In case you needed any further proof that Birtherism was just Racism disguised…
So Fox News has finally decided that it is ok to be born outside this country if you want to be President. Yes. Fox News says that Senator Ted Cruz (R-Asshole) is eligible to run for President despite the fact that he was not born in the United States.
How interesting. And how confusing.
Because for the last five to six years, we heard Fox News and the right wing attack the President over precisely that issue. Nevermind the fact that the President was actually born in the United States, as proved by both his Short Form and Long Form Birth Certificate. The conspiracy theories and attacks continued, and took the form of frivolous lawsuits and ridiculous laws passed to have candidates present their birth certificate before running for President to prove that they were actually born here in America, and racist investigations by Sheriff Joe Arapaio and others. All because the conspiracy theory held that the President was not born on American soil and thus was not an American and thus was not eligible to serve as President.
Ok.
So now the Republican Party is presented with a problem. It has a rising arrogant star (they love those kind) who has expressed interest in running for President. There is just one problem: it is admitted and is a fact that this rising star was born in Calgary, Canada. His birth certificate says so: Calgary, Canada.
So Fox News and conservative legal scholars have decided, nevermind!!! There is no problem!!! Ted Cruz’s mother is an American citizen!! She is actually from our state, the First State, Delaware! So that means, no matter where he is born on this Earth, he is an American citizen too.
Well, that’s interesting. Because, Barack Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen from Kansas, too. So that necessarily means that even if the President was born in Kenya or anywhere else on the Earth that is not part of the United States, as the Birthers claimed, he still was an American citizen since his mother was an American citizen.
There was never any allegation or theory that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was not an American.
So what was the point of all the conspiracy theory, the attacks, the reactionary laws, lawsuits and investigations?
The point was and is that Barack Obama was a black man.
The scientific theory Occam’s Razor is helpful here and is something I have written about before:
To quote Captain Spock in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: “An ancestor of mine maintained that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” This is basically the theory of Occam’s Razor, the principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.
The simplest explanation of Birtherism was that they were all racists, and it has been proven to be right.
The birther phenomenon exists within the larger reality of Republicans seeking to delegitimize any Democratic president, black or white. They did it to Clinton and to some extent to Carter too. They will use any reason or make one up out of nothing to fit their narrative of illegitimacy.
Does it not undermine your thesis to note that Ted Cruz is not exactly Anglo-Saxon? Frankly, I have found that conservatives will welcome anyone of any color who adheres to their lunatic “principles.”
This seriously a shark-jumping moment for Fox News. My mind sort of short-circuits when I read the article.
You misunderstand my thesis, Geezer. My thesis is that the only reason Birthers pursued their conspiracy theory against Obama was because he was black is not changed just because Cruz is Cuban. If Cruz was black, then yes it would. But Republicans have had a long love affair with Cubans, and recently have been embracing their conservative Latinos like Rubio and Susan Martinez in order to combat their image problem with that minority.
But I am curious, how do you explain the pursuit of the Birther theory if it is not racism.
Incidentally, “obama birth certificate” yields 194495 hits on the Fox News site. Seriously, WTF?
Racism per se would not distinguish between “good” and “bad” Hispanics, or “good” blacks of the Herman Cain type and the “bad” Obama type. If political alignment enters the equation, and it certainly does with every conservative target, then racism alone does not explain the facts.
You assume that Herman Cain, Alan Keyes and other “good” blacks embraced by the GOP are being embraced sincerely for their ideas alone. In my opinion, they are tolerated only because they embrace the conservative ideology, and they are useful to the GOP to insulate them from charges of racism. The existence of Herman Cain and Alan Keyes does not disprove the existence of racism on the part of those involved in the Birther movement.
No, it doesn’t disprove it, but it is not evidence in your favor. The simpler explanation is that Obama is Democratic, not that he’s black.
Then why attack his actual origin, his birth, his very citizenship and essence of being an American? If they just hated him for being a Democrat or for being a liberal, they certainly could attack him as such. And they did. He was called a socialist, and his policies were attacked as a big government takeover.
So why did they have to the extra mile with Birtherism? They didn’t do that with Clinton. They hated him for being a liberal and a Democrat. And yet there was no challenge to his being an American. Perhaps because he was white?
There was no reason for Birtherism politically. Why was Obama called a MUSLIM socialist instead of just a socialist? It was unnecessary to add the MUSLIM in there if you just want to attack a political ideology that he allegedly represented.
No Geezer, the reason is racism.
Now, you object to the simplicity of that hypothesis. So I will offer a more complex reason: Culturalism. They didn’t attack Clinton for not being an American because Bill was a good ole redneck.
Obama is a big city black man from the North and Far West.
But the reason was not political.
“why attack his actual origin, his birth, his very citizenship and essence of being an American?”
For the same reason a dog licks its balls: Because they could.
“yet there was no challenge to his [Bill Clinton] being an American. Perhaps because he was white?”
Or perhaps because he was born in Arkansas.
“Why was Obama called a MUSLIM socialist instead of just a socialist? ”
Because Americans are more scared of Muslims than socialists.
“the reason is racism.”
You can assert that all you want; the fact that they like Ted Cruz still undermines your theory.
“They didn’t attack Clinton for not being an American because Bill was a good ole redneck.”
They also lacked any angle with which they could show that he wasn’t an American. They gave it the good ol’ college try with his visit to Moscow, though.
“Obama is a big city black man from the North and Far West.”
So I’ve been told.
“But the reason was not political.”
Strictly speaking, the reason is that Orly Taitz is a photogenic lunatic. Most people signed on to birtherism for the simple convenience of joining an already-running anti-Obama movement.
Now if you want to argue that Umbrellagate is indicative of conservative racism, I’m with you.
You know how I know Geezer is crazy? He thinks Orly Taitz is photogenic. LOL. Just kidding. Umbrellagate is racism. I am glad you agree on that. Do you agree at least then that racism plays a part in Birtherism? And last I checked Ted Cruz was not black.
You can assert that all you want; the fact that they like Ted Cruz still undermines your theory.
No it doesn’t. Just because a racist (or someone guilty of a racist act or comment) points at the closet black or brown person to claim that they aren’t racist because look at my colored friend over here, doesn’t mean that they aren’t a racist (or guilty of a racist act or comment). It just means that the racist in question thinks that being acquainted with black and brown people somehow inoculates them. It doesn’t. (And I make sure that the people who use me as their anti-racist shield know they are in the wrong here.) The Birthers reached for the most comfortable way for them to try to convince the world that Obama wasn’t legitimate — and every single bit of that narrative is found in the color of Obama’s skin, and his father’s non-anglo saxon name. And it works for a group of people who find that the world is not what they were promised — one where white people are supposed to have all of the advantages.
I guess photogenic might be the wrong word, but that garish eye makeup is hard to ignore.
I think racism plays a part in birtherism, in that I think a certain sort of person finds it easier to believe crazy talk about blacks than about whites. But you’ll notice the other accusations, of Mohammedism and socialism, both aim at the same trope: “He’s not like us.”
As for Cruz’s race, I don’t think most conservatives parse the shades of brown very closely. The Heritage Foundation creep, Richwine, put Hispanics barely ahead of blacks on his IQ totem pole. Keep in mind that Hispanics can be racist even among themselves, bragging about the Spanish content of their DNA to the detriment of the Amerindian component whenever applicable.
Yes, conservatives love Cubans and hate Mexicans, but it’s not as if they can tell one from the other on sight (it’s hard not to notice, however, that both Rubio and Cruz look more European than Amerindian).
Cassandra: Except they aren’t pointing to Ted Cruz and saying “look at my Latino friend.” They champion him, for the simple reason that he agrees with them. Clearly they will overlook skin color if the politician votes and hollers in ways they like. They might be racist, but that’s not evidence of it.
Racists always place themselves in the role of decider. What I mean is they get to decide who is allowed into their club – and they will demand constant praise for this. They also treat people as possessions – our women, our minorities.
Years ago, my mother called out my uncle on his racism. His response was that he wasn’t a racist because he’d let Sammy Davis Jr. in his house. Not. Kidding. He actually believed that cleared him – then again, he also believed that Sammy Davis Jr. would be impressed with a house in Pike Creek.
It really comes back to their position of superiority (which is basically racist in these situations) and who they grant permission to enter through the front door. Cruz and Cain are permitted entrance only on the racists’ say-so, and access can, and will, be denied whenever the racist decides.
Just like they championed Herman Cain, Alan Keyes, Allen West — sending Ann Coulter to Fox News to claim that “our blacks are better than their blacks”. It isn’t *just* team solidarity here. These guys have value to today’s GOP beyond sharing their ideas — they think it makes them race neutral. When if fact, they are just neutral (if that) to *their* guys’ race.
Pandora: All you say may be true, but opposition to minority politicians with whom conservatives disagree is not prima facie evidence of conservative racism.
If you’re willing to vote for Herman Cain for President, you’re not just letting him in the door. You’re giving him the keys to the house and telling him it’s his. A true racist would never do that, yet lots of redneck peckerwoods did.
Cassandra: I agree completely. I’m not absolving these people. I’m just saying there is more to birtherism than simple racism.
The bad behavior here is that given almost identical situations for Obama and Cruz — including the existence of a foreign parent — they attack Obama and defend Cruz. That’s hypocrisy, but not necessarily racism.
If Hillary Clinton was President, they’d attack her for being a Clinton and a socialist. They wouldn’t have made a big deal about her birth certificate or her parentage. Their attacks on her would not be based on any presumptive illegitimacy of where or who she came from.
I think I covered that above: There’s nothing on which to hang such a charge, so there won’t be one.
On the other hand, the misogyny will be so thick birtherism won’t get a word in edgewise. That’s the real meaning of that story about the guy who wants to shoot her in the vagina. They’re not even bothering to speak in dog-whistle code anymore.
On the other hand, the misogyny will be so thick birtherism won’t get a word in edgewise.
