Don't Vote for the Half-Breed

Somebody sent me this Kathleen Parket column a few days ago all outraged and I scanned it and didn't quite get the outrage. Here's the lede:

That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

When I read this in a fog, not realizing who Parker was, I just assumed that was a set-up for a column about racist opposition to Barack Obama and skipped past the rest. But no! Parker is endorsing Fry's allegedly non-racist sentiments here. And yet, how could sentiments get any more clearly racist than by making explicit references to alleged deficiencies in Obama's bloodlines? Parker later cashes out the concept more thoroughly as "It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots." Again, blood equity? Heritage? That's not racist code words, she's just saying directly that Obama lacks the appropriate ancestry to be President and also that in virtue of his ancestry he's probably lazy.

Jon Chait notes the similarity to some traditional tropes of anti-semitism, "a device that's historically been used to deny the possibility that rootless, cosmopolitan Jews can be full members of a society." More broadly, it nicely dovetails with the anti-immigrant sentiment currently blossoming on the right as we learn that people with unduly recent roots abroad lack what it takes for full-bloodedness. How disgusting.

Comments

"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein McCain" has an nice ring to it.

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 5:21 PM

This is only surprising to white(-ish) folks who maintain that racism exists only in the abstract, or that it's just "a few bad apples".

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 19, 2008 5:23 PM

Kathleen Parker has been using bigoted dog whistles for years. I am glad somebody is finally on to her.

Posted by Nate Hale | May 19, 2008 5:26 PM

More proof that the GOP believes the nation's leaders should be selected by birthright rather than by merit. It explains the Bush administration and GOP Congress rather well, I'd say. It also explains the GOP support of a virtual monarchy for the past 7+ years.

Sorry, Ms. Parker, but I disagree with you wholeheartedly because, unlike you, I'm an American. Anybody who uses ancestry as a yardstick for qualification of anything has no interest in the ideals of our great country. They are, in fact, decidedly un-American. And yes, that means I'm questioning your patriotism and love of this nation.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 5:26 PM

It might be bad, but "his father was a foreigner" isn't IMO racist. (And it's not a ridiculous concern.)

If his father were Swedish, and you had the same statement--would that be racist?

Posted by SamChevre | May 19, 2008 5:27 PM

If his father was Swedish, nobody would be making the same statement.

Posted by too many steves | May 19, 2008 5:29 PM

If his father were Swedish, and you had the same statement--would that be racist?

Probably not, but it would be just as stupid.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 5:30 PM

wow, that makes this Jew sick in the stomach.

Posted by andrew engel | May 19, 2008 5:31 PM

I think there might be a miscontruing of what "blood" here is supposed to mean. I think it is being used by Parker in the sense of "blood and soil," and the implication is simply that Obama lacks appropriate volkish qualities to be president.
Wait . . . nevermind.

Posted by Jack | May 19, 2008 5:36 PM

It might be bad, but "his father was a foreigner" isn't IMO racist. (And it's not a ridiculous concern.)

That's not the sentiment Parker's expressing. She's not saying that Obama's loyalties are in question because his father was a foreign citizen--though, pace Sam, that would be a ridiculous concern here. She's positing a race of true Americans and excluding Obama from it on the basis of his impure blood.

Think about it for a while and you'll see the difference. Here's a clue: John Adams' father was a foreigner.

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 5:37 PM

It does appear to be more literally xenophobic than racist, but I also highly doubt that if Obama's father had been white this xenophobia would have shown up.

And in any event, of course it IS a ridiculous concern.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 5:39 PM

A vote for McCain is a vote for more lebensraum. And can anyone have enough lebensraum?

Posted by Helter | May 19, 2008 5:42 PM

Incidentally, I believe Woodrow Wilson's mother was English.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 5:43 PM

Oops, correction: according to Wikipedia Wilson's mother was born in England, but to Scottish parents. So I guess that makes her British, but not necessarily English.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 5:46 PM

No surprise Matt. Just pull up youtube and search West Virginia. You'll see people who are life long Democrats say they won't ever never ever vote for Obama. Why? They get this glazed over look and mumble about not knowing who he is. "Who is he? We just don't know him?" One woman repeats the claptrap about him being a foreigner or secret muslim. Finally they start asking point blank if they'll abstain from voting for him because he's black and some will frankly answer yes. And of course they'll vote for McCain over Obama. Nevermind policy, he's white! They know him!

Posted by freddiemac | May 19, 2008 5:49 PM

Sometimes it's amusing to see what the right thinks it can get away with. It will take a while before it sinks in, I think.

Posted by mpowell | May 19, 2008 5:51 PM

The reason that this is racist, is that it specifically designed to be a cover story to legitize racism

Posted by George | May 19, 2008 5:56 PM

Oops, correction: according to Wikipedia Wilson's mother was born in England, but to Scottish parents. So I guess that makes her British, but not necessarily English.

But were they highland Scots? Was their blood fortified by the ancestral struggle of the MacClellan clan?

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 5:57 PM

We should keep in mind that Parker's asinine notions of bloodlines and heritable traits, not to mention the similar bullshit that Michael Medved recently farted out about "American DNA", are only possible because they don't understand anything about genetics yet they are quite positive that they understand it well enough to pen and peddle such dreck. But unfortunately their misconception is not uncommon. Too many Americans believe in a Lamarckian kind of heredity wherein Grandpa's heroism on Guadalcanal somehow seeped into his DNA and got passed on to his descendants——including grandchildren who now use that non-existent non-heritable trait to justify torture and illegal occupations of foreign lands from the comfort of their Cheetoh-littered desk at NRO because, you know, there's just no way that the grandchildren of the Greatest Generation could possibly do evil things.

This is the standard defense that these people employ time and again. We beat the Japs and the Nazis. Because I was born in the U.S. and so were my forebears (as far back as 1900), I am the descendant of a hero, and therefore I too am a hero. So, even if I invade a nation without cause and use torture to coerce false statements from random brown people picked up off the battlefield, I am still a hero and nothing I do is wrong because, you know, back in '44 my grandpa got his ass shot off by Gerry. IT'S IN MY BLOOD, see. I've got me some American DNA and it's more powerful than anything.

Posted by tinisoli | May 19, 2008 5:58 PM

I love the fact that she bases her theory on the fact that white Southerners have on many occasions fought in wars to defend Americans ideals, often on the side of the U.S.

Posted by Gabriel | May 19, 2008 6:05 PM

i too only read a tiny percentage of this column (life being too short), but my initial thought was "ye gods, the kinds of people she thinks have this american bloodline are, in many cases, descendants of people who committed treason against the united states by supporting the confederacy."

Posted by howard | May 19, 2008 6:10 PM

Yeah, I mean he wasn't even born in a US state. Can you really trust someone like that? Oh we are talking about McCain right? I mean seeing as he was born in Panama and all.

Posted by dwightkschrute | May 19, 2008 6:27 PM

The odious Miss Parker so impressed the Beltway with her refined ideas and reasoning that the young Fred Hiatt thought well to blast her ravings at the top of the Post's op-ed section. Parker: disgusting. Washington Post: criminal.

Posted by bobbo | May 19, 2008 6:39 PM

MY:
Did you catch Glennzilla's column the other day? It made pretty clear that Parker is a racist.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 19, 2008 6:41 PM

it's not even a dogwhistle. it's racism plain as pie. she might as well have written, Don't vote for him, he's a wog, they aren't pure like us.

Posted by M | May 19, 2008 6:42 PM

Some Obama fans, like Roger Friedman in the NYT, keep claiming that he should be President because he's some sort of post-national cosmopolite, like, oh, say, Roger Friedman.

Not just whites Americans but black Americans have some qualms about that image. Obama has written that he has encountered similar feelings among African-Americans. That's a big reason why he devoted so much of his career before 2004 to trying to shed his image as an exotic in order to appear "black enough" to blacks on the very parochial South Side of Chicago. African-American concerns about the preppie from paradise's authenticity still cost him severely in his thrashing at the hands of Congressman Bobby Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary.

(In reality, Friedman is full of it: Obama only has much experience with Indonesia and Kenya, and he says he's lost touch with Indonesia. His career has been centripetal.)

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 19, 2008 7:05 PM

Yuck. That article was pure...what's the word? Oh yeah: Garbage.

She starts out quoting the racist lad (let's not split hairs, that's what he is. Just saying you're not racist isn't license to spout a bunch of crap about 'bloodlines' and 'heritage') from Appalachia, and then in the second paragraph says "Whether Fry was referring to McCain's military service or Obama's Kenyan father isn't clear..."

If it wasn't clear, why didn't she ask him? She's a reporter, and this was purportedly from an interview. It makes sense later on though: she was getting a soundbite out of the kid so she could riff on for another few hundred words about how right he is. Is this just a pen name for Ann Coulter?

Posted by mullingitover | May 19, 2008 7:22 PM

You're not a real American unless all of your forefathers fought on the side of a rebellious and treasonous army trying to destroy the Union.

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 7:25 PM

"Kathleen Parker"? That's not a very Jewish name. I question her qualifications to write for this "Jewish World Review" site.

Posted by Ben | May 19, 2008 7:38 PM

So why is the Jewish World Review publishing this racist garbage?

Posted by eric brewer | May 19, 2008 7:40 PM

Not often you see disgust expressed here--disgusting indeed, and I would have thought very un-American.

The GOP is very desperate. It was regrettably obvious in retrospect that Obama would pull all of this to the surface. It has to be faced before it can be surmounted, or transcended or whatever. Ah well as Matt has been reminding us for a many months, and others are starting to wake up to, there is never been a better year to face it down.

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 19, 2008 7:42 PM

Jewish World Review is an online publication that prints all sorts of opinions. They publish Parker but also David Broder, Nat Hentoff, Clarence Page and about a hundred other writers. Not all are Jewish.

Her column is distributed by The Washington Post Writers' Group --- not exactly a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Parker reports in her column that such a mindset exists and that it may well be gaining popularity. How was she being a racist?

Posted by Benny | May 19, 2008 7:55 PM

Jewish World Review is an online publication that prints all sorts of opinions. They publish Parker but also David Broder, Nat Hentoff, Clarence Page and about a hundred other writers and cartoonists. Not all are Jewish.

Her column is distributed by The Washington Post Writers' Group --- not exactly a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Parker reports in her column that such a mindset exists and that it may well be gaining popularity. How was she being a racist?

Posted by Benny | May 19, 2008 7:56 PM

Matt, you need to get out more and start reading Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/17/parker/index.html

Posted by jim | May 19, 2008 7:57 PM

Jewish World Review is an online publication that prints all sorts of opinions. They publish Parker but also David Broder, Nat Hentoff, Clarence Page and about a hundred other writers and cartoonists. Not all are Jewish.

Her column is distributed by The Washington Post Writers' Group --- not exactly a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Parker reports in her column that such a mindset exists and that it may well be gaining popularity. How was she being a racist?

Posted by Benny | May 19, 2008 7:57 PM

Jewish World Review is an online publication that prints all sorts of opinions. They publish Parker but also David Broder, Nat Hentoff, Clarence Page and about a hundred other writers and cartoonists. Not all are Jewish.

Her column is distributed by The Washington Post Writers' Group --- not exactly a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Parker reports in her column that such a mindset exists and that it may well be gaining popularity. How was she being a racist?

Posted by Benny | May 19, 2008 7:58 PM

I realize Chait is basically on the side of righteousness here, but can we please stop with the anti-semitism-uber-alles mindset that looks at a plain-as-day racism and says "anti-Semitism!" Parker's saying that Obama's not American because he's black. Her vomitousness has nothing to do with the Jews.

Posted by Marshall | May 19, 2008 8:06 PM

Parker says:

"It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically — and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century — there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity."

"What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.

Republicans more than Democrats seem to get this, though Hillary Clinton has figured it out. And, the truth is, Clinton's own DNA is cobbled with many of the same values that rural and small-town Americans cling to. She understands viscerally what Obama has to study."

She somehow inplies that HRC's DNA is made of the stuff that made America great while Obama's does not.

While this is nonsense on the face of it, it might be noted that Obama has some interesting American DNA of his own:

"In a reference to his American ancestry, Obama writes "while one of my great-great-grandfathers, Christopher Columbus Clark, had been a decorated Union soldier, his wife's mother was rumored to have been a second cousin of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy."

