« Human Rights Groups: Defending Human Rights | Main | Duke and the System »

The Metapolitics of Resentment

16 Apr 2007 10:48 am

I've never addressed the growing (and growing, and growing) pile of evidence that those Duke lacross guys were innocent of the rape charges brought against them. When the story first broke I didn't write about it, because it was a little tangential to my main interests and because it's not the sort of thing I was inclined to jump to conclusions about in quasi-print. My inclination in a case like that is to believe the woman, but an investigation was clearly underway. At any rate, events unfolded and I continued to not write about it. The system, it seems to me, pretty much worked. Accusations of the sort that were leveled should be taken seriously and investigated, and innocent people should go free when the evidence doesn't support charging them with crimes.

For months, however, every time I blog on anything even vaguely race-related, I'm struck by the sheer volume of people who want to respond "what about the Duke lacrosse case?" Well, I think, what about it? Then I read something like this from Victor Davis Hanson who really doesn't cover these issues either, and it hits me. There's this huge block of people out there, primarily reasonably prosperous middle-aged middle class white men, who in all genuineness seem to believe that what went down there is emblematic of broad-based social problem. They see the Imus controversy through the same lens -- the lens that makes them think the issue here is Al Sharpton or hip-hop. It's a mentality that believes -- deeply and sincerely -- that the middle-aged white dude just can't get a fair shake in this country. Not in this day and age. What with the Sharptons and the feminist bloggers and all. Next thing you know, there'll probably be dudes marrying dudes, and women and black folk running for president!

And, well, I just don't know what to say to a mentality like that. I certainly think that lots and lots of people in this country -- including, naturally, lots of middle-aged people and lots of white people and lots of male people -- do, in fact, have a hard time getting a fair shake in the contemporary United States. But the idea that middle-aged white men as a class are being persecuted, well, well, not so much.

Share This

Comments (129)

Here in Ames, Iowa a couple years ago a young (white) woman claimed she was raped by 6 black men or something like that. It turned out to be completely false (Unlike the duke thing, there were never any named suspects)

A couple years ago A black police officer claimed to have been beaten up by skinheads. It turns out his wounds were self-inflicted.

These are just two incidents of pseudo-violence in a small city of 50,000 people. In fact, they were the only violent incidents in this town involving residents*

So it seems like fake racial crime is alleged a lot, by both blacks and whites. It's all very bizarre and I think people do it because it draws even more attention to themselves.

--

But what you said is true, there are a lot of white men who believe that life isn't fair for them. And life may not be fair for that particular person, but not because of their race and gender.

listen to Limbaugh and Hannity 500 hours a year, read Coulter's books, go to a fundamental church, you'll be convinced that the world is out to get you, too.

(Oh I was going to add, one person got stabbed here, but he and the guys who stabbed him were from out of town)

The problem is that white men aren't getting the benefits they used to get. Used to be that if a black woman accused wealthy white men of rape, she'd be laughed out of the police station or charged with a crime herself. The fact that we take her accusations as seriously as we'd take those of a white woman accusing a black man upsets a lot of people.

There is that element at work, but there's another that I like to call INARB-- I'm Not A Racist, But... this is sort of a variation of a concern troll. It's someone who will loudly proclaim that they aren't a racist (a probably aren't), and that they are dedicated to eliminating racism in our society-- but in absolutely any public matter involving race, denies that racism is at play. If you think about it, the political media is littered with them. The move is always to spend five seconds gesturing to racial equality and racial justice, and the remainder of the segment explaining why, in fact, racism didn't occur; or why the real problem is the black leadership establishment; or why politically correct taboos are tearing our country apart; or why the real problem is affirmative action and the "culture of poverty"; or why Al Sharpton is an asshole. The actual act of racism (real or alleged) is always marginalized, while qualifications and excuses for the act are emphasized.

*and probably aren't

Well put. This is also why the same folks constantly accuse African Americans of racism and feminists of sexism. Anyone who attempts to identify and combat the privilege of the these insecure white men is suddenly the equivalent of a a slave owner or a nazi. It's pretty depressing, I think.

It's a mentality that believes -- deeply and sincerely -- that the middle-aged white dude just can't get a fair shake in this country.

This pretty much explains Glenn Beck.

I happen to be a retired college professor (after 25 years of full time teaching) who has never voted Republican in a presidential election.
I am astonished by anyone who says that in the Duke case that the system pretty much worked.
I am also very troubled by the character of the public lynching of Don Imus--though, hell, it is time for him to re-invent himself so I am not particularly troubled that he was terminated.
The issue is not that the folks like me perceive that we as a class are being persecuted. Rather we see the stupidity and hypocrisy that continues to plague liberal democrats.
I wake up every morning wondering: "why has my country been devastated by the plague of the George Bush administration-- which I consider the most evil presidency in US history?" And the answer I keep coming to is the way in which the Clinton administration and a kind of liberal democrat--and its character and hypocrisy--has significantly contributed to what has happened to us.
Glad you raised the issue Matt!!! It is an important one!

To sum up:

"We're losing everything man!"

- Chris Rock, impersonating VDH-like guys who are sad to lose their monopoly on power and respect in this country.

C'mon Matt! Don't you realize that most of those middle aged white guys are Christian and that Christmas is under assault? That should clear it up for you.

And the answer I keep coming to is the way in which the Clinton administration and a kind of liberal democrat--and its character and hypocrisy--has significantly contributed to what has happened to us.

