Tuesday, September 26, 2006

George Allen: Racist, Even if it Makes Him Feel Bad

It is generally considered not nice among racists to call them racists. It hurts their feelings and their self-esteem. But it also allows them to embrace one of the peculiarities of the anti-PC backlash inasmuch as it allows actual racists to hide behind a patina of hurt feelings even in the face of the facts.


On the other hand, there are some on the left who toss the accusation of racism out with such frequency that it allows real racists to seek cover under the cynical but effective anti-PC backlash. If racists are everywhere, some racists have discovered, one can plausibly deny that they are anywhere. Such goes the logic amidst a peculiar and unintended convergence of the racist right and domogogic left, with each representing a very small but visible slice of their side of the political spectrum.


So with this surface analysis out of the way, let's get to the heart of the matter: I'm sorry to hurt his feelings, and I'm sorry that so many dopey multi-culti caricatures have turned it into a no-no, but George Allen is a racist. No qualifiers. No tip-toeing. George Allen is a racist, he was a racist, and he will continue to be a racist. With each passing week a new incident occurs, new evidence emerges. And each week the evidence seems more damning. The newest allegations are that while a student at the University of Virginia, Allen knew the business end of using the N-bomb. As the story builds, more revelations emerge. Now to be sure, these are unproven allegations, but at a certain point, when you have enough allegations from enough independent sources, many of whom clearly were reluctant to come forward and speak, a reasonable person is going to come to the concusion that there is something to them. This is especially so when one sees enough Confederate Flag lapel pins and pictures of meetings with neo-Confederate organizations, when one hears enough racial slurs from the candidate's mouth, and when one sees enough outrage on the part of the candidate when he is asked about the possibility of having Jewish heritage (ok, so maybe I am blurring anti-Semitism and racism -- debate freely; is this really the ideal Allen talking point? In any case, as events in the past week or so reveal, Allen apparently was against being Jewish before he was for it).


So far the Allen campaign has taken one of the three most obvious approaches available to it. Naturally Allen has denied ever having used the racial slur in question. How could he not, at least in the first phase of spin. But is there any serious person who believes him?


The second approach that, while patently absurd, would be the one I would take were I a GOP operative, would be for Allen to try to claim that he is being Swift Boated. Of course this could backfire -- after all, the problem with the loathsome Swift Boating approach is that virtually all of the people who actually served with and under John Kerry supported him and spoke to his courage and bravery. The Swift Boat vets who went after him never actually served with him. They were ideological hatchet men who concocted stories and cynically blurred lines between truth and lies. In the case of Allen's accusers, they all knew him, in some cases well, and all had direct experiences with his racism. Nonetheless, in a cynical age, I would be surprised if Allen does not take the cynical tack -- though another problem is that he cannot use the term "Swift Boating" without revealing the loathsome GOP tactic for what it was.


The third possible option, which may end up being Allen's last and most risky gambit, is to acknowledge being a racist young man in a racist period in a racist state. Then he could repentantly throw himself on the mercy of Virginians who, in all honesty, may not much care, or at least may not care so much that it makes the election a, um, Lost Cause. This is not ideal, and is any strategist's nightmare, but it would at least have the ancillary effect of being honest.


Of course there is a fourth option that my imagination never would have summoned. And that is to concoct an argument so silly, so absurd, so ridiculous, that some people actually buy it. The Big Lie is the approach Allen and his support staff have taken. Apperently Allen cannot be a racist, he argues, because he played football, and, (believe it or not he actually implies this) because he has black friends! That's right. By Allen's logic if you play football, you cannot be a racist. Because playing on a team with someone apparently confers magical powers off the field that make men live in brotherhood. Yes, on the field, race may not matter. But unfortunately, Allen apparently is unaware that most of life is lived off of the great rainbow gridiron of his dreams.


And so this brings me back to the dilemma of accusing someone of racism in a postmodern age. And I have a simple and very modernist response: A racist is someone who does and says racist things. And if pointing out to someone that they have said and done racist things hurts their feelings, that is beside the point. George Allen, whatever he feels about it, and whatever he tells us now, has spent most of his life as a racist. Let us hope that the voters of Virginia, white and black, Indian and Jewish, send him a message in November that he and his kind are not welcome in their ideological neighborhoods.

No comments: