[onlyfun_biziness]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...7q4G_blog.html
Newt Gingrich’s clever race-mongering

By Adam Serwer


Newt Gingrich made a bit of news over the weekend on Meet the Press by coming out against Rep. Paul Ryan’s Mecicare plan by describing it as “right-wing social engineering.” But during that same interview, he did something else that may be more worthy of attention: He addressed a series of interesting claims he’s made about the president in a way that reveals how racially coded attacks on the President will be central to his campaign.

Gingrich recently referred to Obama as “the first food stamp president,” and came out in favor of voting requirements that resemble Jim Crow-era poll tests. When asked by David Gregory about such remarks, Gingrich feigned ignorance about their implications:


MR. GREGORY: First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president.

REP. GINGRICH: Oh, come on, David.

MR. GREGORY: What did you mean? What was the point?

REP. GINGRICH: That’s, that’s bizarre. That — this kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. Now, the idea that — and what I said is factually true. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism? I have — I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.

I don’t think Gingrich lacks the sophistication to understand how it sounds when he calls for poll tests and refers to the first black president as “the food stamp president.” He’s playing a game designed to produce precisely the sort of exchange you see above: Gingrich says something bound to prick up the ears of liberals sensitive to racialized attacks on the president, Gingrich is then asked about his remarks, then he gets to play the victim of a politically correct world where liberals try to stifle all criticism of Obama by characterizing any such criticism as racism. His dogwhistle is thus amplified by enraged liberals, while conservatives get to play up their own form of racial grievance politics.

What Gingrich is doing here mirrors the right’s political strategy since Obama got elected — stoking the fires of racial grievance. That’s why conservatives have pursued so many racially related pseudo-scandals since Obama got elected — from Shirley Sherrod to the trumped up accusations surrounding the New Black Panther Party case. From the Affordable Care Act to the overhaul of financial regulations, there’s been an effort to cast nearly every element of Obama’s agenda as a form of racially tinged redistributionism.

It’s not really all that surprising that conservatives would settle on a strategy of stoking white racial resentment, There’s a black president in the White House, and a growing perception among whites that anti-white bias is actually a bigger social problem than anti-black racial bias.

All of this does beg the question of how to properly respond to things like these latest remarks from Gingrich, given that drawing attention to it merely enables the speaker. Perhaps it’s best to just point out that whatever Gingrich’s motivations, he’s not dim enough to have been unaware of how these remarks would be received, and that whatever controversy emerges as a result is probably by design.




By Adam Serwer | 10:43 AM ET, 05/16/2011

[EjPWyPm4]

Yep, the same behavior can be observed on militarytimes.com forums...

[MadMark]

Yep, the same behavior can be observed on militarytimes.com forums...

And similarly, so can the race baiting-behavior that this article demonstrates. Whats even more hilarious is that this article does exactly the same thing it accuses Gingrich of doing. So in the end we have an author of an article not worth being taken seriously.

[GennadiyRom]

This particular paragraph should stand out:

I don’t think Gingrich lacks the sophistication to understand how it sounds when he calls for poll tests and refers to the first black president as “the food stamp president.” He’s playing a game designed to produce precisely the sort of exchange you see above: Gingrich says something bound to prick up the ears of liberals sensitive to racialized attacks on the president, Gingrich is then asked about his remarks, then he gets to play the victim of a politically correct world where liberals try to stifle all criticism of Obama by characterizing any such criticism as racism. His dogwhistle is thus amplified by enraged liberals, while conservatives get to play up their own form of racial grievance politics. Because precisely THAT is happening too often, tension is becoming worse because of it. Why doesn't he just come out and say what he means?

[endulundaSauh]

This particular paragraph should stand out:

Because precisely THAT is happening too often, tension is becoming worse because of it. Why doesn't he just come out and say what he means?

Then your complaint needs to be about roughly 99.9% of the politicians in the US. Not to mention that victim politics is a tactic that is distinct within the political left. It has been used so much that IF Gingrich (or lets just say politician X because it could be any politician) WAS trying to say what he meant, everyone would think he was using some sort of backhanded tactic.

Also, this paragraph DOES stand out as contradictory. Either Gingrich IS sophisticated enough to understand how it sounds, therefore rising above something as unsophisticated as bigotry, or he isnt sophisticated enough and an underlying race bias is applicable. The Authors conclusion there is illogical.

[cargo_brad]

This particular paragraph should stand out:



Because precisely THAT is happening too often, tension is becoming worse because of it. Why doesn't he just come out and say what he means?

How about you take him on what he said and NOT what YOU think he said. YOU, are stoking the fire of racial tensions when you assume to know the "true" meaning behind what he is saying. It is a fact that 47 MILLION people are on food-stamps, but you want to think Gingrich meant something else...(BTW, I don't get what you are saying Gingrich "really meant")

[rvadipoldkov]

BTW, I don't get what you are saying Gingrich "really meant")

In other words, you're feigning ignorance just like Newt. It's okay. I expect that from the conservatives on this site.