This strikes me as a genuinely bizarre reading of events. Clinton moved the party as a whole to the right, particularly on economic matters, but also on matters related to social problems. Race, gender, and sex-partner relations just are better than they were in the 80s.

who in all genuineness seem to believe that what went down there is emblematic of broad-based social problem

What an utter straw man.

Seriously - the evidence for this is...? Nothing, as far as I can tell. It exists solely in Matthew's mind.

When I worked as a pipefitter guys would bitch about the "women coming in and taking our jobs".

And yet, the unemployment rate is what, 4-5%? There's plenty of work to go around.

I find it pretty amazing how this group of people feel that in many crimes, the inability to catch them all means you need to ratchet up the punishments and lower the bar for guilt (terrorism, voter fraud, scapegoat of the day). But when it comes to the uncertainty regarding rape (and just because there isn’t enough evidence to press charges does not mean the prosecutor’s don’t believe a crime took place) conservative white men feel no charges should be pressed at all.

Sometimes, the racial component in fake crime reports is not for the purpose of attention, however. In the Charles Stuart case in Boston and the case of that woman who claimed to have been carjacked (I forget her name,) I believe these people claimed a black perpetrator because they thought these sorts of crimes happen every day, and never get solved. But it was precisely because they don't happen every day, and they are the sorts of crimes that white people really fear from blacks, that they were given national media attention and extended manhunts for the non-existent perps.

Genuinely bizarre reading of events? Perhaps.

I would appreciate another explanation of the Bush plague.

I think that a major problem is that "liberals" speak only to other "like-minded" souls and don't engage others who view things quite differently than they do (bizarre reading of events).

When I first heard the Duke accusatiions, I was 98% certain that they were a crock. And those like Dan Abrams who looked at the stuff way back saythat it was a crock. That it took over a year for this issue to get resolved is a great travesty.

Matt nails it.

Of course, do not forget that this large group of "reasonably prosperous middle-aged middle class white men" voted for Bush over Kerry by an astounding 25% margin. Forget about fundamentalist evangelicals giving the 2004 elections to Bush. It was these average middle class white guys who handed this country back to Bush for another 4 years.

Now the 2000 election was one thing. Back in 2000 people could honestly say they expected something moderate and bipartisan out of Bush and have some basis for saying it. But 2004? For God's sake. This makes average middle-aged white guys the stupidest class in America bar none. And PaulD...if you think Clinton had anything to do with the 2004 elections you are right there with them.

Man paulD,

You are so right. The most important political event of the last 25 years during which you were teaching was Clinton's blow job. could you be a little vaguer with your accusations of democratic malfeasance leading to the actual, specific, choices made by the current republican admnistration? Could you maybe tell us in detail how Clinton's blow job made it necessary for Colin Powell to lie to the UN? Or how clinton's blow job made it necessary to invade Iraq? Or how clinton's blow job made it necessary for Bush to deconstruct FEMA and install Michael Chertoff as head of DHS? Or how Clinton's blow job made it necessary for pretty much any of the fairly substantial destructive decisions of the bush administraton over the last six years?

I won't ask what you were teaching all those years but man, I'd like some of what you've been smoking.

aimai

Notice that PaulD said "lynching." He certainly did not mean to equate the extralegal unpunished killing of a black man with a white radio host getting fired. But his word choice, probably an unconscious one, symbolizes the general sentiment that Matt was referring to. Was Imus' firing unjustified? I think not, but the question is certainly fair. Was Imus' firing in any way similar to mob murder of a black man for some imagined offense against a white woman? No. I'm not trying to parade around and be offended, but I think the presumed appropriateness of word choice supports Matt's point.

public lynching of Don Imus

He embarrassed his employer by saying something stupid and offensive, and his employer let him go. It's hard to take you seriously when you compare getting fired when you screw up on the job to lynching.

Obviously, though, what you say is true about this case; to the extent that Nifong may have broken some of the professional rules he ought to have followed, there was much about this case that wasn't best described as the system working well. I assume Matt just means in the meta-sense: a) allegation taken seriously and vigorously investigated, and b) charges dropped when allegation couldn't be proven and appeared to be false.

To make Nifong a poster child for prosecutors gone wild is a joke, though--compared to the prosecutors in, say, Tulia or Ellensberg, he's a model of prosecutorial efforts. And that's the point; in those cases it was the powerless who were victims of injustice at the hands of rogue police and prosecutors AND they went to jail. Anyone who bangs on about this case endlessly while ingnoring the real systemic problems in our justice system obviously has an agenda, and it's a pretty noxious one.

I am also very troubled by the character of the public lynching of Don Imus

Yeah, well I'm troubled by people who would refer to the episode as a "public lynching".

Imus was fired, not hanged, fired. He is not enititled to a radio or cable tv show. Nobody is (I particularly note that I have neither).

He insulted a wide swath of the American public. He lost advertisers. He cost his employers money. He got fired.

Whether you view the episode through a moral lens (he deserved what he got for being an asshole) or through a business one (he deserved what he got for becoming a commercial liability to his employers) there is nothing remotely wrong with the outcome.

Now, I'm not saying that he had to be fired. He probably could have avoided that outcome had he immediately issued a genuinely contrite apology, instead of merely claiming that he was "insensitive". But to suggest that he was "lynched"? Ha!

