CE Week #18: “About-face on Burris a revealing chapter”
The Democrats are folding like an ironing board over this Roland Burris business, and for some reason people are surprised.
Just to catch up: The governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is in scalding-hot water over allegations he wanted to sell Barack Obama’s still-warm Senate seat. This was discovered via federal wiretaps of the helmet-haired governor’s phone conversations and fueled by some juicy dialogue better suited for fleet week in Manila.
In response, Senate Democrats took a Churchillian stand, vowing that no Blago appointee would ever be accepted by the Senate. No appointee, the Democrats insisted, so tainted with scandal could be allowed to sit in the same chamber that Ted Kennedy calls home.
The party of the infinitely elastic “living Constitution” suddenly planted their flag of principle in the terra firma of constitutional concrete and watched it flap in the hot wind of their political bloviation. Even after Blagojevich announced he was appointing Roland Burris, a respected but unremarkable black Illinois politician, to Obama’s seat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stood his ground, pronouncing the move “unacceptable.”
But that resolve melted like a Hershey bar in a Nevada parking lot the moment Mr. Burris came to Washington. Apparently, the Constitution wasn’t on the Democrats’ side (Fancy that!) and liberals lacked the stomach to stand in the doorway of the Capitol and block admittance of a black man.
Indeed, that was Blago’s thinking all along. When the Democratic governor announced his decision, he assembled various black Illinois pols to support the move, including Rep. Bobby Rush, a Democrat from Chicago’s South Side and a founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party. Rush immediately played the race card at the press conference. “There are no African-Americans in the U.S. Senate. And I don’t think any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate right now wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate,” he said.
In case you needed a ball peen hammer to drive the point into your forehead, he added: “I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer …”
Rush assembled more than 60 black ministers Sunday to rally around Burris at a Chicago church. “We are just faced with a hard-headed room of people in the Senate who want to keep an African-American out of the Senate,” Rush said. He condemned the Senate, where until recently Barack Obama served before becoming president of the United States, as “the last bastion of plantation politics.”
And that was all she wrote for Reid, who by next week should be on all fours like Kevin Bacon in “Animal House,” shouting, “Thank you sir! May I have another?” as Burris paddles him.
Now, I certainly understand why Reid & Co. caved. For starters, Reid’s not exactly the brightest crayon in the box.
But why all the fuss in the first place? Isn’t this how it always works? The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, an impressive African-American writer, is amazed that “Reid has been outmaneuvered by the sort of overt, ham-fisted identity politics deployed in the ’70s.”
The ’70s? So this sort of thing stopped more than three decades ago? I had no idea. What planet do my newscasts come from?
I thought this was simply what liberals and Democrats do. When Newt Gingrich introduced the Contract with America, black Democrats denounced it as racist. Charlie Rangel proclaimed, “Hitler wasn’t even talking about doing these things.” When impeachment threatened Bill Clinton, he draped himself in black ministers and staffers. The NAACP ran an ad narrated by the daughter of James Byrd, a black man brutally murdered in a hate crime, insinuating that then-presidential candidate George W. Bush’s refusal to support hate-crime legislation in Texas was like murdering her father again. In the recent campaign, nearly the entire liberal punditocracy insisted that opposition to Barack Obama could only be explained by racism, a story line egged on by Obama himself when convenient.
And don’t tell me Blago’s corruption changes the equation. Has anyone read about the baleful history of minority set-aside programs in cities like Chicago? Cronies and grifters are routinely given sweetheart contracts under the guise of fighting discrimination when in reality it’s all a riot of kickbacks, “pay-to-play” and cronyism. People don’t call Jesse Jackson a shakedown artist for nothing.
There are two reasons why this spectacle shocks some liberals. The first is that Blago, Burris and Rush used this tactic on fellow Democrats. And since Democrats can’t be motivated by racism, any ploy like this must be cynical. When the same gambit is used on Republicans, it’s called “speaking truth to power.” Second, some honestly believed that Obama represented a real change of the racial landscape. So far, alas, these folks just look naive.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online. His e-mail address is jonahscolumn@aol.com.