Clark was actually Obama's great-great-great-grandfather, according to Reitwiesner's research and census data available at ancestry.com. A 1930 census document lists Clark, 84, living in the same El Dorado City, Kan., household as a 12-year-old great-grandson, Stanley A. Dunham. Dunham was Obama's grandfather."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te.obama02mar02,0,3453027.story

-

Posted by Danny C. | May 19, 2008 8:16 PM

I should have included this in my previous comment:

Christopher Columbus Clark, GGGGrandfather of Barack Obama:

http://genforum.genealogy.com/civilwar/messages/24532.html

--

Posted by Danny C. | May 19, 2008 8:22 PM

This may make more sense (though still be just as racist) if viewed through the lens of Obama not having enough American DNA.

I don't know if Parker came across this pseudoscience or something, but it might explain her openess about it. She thinks she can defend it with a worthless understanding of genetics (which, most certainly, is indifferent to nationality).

Posted by Tom | May 19, 2008 8:33 PM

Benny:

Parker reports in her column that such a mindset exists and that it may well be gaining popularity. How was she being a racist?

Her column starts with a young gentleman presenting a bigoted opinion. If she merely wrote that, or added that she has personally found that to be a common sentiment in WV, that would be reporting.

However, Ms. Parker goes on to write an apologetics for potential voters who may feel as the young West Virginian. She justifies and validates "feelings" that are as solidly based as vapors.

Racists like Josh Fry and Kathleen Parker don't think of their opinions as racist, because they think they are drawing conclusions that logically flow from "facts."

Mr. Fry may or may not be well enough educated or seen enough of the world to know any better, while Ms. Parker's bio suggests that she has had the opportunity to know what she's doing.

Posted by cmholm | May 19, 2008 8:40 PM

It is about more than racism. It is also about those whose families have not been here for 200 years.
It's also about people like me. I am white but, half American. My mom is from france and so, I am not a real American either. I would also be concidered unfit to lead.
It is ignorance like this that needs to be pushed back. Since Bush got into office, it seems that racism and anti everything except for what is acceptable by the KKK, has been the thing in this country.
Uber patriotism complete with shallow symbols. Those who don't fit the bill are terrorists or deficient in some way.

Posted by vwcat | May 19, 2008 8:57 PM

Of course this is a racist sentiment. Does anybody think that the Republicans would not vote, in droves, for Arnold Schwarzenegger in a blink of an eye if he could be President? Difference: African vs. German "Blood".

Posted by Joyncassie | May 19, 2008 9:29 PM

By the way, I wonder if Matt is reconsidering his defense of Clinton's phrase "hard-working Americans, white Americans." Compare that to the phrase Matt singled out: "It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots." Clinton and Parker are using the same sorts of code words (and in Clinton's case, not even always code words--she just says "white"). Generally, this is all the same exclusionary logic (dividing Americans into the real Americans versus the not-real Americans), and I hope Matt understand now that Clinton's choice of phrases was probably not at all innocent.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 9:54 PM

NATIVISM seems to be the bias at work here. Exacerbated by race and a Semitic name.

Posted by ranjit | May 19, 2008 9:55 PM

Matt-

As a proud West Virginian I would like to ask that you point out somewhere that the "race is influential in your vote" question is not significantly different in WV as compared to other primary contests. 2 in 10 voters said the exact same thing in Pennsylvania and Texas for example. Yet we read headlines on the front page of the NYT that "Clinton wins WV, race an important factor." Why is it important in WV and not Pennsylvania when exit polls there showed the same level of racist sentiment by voters?

I realize that this isn't the point of the post, but your highlighting of anecdotal quotes from misinformed West Virginians only further perpetuates the negative stereotypes of my good state.

Posted by interested party | May 19, 2008 10:17 PM

Matt-

As a proud West Virginian I would like to ask that you point out somewhere that the "race is influential in your vote" question is not significantly different in WV as compared to other primary contests. 2 in 10 voters said the exact same thing in Pennsylvania and Texas for example. Yet we read headlines on the front page of the NYT that "Clinton wins WV, race an important factor." Why is it important in WV and not Pennsylvania when exit polls there showed the same level of racist sentiment by voters?

I realize that this isn't the point of the post, but your highlighting of anecdotal quotes from misinformed West Virginians only further perpetuates the negative stereotypes of my good state.