This is a great post, and quite accurate as far as it goes. As someone who grew up in a working class family in Kansas, I would only add one thing: while unemployment is low, the stagnant minimum wage (along with tax cuts for the rich, etc.) have left a lot of poor white men unable to really support their families. This helplessness stokes resentment of immigrants, blacks, and women. They're wrong, of course: it is still tougher to be a member of any of those groups than to be a white male. Still, a less economically stratified country would be a country with less racial resentment.

When I first heard the Duke accusatiions, I was 98% certain that they were a crock.

Me too. Most people with whom I've even briefly discussed the matter seemed to feel the same way. I don't see how that relates to Clinton, or why the "reserve judgment" position that most people I know took was the wrong one.

Woe is me! I was born a white man in America in the 20th Century. How will I ever find a job (assuming I lose the one I have) ... When will people ever take a white man seriously in this country? Will we ever have representation? Will there ever be a TeeVee show with white people on it? Woe is me ... Someone remove my shackles so I can find my bootstraps and pull on them...

/snark

Matt: brilliant post. As a 42 year-old white male with a fairly standard self-segregated set of friends and acquaintences, I'm surrounded by this ALL THE TIME.
Guys in my peer group have somehow convinced themselves (or more likely, ALLOWED themselves to BE convinced) that they are PUT UPON in our society.
Imus makes a racist, sexist comment, and they start blathering on about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. As if bloviating self-aggrandizers haven't been found across all races in all times.
Get 'em off Al & Jesse, and it's the Duke false accusation case. Or whatever happens to be the conventional-wisdom outrage of the moment - a few years back, it was the McDonalds lawsuit about the Hot Coffee (never mind that the facts of that case showed that McDonalds had settled/been sued for the same problem multiple times, and had also ignored consumer groups' requests to adjust the standardized temperature settings on their coffemakers) .

As a white male in this society, I recognize that ON BALANCE I was given a huge head-start in life vis-a-vis non-white and/or female folks. It doesn't mean that any achivements I've managed to put together are meaningless. It just means that I scored a touchdown, where as a female or minority, I might only have gotten close enough for a field goal. I still gained yardage. My peers apparently feel like acknowledging the head start negates their whole life story, when quite simply it doesn't.

Yeah, well I'm troubled by people who would refer to the episode as a "public lynching".

I'm troubled by people who don't understand the concept of a metaphor.

I'm troubled by people who don't understand the concept of a metaphor

I am troubled by your disingenuous claim to be troubled.

Misplaced Patriot:
Gotta respond to your (very faulty) memory of the Charles Stuart case. The woman involved DID NOT CLAIM a black man car-jacked them. She, along with her unborn child, were dead and in no position to accuse anyone of anything. It was her scumbag murderer of a Husband that claimed this. I lived in Boston at the time, and not 10 days after the case occured (while the local and national media, as well as the BPD, were all still in full "get the bad bad darkie" mode) ran into some guys from "the hood" at a party, and the case was topic number one on everyone's lips. These kids told all us sheltered white folks that the 'word on the street' was that it was the husband. As we all now know, they were spot-on 100 percent right.
Not trying to flame, just setting the record straight.

Hey! I'm from Ames, too!

The Imus case isn't about free speech. Imus can say whatever he likes whenever he likes. However, the network that hired him is under no obligation to him or anyone else to keep him if his speech on the air is in violation of their standards. The issue is one of standards: inn order to be responisible, respectable annd mainnstream what sort of standards should a netwwork maintain? That's the issue.

To bad the network didn't fire him years ago when he went after Gwen Ifell. But I am glad that they suddenly noticed that their standards had slipped. I hope the other media outlets will beomce embarrassed by their haters annd freaks, too.

Middle aged white guys aren't persecuted for being middle aged white guys but they are being screwed. The decline of the middle class and the lower middle class has hit them hard. Rightwing opinion leaders prefer that they channel their rage away from the rightwing leadership that is screwing them. So lots of outrage over the laCross inncident (which featured rich white guys) is a slick way to distract attention from crappy jobmarkert, expensive health insurance, tax cuts for the rich while local taxes climb to make up the slack etc. It's a classic ploy: play the middle against the poor inn orderto screw them both.

This is sort of a depressing post for me to read. Because it's about my dad. I don't know how to respond to this mentality, either, and I try and I try and I try.

Great thoughtful posts. I guess where I come down is that "ressentiment" isn't just for losers any more. Its for everyone. What bugs me is that the same right wing populists who want to say that America is a classless meritocracy where if poor people are screwed its their own fault are the very first people to cry when something bad happens to their own. If the duke boys suffered any harm during their year in hell, which I'm sure they did, what of it? In our wonderful meritocracy no doubt they can overcome that just like every individual can overcome whatever class or race or health or religious issues have hampered them. Not only is "tomorrow promised to no man" but "the good life in the US middle class" is promised to no duke frat boy." Let them sink or swim like the rest of us.

Well, which is it? Are we a paradise in which any little boy or girl who is gifted and determined enough can rise to the top or are we a hell hole of racist determinism in which people can be punished, or fall from the middle class, for structural reasons and forces outside their control?

Maybe that is too much to unpack here but I really get the sense that the newly disenfranchised white guys are just waking up to the fact that the sink or swim, ownership society that bush has been pushing on them (or jonah goldberg with his bleat that "our culture" demands that we fail to give health insurance to all) actually means that they are going to sink just like all the people they've been ignoring all along.