I hate all of this stupid hype about “racial equality”. I’m really sick of it. While it is a truly clever maneuver, I just think it is really low.
“We are just faced with a hard-headed room of people in the Senate who want to keep an African-American out of the Senate,”
The concern shouldn’t be about equal representation, it should be about who does a better job. I could care less if Obama is black or white or red or yellow or blue for heaven’s sake. I just want a politician who is appointed because of his leadership capabilities, his morals, his goals, his capabilities, something to do with performance…
“I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer …”
Nice sympathy approach. Indeed, using the race card is generally a clever maneuver, but if Burris was actually a skilled senate pick, this wouldn’t be an issue. The fact is, this Burris guy is falling rear-backwards into this whole situation (he’s never even made it to the primaries…), and by the skin of his teeth. He’s just going to waste time in his seat, get just under-average amount done, attempt to run again, and then fail. I’m sick of technicalities and miniscule asterisks in the fine-print. Blago is obviously as crooked as most politicians can get, and his voice should be revoked.
NO CREDIT: Connection
This is probably going to sound worse than I mean for it to, but why does it seem like everyone is playing the racism card lately when we are supposed to be an “equal” country? It seems to me that ever since white people started to accept minorities, all they want to do is act like we still hate them. Yes, I realize some people still do, but the majority of white Americans have come to accept everyone else equally, no matter what the color of their skin may be, and I can hope that minorities have come to accept white people. However, whenever a minority is running for a spot in politics, everyone starts to worry that if they vote against that person, they are going to be considered a racist. That shouldn’t matter anymore. I know that the way blacks were treated many years ago was bad, and I’m pretty sure that everyone agrees with me on that, but I thought that those differences were set aside a long time ago.
The reason that this bothers me the most is because of the Senate seat issue that this article was about. Burris got that seat for all the wrong reasons. If he was a good politician and had been picked for that reason, it would be one thing, and I wouldn’t mind at all. The fact that the only reason he is there right now is because he made everyone pity him and feel as if they had no other choice but to vote for him is what makes me angry. It just seems wrong to me. People should be in the Senate, and anywhere else in politics for that matter, because of their voice, their constituents, and their stance on issues, it shouldn’t just be decided because of the color of someone’s skin.
Connection: We have talked a lot about Blagojevich and where he stands in class. Personally, I don’t feel that he should be allowed to pick the person to sit in Obama’s seat, seeing as he couldn’t do it the right way the first time. No matter what I feel, however, the rules stay the same, making him, the governor, in charge of doing so. No one really thought that Burris was such a bad guy when he was chosen, but Reid obviously had a reason, and now that all of this has happened, I’m starting to understand why.
Reverse discrimination is the absolute dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Everyone says “we don’t see color or race”… but then proceeds to give non-Caucasian races everything they want. Otherwise, it’d be racist. Duh. No! You can’t tackle a black man in football! Why didn’t you tackle the white man?! Huh??! You racist! Seriously. Get a grip America. So what if Burris is African-American? That means we all of a sudden can’t refuse a candidate for a Senate seat, appointed by a man impeached with crime to sell that same seat? Nope. But if Burris was Caucasian, you bet he wouldn’t be seated. That wouldn’t be racist. If we truly “don’t see color” anymore, the fact that Burris is African-American should have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether he is seated or not. But there’s America’s grand media at work. If one person says Burris shouldn’t be seated, tomorrows headlines will read “Senator So-and-So is RACIST!”. Our country is so screwed up. Sometimes I wonder if taking AP GO PO was a good idea (haha). But come on America, you big melting pot, I thought you were better than this. Stop reverse discrimination (especially at the college admissions/scholarships level, don’t even get me started on that). After all, isn’t that discriminating on Caucasians? You racist!