Posted by interested party | May 19, 2008 10:18 PM

For what it is worth, I agree Appalachia, including West Virginia, is getting a raw deal in the coverage of this contest. It frustrates me greatly that people frame the question as why Obama is doing so poorly in Appalachia, as opposed to why Clinton is doing so well in Appalachia. And I think the reason Clinton is doing so well in Appalachia has a lot more to do with Bill Clinton than Obama, meaning Democrats in Appalachia like Bill Clinton a lot, and are voting for Hillary as a result.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 11:03 PM

I also highly doubt that if Obama's father had been white this xenophobia would have shown up.

On the contrary: if his father had been white, it would be part of a (dubious) narrative of how America is the only country on earth where the son of an immigrant can aspire to be president. Especially on the GOP side. You don't think that Mel Gibson would be embraced if he sought office under the sign of the elephant?

Of course, Parker is just part of the Sailer Boy school of neo-bigotry, where you wrap a turd in pseudo-scientific cellophane and a pseudo-sociological ribbon and publish it in a supposedly respectable publication.

The whole 'Appalachia, America's Last Bastion Of Racism' thing, though, has been worked up out of the clustering of the primary schedule, with the complicity of some in the Clinton campaign, but also the media.

Travelling reporters, having had a narrative seeded to them, are dealing with a heavy confirmation bias, which means that a coincidental encounter with a town's Most Racist Democrat becomes a hinge for a story. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Most Racist Democrats of those towns were actually seeking out said hacks in the knowledge that 'I ain't prejudiced, but if he's president, the blacks will come steal my truck' is destined for page A3.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 20, 2008 12:21 AM

On the contrary: if his father had been white, it would be part of a (dubious) narrative of how America is the only country on earth where the son of an immigrant can aspire to be president.

Perhaps that's what they would have said, but the skin tone of Obama's father gives us an opportunity to find out what they really think about those of us who are children of immigrants.

Posted by Tyro | May 20, 2008 12:32 AM

I wonder if Kathleen Parker is Steve Sailer in drag - and if so, if he/she has ever fucked him/herself while in costume.

If so, I hope it hurt.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 20, 2008 1:03 AM

Is there anyone who is not related to Barack Obama?

Posted by Steve V | May 20, 2008 1:23 AM

How open

How disgusting? Yes, very. But frankly, to me less disgusting than the usual dog-whistle hypocrisy, whereby the racism is floated out there, but with some half-way figleaf of plausbile deniability.

And, you know, the subjective condition of my stomach and yours is of little consequence in the great grand scheme of things. Much more important is that the racism is so much more open. And this is a good thing. I don't see the openness as any sort of indication that racism has grown more acceptable in this country. I see it as the inevitable consequence of the fact that we have an undeniably, openly, black candidate. The racism doesn't have anywhere to hide. They can't do the dog-whistle thing, because their base needs to be told openly and forthrightly that they don't cotton to Black Supremacy, because what they are incapable of seeing as anything but open Black Supremacy is what's on the menu this year. The anti-racist vote in this country is larger than the racist vote. Finally this year they won't be able to get both votes. They'll have to make a choice, and they always choose evil.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | May 20, 2008 1:54 AM

No doubt blackness has something to do with it, differently for different people, though I don't get for a minute all the yammering about the Jews upthread. But his father WAS a Marxist official in a foreign country. Granted that there'd be less talk about this if he were white, but do you really think NO ONE would have a problem with this? It would still be an issue.

Posted by ERM | May 20, 2008 1:56 AM

ERM writes: "But his father WAS a Marxist official in a foreign country. Granted that there'd be less talk about this if he were white, but do you really think NO ONE would have a problem with this? It would still be an issue."

Why would it be an issue, exactly? What is the relevance?

George H. W. Bush's father was a Nazi sympathizer - did that become an issue when he or Dumbya ran? I must have missed all of the controversy on that one. How much less of an issue should Obama's father's past be, considering the disconnect between the two?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 20, 2008 2:13 AM

Does anybody think that the Republicans would not vote, in droves, for Arnold Schwarzenegger in a blink of an eye if he could be President? Difference: African vs. German "Blood".

Schwarzenegger is of Austrian descent.

Posted by novakant | May 20, 2008 4:19 AM

"Is there anyone who is not related to Barack Obama?"

Literally, no.