A perfect judicial system doesn't mean that no one will ever get wrongfully accused or even wrongfully tried. It ought to mean that they don't get wrongfully convicted. Which is exactly what happened in this case.

Al: "I'm troubled by people who don't understand the concept of a metaphor."

Exactly so! That's why, when Jesse Jackson referred to New York as "Hymietown," it was appropriate to refer to the criticism he received as "a Holocaust."

It should be noted that, although they are all white men, neither Imus nor the Duke lacrosse players are middle-aged.

Steveconga has it exactly right on the stuart case. Stuart blamed the entire black community in mission hill. Feminists in boston instantly smelled a rat because it was so much more likely that he'd done it himself. The black community said the same thing but it took quite a while and a lot of people in the black communit were hurt by the police before the police realized they'd been had. Carole Stuart's parents endowed a scholarship for the black community as a gesture of healing afterwards.

Another stunning false claim no one has mentioned yet? Susan Smith who accused some fictitious black guy of carjacking her children when it was she herself who drowned them. Lets never forget her republican background and how easily the public and th epolice lapped up her story--for a while.

The System Did Not Work For The Prosperous Middle-Aged White Man

First the System did not work for the Black Man
and I did not speak out because I was not a Black Man
(and he was probably guilty, anyway)

Then the System did not work for the Brown Woman
and I did not speak out because I was not a Brown Woman
(and this is a meritocracy, so she should have worked harder)

Then the System did not work for the Muslim
and I did not speak out because I was not a Muslim
(and I don't trust them, anyway)

Then the System did not work for me, a Prosperous Middle-Aged White Man
and I cried like a baby
and other Prosperous Middle-Aged White Man came to my aid
and spread the tale of how life had been
UNFAIR to a Prosperous Middle-Aged White Man
far and wide, across newspapers and cable shows.

Thank God, there was someone left at the levers of power.

--Pastor Martin Niemöller (or Scooter Libby, I forget.)

Why is that Al is not regarded as a troll? Do his two snappy comments on this thread add anything?

He seems different than the old Al. Sometimes I think that there have been several Als, with new ones slotted in whenever the incumbent Al gets a real job. But that's just specylation. Maybe it's been the same Al all along, and he's just losing his spirit.

Chad: These are just two incidents of pseudo-violence in a small city of 50,000 people. In fact, they were the only violent incidents in this town involving residents

You're saying that Ames, Iowa, a town of 50,000 people, went through the entire year of 2005 with only two violent incidents - an alleged rape and an alleged assault on a police officer. (In fact, given that you say these respectively didn't happen and were self-inflicted, you are asking me to believe that a town of 50,000 people went for twelve months without any violent incidents whatever.) Sorry, but you're full of fertilizer.

Oh come off it, the lot of you. Some white males are downright plutocrats, some get a fair shake, some don't, some face incredibly difficult challenges, but none of that is the point. On the left side of the blogosphere, white males are often painted with one brush. We white males are all privileged, all racist, all insensitive, all frat-boys (who, incidentally, are also uniformly characterized as scum). Perhaps it's deserved, but the discussion of white males as a group has a unique surfeit of vitriol and a unique paucity of nuance, and that--I think--is the seed from which the resentment you're discussing has grown.

3 Quick Thoughts:
1) PaulD - I'll be honest - I agree that Liberals need to engage those who see things differently. At the same time, Liberals should not concede reality. White, middle-class men are mostly advantaged in society, not disadvantaged. It's hard to focus on the supposed challenges they face when those challenges don't exist. Look at this case. The accuser has literally nothing that could be taken from her. I have never known her name. She hasn't been paid by anyone that I know of. She has no power - aside from the power that everyone has to make accusations. What possible solution is there here? Remove her ability to make accusations or report crimes? What? And the white guys had the charges dropped. What more should be done?

I do not deny a certain "set-upon" feeling among white men. And it's worth noting - we do get ragged on a lot by popular culture. But, so does everyone. Do we really want to eliminate all white guy jokes? What would white male comics do?

As for Imus - make fun of college girls for their looks, particularly black girls for looking black, expect not to get paid a lot to do it on the morning radio. Shocker! I'm not even sure why this would be a concern. No, at work a person should not make racist jokes about members of another race, particularly young women. What's astounding to me is that manners and chivalry alone justify firing Imus.

And, notably - Sharpton and Jesse are not exactly elected leaders of head officials.

2) I find it strange that anyone ASSUMED these guys were guilty. I also find it strange that anyone ASSUMED these guys were innocent. For those of you who did, does it bother you that you just made that assumption on limited knowledge? Is that a problem too? Honestly, I don't think it deserved the press it got. I'm glad thecharges are being dropped if there is insufficient evidence to support charges. The posecutor should probably be defeated in his next election. But why would you assume that this story had to be a lie, from the very start? I find that wierd - is the assumption that black women accusing white men are necessarily liars? What?

I think that Edwards is right that there is a need for a healthy populism right now (as opposed to the unhealthy populism of the righhtwing). The haters (like Beck)are tapping into widespread resentment over diminished expectations. Ihe resentment is legitimate: Americans are being screwed. The rightwing opinion leaders however are exploiting that resentment and using it, not addressing the legitimate concerns. I think that Obama's message of hope is designed to unite the people who are bing screwed and that, if elected, he will be reasonably populist. Edwards is very openly populist annd deserves credit for making populism an issue in the campaign.