Connection: Reverse discrimination and affirmative action. Giving so many benefits to non-Caucasian is also racist in a way, but in such a way that the media kill you over it (long live the media). Nowadays, if we even say you don’t like someone that happens to be black, you’re racist. Pretty soon it’s going to be racist if you call someone African-American or Hispanic. Those days I can sure wait for…
I was not all that surprised when I found out the Senate finally decided to seat Roland Burris. I was surprised, however, that it happened so soon. I figured the Senate would be able to drag it out, at least until a special election in Illinois could be called. I thought this article had some really good points and the comparisons he made were really interesting. “And that was all she wrote for Reid, who by next week should be on all fours like Kevin Bacon in ‘Animal House,’ shouting, ‘Thank you sir! May I have another?’ as Burris paddles him.” This comparison I found both amusing and accurate. Not only did the Senate make a complete turn around, but Harry Reid also made a turnaround that surprised me. I didn’t think he could change his mind that quickly. I guess that’s what happens when you play the race card.
It surprises me how much power the race card still has. “nearly the entire liberal punditocracy insisted that opposition to Barack Obama could only be explained by racism.” People I knew actually believed that if you didn’t vote for Obama that made you racist. Using the race card to get a Senate seat because there are no African-American Senators is another example of the power of the race card. It amazes and intrigues me at how much power this little life-line has. Why does it still have so much power even after the 13th-15th amendments and all the informal amendments that have been passed trying to prevent discrimination??
Connection: We talked in class about the usual type of politics in Illinois. The article sums it up very well. “It’s all a riot of kickbacks, ‘pay-to-play’ and cronyism.” Just because Blago got caught doesn’t mean that the politics are going to change, politicians are just going to be careful for awhile. In this case, by playing the race card on their fellow democrats, Burris was able to get the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Obama.
“Even after Blagojevich announced he was appointing Roland Burris, a respected but unremarkable black Illinois politician, to Obama’s seat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stood his ground, pronouncing the move ‘unacceptable.’ ” I am not entirely sure how I feel about the Senate accepting Burris, but I think the fact that they have accepted him is probably good. I mean, after all the scandal dust settles, Burris may prove to be a shining gem. I would like to think that Blago would decide to appoint someone that is really suited for the position after he was caught. I do not think the idea of something good originating from something bad is entirely unheard of.“When the Democratic governor announced his decision, he assembled various black Illinois pols to support the move, including Rep. Bobby Rush, a Democrat from Chicago’s South Side and a founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party.” I really do not think that race should have been a factor in allowing a Senator to take a seat. I do not like that they pulled the “race card.” “ ‘I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer …’ ” I do not think that was at all necessary, but I am not surprised after all the things that have happened in Illinois.
Connection: Legitimacy. Legitimacy is defined as a characterization of elections as being almost universally accepted as a fair and free method of selecting political leaders. While this particular case did not directly result from an election, it is still a method of selecting political leaders. The legitimacy of the selection and seating of Burris is probably nowhere near “almost universally accepted.”
First of all, I do not think that race is applicable, or it should not be, to this situation. The decision to place Burris in the Senate was made by Blagojevich, the governor of the state with the vacant seat. The Democratic Party and Barack Obama were wrong to say that an appointee of Blagojevich should not be able to assume the senate seat because he was not removed from office, and it was his duty to appoint someone to the vacancy. I too think it is wrong, but that is the way it is, and we would need to change the law in order to have a different outcome. Also, the Democratic Party would not want to have an election to a seat that they claim, because they would have a good chance of loosing the seat.
I do not think that Bobby Rush should have brought race up at all. You should not be able to use guilt to get your candidate into office, but that is how politics is played. And really, you cannot blame Rush for this, the media looks for any controversial story it can get to play on Americas emotions. So if you think Rush is wrong for playing with the media, what about Bush after 9/11?
And I guess I don’t know why people are complaining, is it because Burris is African-American and in the senate, or because Blagojevich appointed him?
“Everything is politics”, (Talib Kweli “Sharp Shooters”).
