled against the other party's candidate.

You can tell Wise started his article with his opinion, and fit the examples into his opinion (rather than using the examples to come to a conclusion). Again, I understand racism has played a role, and will play a role, in the final election totals. But, this piece does a poor job of discussing the issue, and comes off as more of a rant without much thought behind it.

[CrackerBarrel]

Partisan blabbering is being able to write a long boring article of nothing but personal attacks but still feel smug about how you take the high ground because you must be right, you're a liberal and no one with a brain could possibly see things differently than you.


ETA: And at some point the left might realize that implying that the reason they lose elections is because the electorate is too stupid to realize what's going on doesn't exactly endear themselves to voters going into the next election, whether the charges are true or not.

[awkward1]

It's not racism, it's politics as usual. If you can't take the heat, get out of the oven.

[PhiGam]

That's the biggest load of bullshit that I've ever read.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

Partisan blabbering is being able to write a long boring article of nothing but personal attacks but still feel smug about how you take the high ground because you must be right, you're a liberal and no one with a brain could possibly see things differently than you.


ETA: And at some point the left might realize that implying that the reason they lose elections is because the electorate is too stupid to realize what's going on doesn't exactly endear themselves to voters going into the next election, whether the charges are true or not.

Luckily they're (liberals) too stubborn to realize it and too lazy to get off their asses and vote.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Luckily they're (liberals) too stubborn to realize it and too lazy to get off their asses and vote.

Oh, I don't know. That's not what I expect to see this year. I think liberals are pretty mobilized, go back and look at the primary turn outs.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

Wow, that is a very powerful piece. I too have noticed some of the same things and sat back and wondered when someone in the media was going to speak up about the issue on a much larger scale.

I remember the first time I ever read about the "Invisible Knapsack" and other similar issues in my Women's Studies courses. It pointed out some of the terrible issues that minorities and women deal with on a daily basis. It was the first time I had ever had to focus on those issues, but ever since they were pointed out to me, I see examples each and every day.

As for those of you out there with the SAME response in every thread, can you please make your own threads too instead or try contribute more articles instead of just putting out the same stuff over and over again? You have a right to your opinion and to state it, but you're really clogging up the threads ssaying the same thing over and over without really contributing anything but repeats.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

Wow, that is a very powerful piece. I too have noticed some of the same things and sat back and wondered when someone in the media was going to speak up about the issue on a much larger scale.

I remember the first time I ever read about the "Invisible Knapsack" and other similar issues in my Women's Studies courses. It pointed out some of the terrible issues that minorities and women deal with on a daily basis. It was the first time I had ever had to focus on those issues, but ever since they were pointed out to me, I see examples each and every day.

As for those of you out there with the SAME response in every thread, can you please make your own threads too instead or try contribute more articles instead of just putting out the same stuff over and over again? You have a right to your opinion and to state it, but you're really clogging up the threads ssaying the same thing over and over without really contributing anything but repeats.

I can understand your point that a piece like this needs to be written, but my problem is with the quality. In my mind, he did a very poor job in writing the piece. It comes off as more of an anti-Republican, anti-Conservative piece than a meaningful piece on white privilege and its effect on the election.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

As for those of you out there with the SAME response in every thread, can you please make your own threads too instead or try contribute more articles instead of just putting out the same stuff over and over again? You have a right to your opinion and to state it, but you're really clogging up the threads ssaying the same thing over and over without really contributing anything but repeats.

God no kidding, co-co-co-sign.

To the first responders (all white conservatives, be noted), did you see who the article is written by? Do you know who Tim Wise is? Why did you even click in if you weren't prepared to read exactly what you did?

I personally thought it was a well-written piece (again, knowing the author and his context going into it), and think it may be thought-provoking for a number of people. Obviously, not the first-responder-group, I doubt there is much that will penetrate your rigid wall o'beliefs, and I'm quite sure you're not the audience he was writing for.

Thanks for posting it, preciousjeni.

[CrackerBarrel]

No, I had no idea who he is, and now that I looked him up on wikipedia I feel dumber for having thought this was going to be serious journalism and not just bitching. But I posted a serious criticism that I haven't posted anywhere else that no one sees fit to respond to (because at the heart of it the "elitist" argument against liberals isn't based on money, it's based on the idea that they need to save the poor dumb Americans who can't figure out how to act in their own best interests). Here it is again if you care to respond, because it is relevant to this article:

And at some point the left might realize that implying that the reason they lose elections is because the electorate is too stupid to realize what's going on doesn't exactly endear themselves to voters going into the next election, whether the charges are true or not.

[nittanyalum]

Oh, CB, I couldn't begin to give a concise response to that statement, it has so many layers. I won't outright disagree with it, because I can't positively say it's not a valid argument from (some of) the right's point of view. But it is (some of) the right's point of view. There is definitely a different viewpoint that I think can come from both the middle and the left, but let's be honest, you are still going to be prone to only view it through your prism, so I won't try to convince you otherwise.

I will say, however, that I don't think that your conclusion is really why the Dems have failed to win the last two elections. I think there were many things at play on both sides, and ultimately the GOP played the game better. Don't forget, though, that the Dems did connect at the Congressional level in '06, so you can't say that they lost across the board. The national ticket definitely didn't connect the way it needed to in '04 (plus Karl Rove is an evil genius at voter manipulation), and ultimately, Kerry didn't make a strong enough argument (and in '00, let's remember that wasn't an outright "win" for Bush).

My perspective is that it is the right that continues to underestimate the American voter by playing to a lot of base issues, instincts and emotions to "get to" voters regardless of the best path of public policy, but again, that's MY perspective.

[AKA_Monet]

I must say it is very difficult to stay out of this discussion because I think Tim Wise is very odd to say what he says. But, I disagree with the comments that liberals lose elections because the "dumb electorate" doesn't know the "wool has been pulled over their eyes", etc.

Firstly, I think the electorate are very engaged in this process and have not decided. And they probably won't decided until they are in the voting booth on Nov. 4th.

Secondly, there are financial interests in play here that go beyond comprehension at this time. And frankly, I don't think any of us on GC has the ante to pony up into this high stakes poker/baccarat game and lose...

Lastly, there is a call for the underground to be at work. This is let you all know, that groups have been tapped and some higher ups want to make that happen... Depending on who "allegedly wins" etc. after all the ballots have been counted and the winner declared, these groups go into operation...

There will be options if Obama wins... And different options if McCain wins...

[CrackerBarrel]

See nittany, I think that's kind of what I'm saying. The perspective seems to be that Americans fall for the hot button issues that the Republican party makes a big deal of (which they do) and end up voting against their own self-interest. I have no problem admitting that the Republican party plays up social issues that don't really matter in an election just to get votes, because they aren't issues I care about either. I vote for the Republicans because I don't think government programs are the solution to every problem (I think they are the best solution for very few actually), but Democrats always seem to be venting the "Why can't you see that we want to help you? You're voting against what would be best for you!"feelings which has at its heart the implication that voters don't know what's best for them.

And like I said, the charge may have some truth that voters get suckered, but it's not what they want to hear and comes across as "We told you so, why don't you listen!" which isn't exactly endearing.

And I think the problem for Republicans in the 06 Congressional elections was lack of a coherent national platform. When the Democrats ran mostly on the theme of "We're not W!", an opposing platform of "Wait, neither are we!" was doomed to fall flat.