On the left side of the blogosphere, white males are often painted with one brush. We white males are all privileged, all racist, all insensitive, all frat-boys (who, incidentally, are also uniformly characterized as scum).

You're an idiot jbl. Nobody, on the left side of the blosphere remotely thinks like that. For one thing, lefty bloggers are overwhelmingly white and disproportionately male. So, this idea, that lefty bloggers are filled with self-loathing is quite stupid.

What does get pointed out is the absurdity of the self-pity coming from certain quarters.

re: evidence that the Duke lacrosse case is emblematic of something bigger--

It seems like it oughta be a widespread problem simply because the media has spent so. much. fucking. time on it.

I would quibble with Matt's statement "the system pretty much worked." If anybody cares, you should check out the series the Raleigh News & Observer is currently running about the case, specifically the conduct of Mike Nifong, the Durham DA. Nifong displayed a downright Bushian combination of bias and incompetence, due partly to (1) he had a personal connection with the alleged victim's family, and (2) he had a grudge against the defense lawyer for one of the players.

www.newsobserver.com

I'm open to theories on why we had the media blitz about this case. (That things are more important when they happen to pretty white people? That the media went crazy over the allegations when they thought they were true and felt they had to give equal time when the allegations proved false?) But intentionally or not, it reinforces the perception of a systematic problem: either the pervasiveness of false rape accusations, or the pervasiveness of rogue prosecutors who are out to get white men at the behest of black women.

I grew up in Ames and it is believable to me that there wouuld be only a few incidents of violence in a year.

My family went on three month vacations every summer (my dad taught). We left the house unlocked and never got robbed. There was exactly one fight when I was in high school. One in four years.

Granted, I left Iowa thirty years ago and I'm sure things have changed, but still it wouuld not surprise me to learnn thhat thhe rate of violent crime is low.

the pervasiveness of rogue prosecutors who are out to get white men at the behest of black women

I wouldn't have thought that there was anyone in America who thought that, or even could think that. Sweet Jeebus.

Aimai, in 1994 right before he became Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich used the Susan Smith story as an example of Democratic depravity, even though Smith's stepfather Beverly (sic) Russell was a prominent Moral Majority Republican who sexually abused her. Gingrich was never called on this and never retracted it, and the story died. In my opinion that's the moment when it became impossible for a decent person to be a Republican. A few conservatives are starting to figure things out, but it's hard to respect someone who took 13 years to figure out that their party was run by slimy thugs.

If the parties were switched we'd bee hearing about the Gingrich-Smith episode about once a week, but the Democrats don't have that kind of noise machine. To a degree it's testimony to the decency of the Democrats, but it's also more evidence that the national media refuse to amplify stories embarrassing to Republicans.

When the truth about Smith and her Republican pervert stepfather came out, the story died, and almost no one remembers (President-to-be?) Gingrich's creepy, totally inexcusable slime-mongering. (Robert Scheer wrote about it a couple of times -- no one else).

On the balance, I think that the Democrats' refusal or inability to capitalize on this kind of case hurts them. In a decent world, stories like this would rightly disappear, but that's not our world. In a decent world Gingrich's hideous smear would have ended his career.

JBL: Not to pile on here, but come off it. When you are a member of the group that is more priveleged in society, and honest people of good intention are trying to point out and lessen inequality, you are going to take a few hits.
Life's a bitch in the big city.

Perhaps the Duke Lacrosse players did get a "fair shake". Miscarriages of justice happen. If we live an in a fair and equitable society then occasionally those miscarriages will happen to privileged white boys as well as underprivileged black boys.

I am troubled by your disingenuous claim to be troubled.

No, really, I am troubled! Don't they teach the concept of "metaphor" in, like, 9th grade?

steveconga, I think you misread his comment. I referred to the Charles Stuart case and then another case whose name he couldn't remember, where a woman and her boyfriend drove her car into a lake with her children still strapped inside. The name he couldn't remember was Susan Smith.

On the left side of the blogosphere, white males are often painted with one brush.

You mean like how we all hate Yglesias, Klein, Atrios, Bowers, JMM, etc.? Shit is hard, inn't?

Well,talking out my ass here, but seem I remember feminists & GLBT dealing with the politics and psychology of "privilege" so much it is almost a discipline. Butler, Foucault. Lukacs?

Should be a wealth of material out there.

Al is deeply troubled indeed. All of the Als have been troubled.

Don't they teach the concept of "metaphor" in, like, 9th grade?

Ninth grade?!?! What kind of shit education did you get, Al? I now find your (presumed) support for charter schools acceptable and even well-informed.

"who in all genuineness seem to believe that what went down there is emblematic of broad-based social problem

What an utter straw man.

Seriously - the evidence for this is...? Nothing, as far as I can tell. It exists solely in Matthew's mind.
Posted by: Al on April 16, 2007 11:29 AM"

Al, you're Exhibit A for what Matt is talking about.

"I am troubled by your disingenuous claim to be troubled.

No, really, I am troubled! Don't they teach the concept of "metaphor" in, like, 9th grade?
Posted by: Al on April 16, 2007 12:17 PM"

He could have chosen any metaphor. He chose a lynching. That does bring up questions of why he would specifically choose a lynching as his metaphor.

The system, it seems to me, pretty much worked.