"I don't know if Parker came across [Medved's] pseudoscience or something, but it might explain her openess about it"

The funny thing is that it doesn't even work within that wildly dubious framework (there's an actual, if entirely uncertain, idea or two in there, but it's so slathered over by racist drool as to be basically invisible, and quite disgusting to touch). If anything, Obama should be the preferred candidate, if one's going by which alleles of the D4DR gene we can imagine someone inherited.

" In a country that is rapidly changing demographically — and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century — there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.""

The actual country represented by "once-upon-a-time America" was, of course, chock-full of neighbors who had arrived last year, quite possibly with far less exposure to American customs and ideals than all but the most provincial and isolated new immigrant has today. Of course, the 'real americans' of that time (ie, Northwest European-descended, or wishing to pretend so) were all about hatin' on the new immigrants then, too. Downright traditional.

But anyway, now we know why people were flipping out about their kids reading Harry Potter. It wasn't the wizardry, it was the filthy little mudbloods.

Posted by Dan S. | May 20, 2008 7:29 AM

"Why would it be an issue, exactly? What is the relevance?"

Beats me. Ï'm not sure exactly why it's an issue now. Frankly, I find the entire political culture of this country almost beyond reason. But I am aware of how it works and doesn't work, and I'm pretty sure that if Obama's father had been a minister in, say, the French government, it would be a big deal in some circles.

Posted by ERM | May 20, 2008 8:26 AM

If a young man in South Carolina said, 'I hope Obama wins, I want to see one of us in there for a change,' would that be worthy of moral dissaproval? If blacks vote 90% for Obama -- as they do -- are they racists? And please spare me the sophistry about 'privilege'.

Posted by Mitchell Young | May 20, 2008 8:49 AM

I'm pretty sure that if Obama's father had been a minister in, say, the French government, it would be a big deal in some circles.

Actually, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue at all that Barack Obama's father was a government official. Everyone seems more concerned that is father was black and foreign.

But maybe I'm reading a different set of wacky right-wing blogs and op-eds than you are.

Posted by Tyro | May 20, 2008 8:52 AM

I am sure some people would indeed make a big deal out of a Democratic candidate who had a French parent (minister or otherwise). That is because the French have become symbolic of another component of this overarching exclusionary logic (one more cultural than ethnic, in this case). Of course if it was a Republican, no problem.

Indeed, I just remembered that George Allen's mother was born in Tunisia, and was of Jewish/Italian/French descent. And yet I don't seem to recall a lot of people claiming George Allen lacked the necessary "blood equity" to serve as Senator or potentially President. Curious.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 9:40 AM

Parker makes a point in her column that I haven't seen mentioned here, which is essentially that all of these folks see their country as swept up in a see of change and multiculturalness -- and don't see that as the American way.

Which to me is just as horrible, and perhaps worse, than all of the bigotry and nativism and racism. It underscores how far some quarters are willing to go to prevent progress. Everyday the United States takes a step closer to becoming a more progressive nation, and people like Parker are incredibly frightened of that possiblity. Of recognizing that they are considered racist in the mainstream, that blood lines nd skin color have no place in the future framework.

Anyone attempting to defend Parker is a) dense or b) wrong.

Posted by CHoward | May 20, 2008 10:02 AM

Kathleen Parker = Aryan Princess

Posted by Northern Observer | May 20, 2008 10:29 AM

"If blacks vote 90% for Obama -- as they do -- are they racists? And please spare me the sophistry about 'privilege'."

African-Americans didn't start voting 90-10 for Obama until the Clinton campaign broke out the hoods and sheets in South Carolina. So no, African-Americans voting 90-10 against a candidate they view as blowing the racist dog whistle loudly and proudly is not "racist."

(By the way, this ignores the fact that the "racist" African-Americans to whom you are referring have voted for white candidates probably dozens of times during their voting lifetimes. The same cannot be said about the racist hillbilly trash who have not and will not ever vote for an African-American.)

(Also by the way, what on earth does "spare me the sophistry about 'privilege'" mean?)

Posted by Joe | May 20, 2008 12:03 PM

Sarkozy is the son of an immigrant, so the "only nation on earth thing" wouldn't work.

I agree, if only his father had been a white non-American, this purity of the blood nonsense wouldn't come up. By Parker's definition I myself am unpure, having an immigrant parent. But by her unspoken definition, I'd guess my immigrant parent being fair-skinned would win me entry into the full-blooded club after all.