[fiettariaps]

Meanwhile, in 2008, the press pretty much outright stated that anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama was a racist. So f$ck the press, and f^ck the racebaiting jackoffs that choose it for a career.

[evalayCap]

Oh brother, in comes the race card for the ignorant and intellectually lazy to erect a solid defense against logic and reason. Next we can criticise if he chose to paint his house a lighter color or doesn't use hair coloration methods to fade away that gray. It's all further elements of the racist agenda of the right!

Maybe that ignorance isn't "feigned" but is actually quite genuine, maybe people do not spend every waking moment of their lives catering the way they phrase each individual sentence they speak to every possible overly-sensitive person who may hear it spoken. It's probably related to the fact that it's not something they see as an issue anymore because they don't spend a substantial amount of time dwelling on the color of a person's skin.

[abishiots]

Oh a voting "test". That's not racist at all. Of course not, no one would EVER use such a test for racially motivated goals. EVER.

At least he didn't flat out condemn the civil rights act, like Ron Paul did.

[hopertveyk]

Link please Joe.

[CicyHannyCeli]

@ygg
So you can't explain it either huh. Just say "it's racist and if you don't know why, then you are racist too.". You are weak.

[IamRobot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

[brulpcoersero]

Okie, I have blonde hair and blue eyes, and I'M blacker than Alan Keyes. Come on!

But, frankly, I'm not going to explain a damn thing to any of you, because I've been here for quite awhile, and I'm not going to go into an endless cycle where nothing is going to come of it.

When dealing with any of you, I'm just going to state my piece and leave it at that. Call me weak if you want, but it seems that you're pissed because I'm leaving you hanging in the fight that you're so desperate to get into.

[blankostaroe]

Okie, I have blonde hair and blue eyes, and I'M blacker than Alan Keyes. Come on!

But, frankly, I'm not going to explain a damn thing to any of you, because I've been here for quite awhile, and I'm not going to go into an endless cycle where nothing is going to come of it.

When dealing with any of you, I'm just going to state my piece and leave it at that. Call me weak if you want, but it seems that you're pissed because I'm leaving you hanging in the fight that you're so desperate to get into.

Youre weak. Life Tree? Oh whatever, give me a hatchet.

[mpegdvdclip]

VW, I've made you my bitch many times in the past. It's easy for you to talk tough now, because I've made it clear that I'm not going that route anymore. But if it makes you feel good, keep talking.

[AndrewBoss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

Thank you, reading it in CONTEXT I know what he means when he is NOW opposed to it. Just like the affirmative action, the civil rights act has run its course and America is intergrated to the best it can be. There are still several communities and groups on all sides and in all races that stay segregated, but that is by their own choosing. Forcing PRIVATE business owners to do something they don't want to so that the minority group can be appeased is not a free society. Even worse when the majority group can still be discriminated against when say a male would like to be a waiter at Hooters, or a boy that wants to join girl scouts or play in the LPGA, or when a white person that is more qualified for a job gets rejected to meet a quota.

[DebtDetox]

Okie, I have blonde hair and blue eyes, and I'M blacker than Alan Keyes. Come on!

But, frankly, I'm not going to explain a damn thing to any of you, because I've been here for quite awhile, and I'm not going to go into an endless cycle where nothing is going to come of it.

When dealing with any of you, I'm just going to state my piece and leave it at that. Call me weak if you want, but it seems that you're pissed because I'm leaving you hanging in the fight that you're so desperate to get into.

So if I were to say you are an idiot and never give you the reasoning why, does my assertion of you being an idiot really apply? I don't know what was so racist about his remark, and you refuse to explain it. Now if Gingrich said Obama is a monkey living off of bananas that he got on FOODSTAMPS, that is when I can see it being racist. There is no racial context to calling Obama a foodstamp president, not even by saying he takes foodstamps, cause as several liberals love to point out, whites are the majority race on the foodstamp line. Give me some freaking context to where the racial parts of the remarks that you see.

[UKkoXJvF]

VW, I've made you my bitch many times in the past. It's easy for you to talk tough now, because I've made it clear that I'm not going that route anymore. But if it makes you feel good, keep talking.

Insecurity issues seem to be wrapped around you like a blanket. It was a joke, but I guess just like a rational arguement, humor is something you just cant seem to deal with.

As for the "made you my bitch" comment...only in your wildest dreams, which seem to be close to whatever chemical induced reality you think you reside in. Its pathetic that you even thought about making this comment, much less typing it out and then making the conscious decision to post it.

[enurneAcourdy]

At worst, if he were comparing Obama to the average Food Stamps recipient, that would mean that Obama is a) a U.S. citizen by birth (93.4%) b) either white (34.4%) unknown (21.5%) or black (21.4%). Unfortunately it would also be saying that Obama is a child (49.9%). This is according to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service's annual Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households.

So...how is this racist again?