Given that the defendents had to spend (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of dollars, and the prosecutor clearly engaged in despicable conduct that should result in him being disbarred for life (viz, withholding key evidence from the defense), I disagree that "the system worked."

And of course the same thing is true when the Innocence Project gets someone freed: the system didn't work there, either.

In both cases, the State used enormous amounts of power in an attempt to smash someone who was innocent. The fact that large amounts of resources external to the State were marshalled to ensure justice prevailed is some solace, but doesn't IMHO mean "the system works".

One newspaper account I read recently of the vindication of the lacrosse players has them wondering what must happen to people who are unjustly accused who don't command the kinds of resources they were lucky to.

"But the idea that middle-aged white men as a class are being persecuted, well, well, not so much."

Don't you know Al Sharpton is keeping the white man down?

On the left side of the blogosphere, white males are often painted with one brush.

You mean like how we all hate Yglesias, Klein, Atrios, Bowers, JMM, etc.?

Not to ask a stupid question or anything, but does our blog host consider himself white?

I think this is the mirror image of the mentality that the main issue of the Amanda Marcotte controversey was what jerks Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin are, and how important is was to "stand up" to them and not let them dictate actions.

Some people brought up stagnant wages earlier. That is probably a big part of the problem. When you factor in the popularity of the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly, the threat of terrorism, the presence of well-off minority groups (Jewish-Americans, Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans and others), the popularity of non-white cultural markers (everything from rap to the greater popularity of sushi) and all of this hoopla over illegal immigration, we are looking at the danger of a radicalized democracy and democratic authoritarianism. The Bush authoritarians, as outlined by John Dean, are probably a result of this.

Exactly so! That's why, when Jesse Jackson referred to New York as "Hymietown," it was appropriate to refer to the criticism he received as "a Holocaust."

Doin the Sharpton shuffle.... Anytime there is an issue of race, anytime at all, attack Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. This is part of MY's complaint-- the discussion is always about the failure of those two, not the larger issue at hand. The fact that Jesse Jackson said a deplorable thing has almost nothing to do with someone using the term lynching to describe what happened to Imus.

Matt: that NRO post is hilarious! Thanks for the tip. I can't stop reading this weird construction:

"And as bad as Imus's racist recklessness was, no one so far has died—unlike the consequences of riot and rampage from Newsweek's bogus accusation that guards had flushed a Koran down a Guantanamo Bay cell toilet. "

Someday, when I'm an editor for National Review, I'll keep a running tab of the body counts attributable to my competitors' journalistic malfeasance. Would make a nice promotional flyer. As long as I don't mention my own...

Not to ask a stupid question or anything, but does our blog host consider himself white?

If he has any integrity at all, he at least considers himself "pasty," and I think that's close enough for government work.

Also don't forget Andrew Sullivan. He's always ragging on The Man. He must hate white Christian men.

I still don't buy the claim that all of these middle-aged men feel themselves persecuted--and that that is what is motivating responses on Duke and Imus. I would like to see some genuine evidence. In a way, I find objectionable that middle-aged men are treated as some kind of homogeneous category that can be talked about as they are in various posts.
I watched the Imus situation unfold on the cable at home every day last week and for someone who likes Imus (and there are many in this country who do), it had to me the feel of a public lynching. As I have probably said above, I have no problem with the end result, only the process. I wouldn't expect those who don't know, watch, or care about Imus to feel similarly.

Reality Man,

The Victor Davis Hanson post to which Matthew linked discussed two specific items - Duke and Imus; it did not say that these items are emblematic of any larger problem. I would like to know what is the evidence that anybody thinks these two examples are "emblematic of broad-based social problem" in which people are keeping white, middle-cass men down. The VDH column doesn't present any such evidence, and neither does Matthew. That, to me, is the definition of a straw man - Matthew is knocking down an argument that nobody (including VDH) is making.

The reason for the media blitz was simple: it's an irresistable news story.

Come on: a bunch of priveleged white-boy jocks who apparently thought they could get away with raping a black stripper, because they were athletic stars -- that spin is an irresistable starting-point for a news story. It's sensational, it gets people talking on both sides, it sells copy.

Add to that already-present tensions between the atheltic team and other parts of the university and it makes for brilliant theater, instant ratings, and a potential tv movie starring someone who used to be a teen idol on a now-cancelled popular tv series.

Not to mention that this kind of story is almost guaranteed to have people immediately taking sides -- I know when I first heard it I assumed those guys were guilty, because they were JOCKS, man... and it didn't help their case that they were immediately defended by a bunch of people who were defending them for no other reason than they were male, white, and star athletes.

But just because bigots leapt to their defense for all the wrong reasons it doesn't follow that there were no RIGHT reasons to defend them, and it looks like that those guys really were screwed over by a prosecutor who was ridiculously overstepping his authority. I don't think the system "worked as intended" so much as the system "pulled itself back from the brink at the last minute." And those guys will be tarnished with this anyway -- there are still people who will always believe they actually WERE rapists whatever the evidence suggests (I have seen posts stating as such).

The right wing is trying its damndest to make political hay out of this. The reason the right wing constantly characterizes itself as being victimized en masse is because one of the quickest, easiest and strongest ways to promote group unity is to characterize your group as being oppressed -- that's how the truly blatantly racist organizations (like the Aryan nation, etc.) "whip up the base," after all.