Connection: The 4th Branch (the media). The media played a powerful role in this situation. Everyone saw the coverage of Blagojevich. And Rush used the media as a tool to put pressure on the senate to force them to accept Burris…well played.
It is one of the first things we learn as children: to distinguish people by noticing differences. Obviously, if we didn’t notice differences, then certain basic variables such as nose size, hair color, eye color, or gender wouldn’t matter and we would, seemingly, look the same. For that reason, race is always going to be a factor, whether or not we want to accept that. It’s a difference, and we notice it. It’s unfortunate that there is such sensitivity around the issue of race, but it’s hard to overlook past memories and history. For any race, racism is a scary, and scarring occurrence. Anyone can be a minority, and when you’re the minority, you fear the possibility of being a victim of a hate. You do not just forget times when people throw cigarette butts at your car or leave a burning cross in your front yard because you supported Obama. Racists are a small part of the population, but trust is easily broken. It is no surprise that people can take this sensitive trust, and manipulate it. It seems that our lovely Chicago politicians have decided to do just that. Whether or not Burris is a good candidate for the office, no longer matters. We’ve been steered away from the pros and cons to a totally unrelated matter. Do we want to look like racists or not?
Connection: The Orchestra Pit Theory. We talked briefly on this in class. It’s the idea that if one guy announces a cure for cancer, and one guy falls into the orchestra pit, whose going to make the headlines? Obviously the guy in the orchestra pit. It’s more interesting, it’s more exciting, and really, we’d all rather laugh at the moron stuck in the tuba. In this situation, Burris just got thrown into the orchestra pit. What’s more exciting? Talking about some old white guy who wants to get a senate seat, or the black guy, whose looking for the senate seat that has racial controversy surrounding him? We choose Burris, the guy with the scandal. There are some sneaky people (no need to make the whole list) who know this fact, and who used it.
In response to Cody:
When I commented on this article, I thought that people were going to disagree with the way I thought about it, but you and I are on the same page, so maybe the way I think is more acceptable than I thought it would be. The reason someone should be picked for the Senate shouldn’t be about skin color, it should be about their credentials for the job. When there are two white people running, people look at their credentials to make a decision. If their stances are the same as a voter, the voter is likely to vote for them because of it. For some reason, however, if a black person enters the picture, people stop looking at who would be better. People still judge each other too much on looks. It may not be in such a bad way anymore, but minorities do get a whole lot more opportunities than white people do just because of their ethnicity. It doesn’t really seem fair to punish white kids today for the way their ancestors treated other races, but I don’t think it is ever going to change. Maybe Burris is qualified for the job, but he didn’t show it by making everyone pity him because of his race.
In response to Cole Ziegler:
First of all, we do not give people of color everything that they want. People of color want to be free of the inclination that they are lesser people and most white people do not even give them that. People of color want to get out of the ghettos and other places of poverty, and they need government assistance for them to do this. The people of color need a better résumé to get the same job a white person could get. I am not saying that all people who hire people are racist, but a lot of them are. Anyways, the inner-city schools that they come from are severely substandard, and the students who attend these schools usually have no hope of continuing their education. I guess I do not fully understand the problem with the idea of pulling a people in your country out of poverty. Is it too socialist to ask for equality? (Link: Reagan introducing crack to the ghettos to suppress minorities).
“I don’t look at a few token Latinos and black people in the public eye as some type of achievement for my people as a whole. Most of those successful individuals are sell-outs and house *expletive*s” (Immortal Technique “Poverty of Philosophy”).
Furthermore, I think that if Blagojevich had appointed a Caucasian person to the senate seat, I think that the result would be the same. The party has absolutely no power in saying who is seated in that situation. Blagojevich appointed an African-American to the seat because Burris and Jesse Jackson Jr. were the most prominent people vying for the position (personally, I would like to have seen Jackson Jr. appointed).
And Cole, your examples are seriously exaggerated. Did you not get a full ride to WSU, what are you complaining about?