I agree that the misogyny would rule the day — even though they have plenty of women in their midst. And the birtherism wouldn’t apply because challenging the entitlement of white people to hold power (or even to be here in the first place) isn’t exactly done. Asking black and brown people to prove their legitimacy (or even origin) has a fairly long history here. The space between the presumption of legitimacy and having to prove it in the face of moving standards that you’ll find the racism.
Wait… I’m trying to follow here. Birtherism isn’t considered racist because birthers are okay with Herman Cain and Alan Keyes, but “misogyny will be so thick birtherism won’t get a word in edgewise” even though they like, and support, Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle?
How are these two things different?
Good point, Pandora. In my mind at least they are similar but not identical. (Or maybe I’m just wrong).
The women you cite are the sort who willingly make themselves second-class citizens, at least once the conversation turns to their families, and are willing to do the same to other women in their service to their anti-abortion agenda. Herman Cain wasn’t taking positions that would make African-Americans second-class citizens, as these women do.
Let me use as an example that radio clown who wants to shoot Hilary “in the vagina.” That’s not code, that’s flat-out hatred and fear of a powerful woman and the perceived source of her power. When we’re talking racism and Obama, you have as the equivalent the internet/email memes of watermelons on the White House lawn, etc. Those things are obviously racist. I don’t see birtherism in the same light, particularly considering wingnut support for minority politicians who talk their talk. I’ve known racists, and they would not distinguish between Cain and Cruz. They would hate them both.
Cassandra: I take your point about making blacks and browns prove their bona fides. You obviously have far more experience than I with the less obvious, more pernicious forms of racism; I can only observe it from outside the black experience.
That’s why I see Umbrellagate as outright racism — they never even did any research on how other presidents behaved before erupting in rage. All they saw was a white man — a Marine, no less — acting subservient to a black man.
I will cite one similarity between how Clinton was treated by conservatives in DC and how Obama was treated: Both were regarded as unsophisticated interlopers incapable of navigating the heady sophistication of Washington. I have no doubt that if they could conservatives would have painted Bill Clinton brown just so they could have hated on him more effectively.
Bill Clinton was considered un-American for studying abroad in London for a semester and dodging the draft during Vietnam. The “not one of us” meme is always in politics. Obama being black without a classic American as apple pie upbringing only amplifies the dog whistle to those in the GOP.
Propping up Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, etc. doesn’t disprove racism. They never receive enough votes to get elected to anything. Republican elites might give these guys a stage, but when it comes time to vote, its always the old christian rich white guy.
Michael Steele got as far as RNC chair then was quickly dismissed as in over his head.
It is the hypocrisy of the entire GOP universe that I find most galling. “Commies are bad unless they supply cheap labor”,” gay marriage weakens straight marriage, but my 3 ex wives doesn’t”, etc.
I will cite one similarity between how Clinton was treated by conservatives in DC and how Obama was treated: Both were regarded as unsophisticated interlopers incapable of navigating the heady sophistication of Washington.
This is the heart of Toni Morrison’s much maligned metaphor regarding Bill Clinton being our first black president. He was widely treated and regarded as illegitimate as a black man would have been — even by the so-called liberals in DC.
Watergate 2 begins tomorrow, Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013, As Lois Lerner from the IRS pleads the fifth.
Nothing to see here, everyone just move along
Watergate 2? My friends looked at a condo there. The asking price was reasonable, but they would have had to renovate the kitchen and both bathrooms.
I think it is more than just racism. It is perceived as being “other.” Other than a white anglo saxon protestant native American male.
Prior president’s have had some attributes of otherness but Obama had the most. Kennedy was a Catholic (a Papist!)
Farraro was a woman
Bush had brown grandchildren
Clinton was from Arkansas, studied abroad, and was never in the military.
To many, these attributes of otherness is simply a way recognizing that the people are not like them and if they are “real Americans,” then the others, who are not like them, cannot be real Americans. Yes racism plays a role, but I think we need to recognize that “otherness” is more than just racism.
While the color of one’s skin is a more visible marker, otherness is not just based on pigmentation. I think that racism is overused in that regard. There are many examples of otherness, which we assign to groups that is not based on pigment.
For example, mention NASCAR fan and we immediately conjure an unfavorable image of a typical NASCAR fan (I’m convinced that it’s an accurate conjuring, even though it’s wrong of me to do that). Ditto, gays or Californians (land of fruits and nuts) or any number of other examples of “not like me” charicatures.
Obama has too many of these “not like me” characteristics. So, yeah I think racism is certainly evident, but it’s more than racism – it’s otherness.
if a conservative supports a herman cain for president he is supporting a black man. not racist by definition. what he doesn’t support is liberal governmental policies. maybe he thinks there are better ways to improve conditions for minorities and to defuse racial tension. we liberals may think we have the answers, but somebody who thinks something else might work is not necessarily racist, though he might be politically naive.
It seems to me that this conversation turns on the assumption that most rank and file conservative Republicans possess the intelligence to know that “Cruz” ain’t exactly a whitey’s name.