The defendents really don't deserve being made poster children of the right wing... it'd be nice to see a counter to it that doesn't demonize or dismiss the defendents out of hand... but how do you do that without politicizing them more? I have no fucking clue.

I wouldn't have thought that there was anyone in America who thought that, or even could think that. Sweet Jeebus.

I just meant to say that I think ARE consequences when the media goes nuts over a story. The unspoken result of the furor over Duke Lacrosse (Imus as well, probably) is to popularize some variant of "white guys don't get a fair shake."

The single most salient thing about the Duke situation is what a terrible job the prosecutor did.

the popularity of non-white cultural markers (everything from rap to the greater popularity of sushi)

While I would doubt that anyone keeps official statistics, it's certainly my impression that sushi is popular mostly among whites. And it's not secret that white suburban youths comprise a big chunk of the market for rap music.

As I have probably said above, I have no problem with the end result, only the process.

Part of this is simply a function of the tabloidization of news in America. It's just a variant of what The Editors described in the "Where's The White Woman At" post. I'm not even sure you can properly "blame" the media, which is responding to market incentives.

The plus side, I think, is that people increasingly take said process as a farce.

Conservatives think that in the social realm, everything is a zero-sum game: if blacks get more rights, then whites will get fewer rights; if more women work, fewer men will work.

Liberals understand that in the real world, there is no take-away when an oppressed group gains rights and opportunities; and that, in fact, white males benefit economically from being in a more integrated and equal-opportunity society.

PaulD wrote, I am astonished by anyone who says that in the Duke case that the system pretty much worked.

I said the same thing just now (which I posted before reading your comments).

I am also very troubled by the character of the public lynching of Don Imus--though, hell, it is time for him to re-invent himself so I am not particularly troubled that he was terminated.

The only way in which I can see the Imus affair as "troubling" is perhaps a missing sense of proportion. That is, it's reasonable to argue that Imus' crimes were miniscule compared to other things that go unpunished (e.g., current war crimes committed by Bush et al).

(IMHO the most troubling thing about Imus wasn't he himself, but rather the fact that many establishment figures were willing to go on his show. Probably because they liked the free publicity.)

The issue is not that the folks like me perceive that we as a class are being persecuted. Rather we see the stupidity and hypocrisy that continues to plague liberal democrats.

To the extent that liberal democrats are human, and humans of all stripes are often stupid and hypocritical, this is plausible.

To the extent that you're claiming that liberal Democrats are more hypocritical than (1) the Christian Right, (2) the non-theocratic wing of the Republican Party, (3) so-called "centrists, (4) so-called independents, you're wrong (and laughingly so).

The only real outstanding case of hypocrisy I see these days is party leaders kowtowing to the neoconservatives and AIPAC and not ruling out an unprovoked attack on Iran. But the only folks who have a record entitling them to morally attack the Dems as hypocritical on that one are various Dem and non-Dem liberals, and perhaps some antiwar right-wing libertarians.

I wake up every morning wondering: "why has my country been devastated by the plague of the George Bush administration-- which I consider the most evil presidency in US history?" And the answer I keep coming to is the way in which the Clinton administration and a kind of liberal democrat--and its character and hypocrisy--has significantly contributed to what has happened to us.

Huh?

The most you can lay at the feet of Clinton et al. is the emasculation of the party by making it move to the right and essentially stand for nothing. That hardly makes them responsible.

Re Bush, there are clearly two responsible groups:
(1) Christian conseratives
(2) Wealthy people (and their ideological supporters) who wanted their taxes cut.

I think that a major problem is that "liberals" speak only to other "like-minded" souls and don't engage others who view things quite differently than they do (bizarre reading of events).

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

It's also difficult to communicate with people who take the Bible as the literal Word, and who think that there's evidence of true connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Sure, it's important as political tactics go to try to do so, but to go as far as blame is ludicrous.

When I first heard the Duke accusatiions, I was 98% certain that they were a crock. And those like Dan Abrams who looked at the stuff way back saythat it was a crock. That it took over a year for this issue to get resolved is a great travesty.

Sure, it's a travesty. And I feel bad for those guys. OTOH, this kind of stuff goes on all the time. Look into the bogus day-care prosecutions over the past couple of decades. Some of those people are still in jail, AFAIK.

You just have to watch O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or any of several others for awhile to know that Matt's mostly right. And from time to time someone will come out and say some version of "The only ethnic group which is still fair game is the white heterosexual Christian male."

This isn't legal blogging, I know, but Hitler's speeches during the Thirties were saturated with images of persecution and victimization, and Polish and Czech provocations were alleged in justification of the invasions of those two countries.

" I find it strange that anyone ASSUMED these guys were guilty."

Actually I went to Duke in the 90's and felt it pretty likely that the woman was telling the truth. It would be hard to find a group of more self-entitled and mutually-protected white guys than at "The Harvard of the South", who had absolutely zero respect or compassion for the horde of minorities that kept the place running for a few bucks over minimum wage. It was the most depressing place I've ever lived, and the racism was evident daily. If it turned out that a frat house had a basement furnished with the bones of raped and murdered black women, I would not have batted an eye. The surprising thing would have been if someone had done something about it.

aimai wrote, Susan Smith who accused some fictitious black guy of carjacking her children when it was she herself who drowned them. Lets never forget her republican background and how easily the public and th epolice lapped up her story--for a while.

I don't disagree with that, in general, and I agree completely with John Emerson's remarks about Gingrich and Smith above.

OTOH, my recollection is that, at the time, the cops actually got onto the right track rather quickly in the Smith case. I could be wrong, but IIRC it was about a week. I remember thinking at the time that what probably happened is that they questioned Smith as part of their investigation, and started noticing something in her demeanor or answers.

So, on that one, I think the cops did a good job. Whether the media did another matter.

Charles Stuart, OTOH---I lived in the Boston area at the time, and the cops did a lousy job on that one.

Al, you are worse than Hitler.

That's just a metaphor Al, so you have no reason to be upset. Only Hitler would be upset by the use of a metaphor, Al.

At the national level the Republican party is basically resentment-fueled identity politics for white males, and it has been for a while. Just raw anger at displacement from what was previously culturally central position. The actual positions they take are all secondary to the main goal of restoring the authority of traditional male power. This is why they consistently support policies with no rational justification whatsoever; the justification is secondary to the cultural message sent.

Of course, all of this was triggered by the idiocy of far left politics in the late 60s / early 70s, when the left launched a vicious attack on the white middle class, especially men. There were many prominent voices on the left back then who were pushing the most dangerous and foolish excesses of "revolutionaries" and "radicals". Not much resulted from that kind of thing, because even at its peak the far left had little power in this country. But the reactionary backlash has been a bitch.

Mysticdog wrote, Actually I went to Duke in the 90's and felt it pretty likely that the woman was telling the truth.

I initially figured she was telling the truth, but the claims that the other woman (a stripper, IIRC) disagreed with with much/most of her story didn't fit.

The lessons to be learned:
(1) People really should be judged as innocent unless you really know enough about the details to have a reason to think them guilty. Media attention to cases is often not that illuminating and just there to sell copy.
(2) Prosecutorial power can be abused, and this abuse can harm anyone, though the chance is much higher you'll be harmed if you're poor.
(3) The solution to (2) is to improve the system so that prosecutorial abuses are prevented.

Unlike so many other commentators, i'm not quite willing to make the Duke University men's lacrosse team of 2006 out to be a bunch of heroes and martyrs for men's rights and other favorite conservative causes. (And no, i'm not going to give you a bunch of links to show what i'm saying. You've got google. Use it.)

What so many people seem to forget, is that based on the undisputed facts of the case, as well as the history of the Duke men's lacrosse team, we're not exactly dealing with a group of heroic young men.

Who can forget, for example, Ryan McFadyen's email, sent shortly after the stripper party, on a university email account:

"Tomorrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over," the message read. "However there will be no nudity. i plan on killing bitches as soon as the walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off."

The message goes on to read that he would find the act sexually gratifying.

McFadyen was allowed to continue pursuing his education at Duke. As i noted at the time, there isn't a corporation in the US that would have kept someone on the payroll if they used company email to post a message with such language. And i'm pretty sure that if someone were to write something like that on Facebook or MySpace, and high school or university administrators learned about it, they'd be forced to take disciplinary action, if only to protect their own sorry asses from the inevitable lawsuits they'd be exposing themselves to. (Discerning readers will recall that it was the publication of McFadyen's email that was the precipitating event in both Coach Pressler's "resignation" and the cancelling of the 2006 Duke lacrosse season.)

A lot of people tried to make the case stand for larger issues of racial, gender, and class politics that the United States has, to be honest, never fully confronted. At least in my lifetime. Generally, i've argued against that interpretation, and i still believe that, in its essence, this was a case about one woman and a small group of men. But to the extent we're going to use it as a jumping off point for discussions about gender and privilege, i think that McFadyen's email, and Duke University's subsequent response, marks the point at which social privilege becomes more than an abstract concept.

Further, people also forget that the entire party from which this incident grew, was in itself an act that should have precipitated a response from Duke University and its athletic department, regardless of whether or not a sexual assault occurred. When you are fortunate enough to represent Duke on the athletic field, you are also representing Duke in all of your interactions with the greater, surrounding Durham community. Serving alcohol and hiring strippers to entertain your underage teammates is a violation of community standards (not to mention a crime, albeit one that is seldom prosecuted) and should have been considered by Coach Pressler, AD Joe Alleva and Dick Brodhead to be a violation of University standards as well.

MQ wrote, Of course, all of this was triggered by the idiocy of far left politics in the late 60s / early 70s, when the left launched a vicious attack on the white middle class, especially men.

Plausible, but not likely.

I think the simplest and correct explanation behind the shift in political power in this country (and one which isn't exactly unpublicized) is that the Democratic Party, starting with LBJ, really began to defend the rights of African-Americans in the South. The coalition in the Democratic Party unravelled, and the previously Democratic South became the Republican South.

Let's not forget---in one gubenatorial election in Louisiana, David Duke won a majority of the white vote.

barry ragin wrote, Unlike so many other commentators, i'm not quite willing to make the Duke University men's lacrosse team of 2006 out to be a bunch of heroes and martyrs for men's rights and other favorite conservative causes.

Who among liberals posting here is saying they're heros or martyrs?

The claim is pretty simple: while they might or might not have the character defects you claim they have, the issue is were they guilty of the crime of which they were accused. The evidence is that they weren't. And there's 100% convincing evidence that Nifong withheld crucial info from the defense. AFAIC, he can rot in jail for eternity for that (though I'm sure he won't). Doesn't matter whether the victim of such prosecutorial abuse is white, black, purple, rich, poor, ...