Benny, the problem is that she agrees with and supports the sentiment. This is hardly an unbiased report about a possible voting trend; it's a justification for those embarrassing interviews of the "I've heard he was born in the USA, but you can just tell that isn't really true" stripe.

Joe summed up my feelings on the racial voting patterns front.

And sympathies upthread on Appalachia getting smashed while its most racist citizens hunt for tv cameras: Not for the first time in this race has a 60/40 difference been turned into a 100/0 narrative.

Posted by Deborah | May 20, 2008 12:21 PM

If his father were Swedish, and you had the same statement--would that be racist?

If his father was Swedish she would not have made the same statement.

Posted by libarbarian | May 20, 2008 1:05 PM

Indeed, I just remembered that George Allen's mother was born in Tunisia, and was of Jewish/Italian/French descent. And yet I don't seem to recall a lot of people claiming George Allen lacked the necessary "blood equity" to serve as Senator or potentially President. Curious.

Well...George Allen had the advantage of a football hero (WOO!) father on one side, not an anthropologist xenophile mother, to "balance things out". I guess...also, senator from VA is just not going to be scrutinized anywhere near as minutely as the president. No one will be...it's a totally sui generis process.

Posted by ERM | May 20, 2008 1:41 PM

ERM,

Or maybe it is just that Allen was a white Republican, so there was no reason for these people to try to make an issue out of his mother.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 2:11 PM

Mitch - at the risk of sounding like a sophist, I'll try to answer your question. One reasonable set of premises justifying Blacks voting for Obama because he is Black is:
1. Blacks have been subject to injustices that Whites have not been subjected to.
2. As a Black man who maintains ties to poor overwhelmingly Black areas, Obama instinctively understands this better than a white person.
3. From that understanding comes an ability to effectively address those injustices.

You might disagree with these premises but at least you should see how a reasonable, non-racist Black person could accept them.

A more ambiguous case would arise if a white candidate who maintained closer ties to Black communities lost 90% of the Black vote to an Alan Keyes-type candidate. But seeing as we have nothing remotely close to that in this election, you can't use the overwhelming Black support for Obama as prima facie evidence for racism.

Posted by baradir | May 20, 2008 2:30 PM

"African-Americans didn't start voting 90-10 for Obama until the Clinton Campaign broke out the hoods and sheets in South Carolina."

I cannot let this remark pass without a comment. Joe, you are so full of hate. The only racism card dealt in SC came from Obama. If you are referring to the President Clinton's fantasy remark, it has nothing to do with the KKK. He was referencing his Iraq position.

Reading the remarks on this thread, it's obvious that Obama's side enjoys playing the racism card. The more you dwell on this, it sends a message to the non-believers that his candidacy is all about him and less about their needs.

Posted by EWard | May 20, 2008 2:59 PM

Benny asked:

Jewish World Review is an online publication that prints all sorts of opinions. They publish Parker but also David Broder, Nat Hentoff, Clarence Page and about a hundred other writers and cartoonists. Not all are Jewish.

Her column is distributed by The Washington Post Writers' Group --- not exactly a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Parker reports in her column that such a mindset exists and that it may well be gaining popularity. How was she being a racist?

Benny, my dear little pupik. It's a question of purity tests. If Obama isn't American-blooded enough to be President, is someone named "Kathleen Parker" Jewish-blooded enough to write for a publication named "Jewish World Review"?

If that's an absurd question - of course she should be allowed to - shouldn't the writers and readers of "Jewish World Review" know that purity tests based on bloodedness are an incredibly bad idea?

Posted by Ben | May 20, 2008 9:09 PM

Sent her a letter. Still disgusted.

Ms. Parker,

Unwittingly I think, you have written a classic racist tract. If Henry Ford was still around, I'm sure he would employ you as a regular columnist at the Dearborn Independent. I have read your column about a dozen times now and I believe it to be one of the most disgusting, retrograde defenses of racism, xenophobia, and plain ignorance written by an American in the last 75 years.

You seem to suggest that a particular bloodline or skin color entitles you to a better understanding of what it is to be an American. That strikes me as just about the least American sentiment one can possess. I understand that our base instinct is to be suspicious of "the other". It has ever been thus. But the creation and ongoing perfection of our Constitution is directly opposed to the fears you defend and encourage in your article.

By your insipid calculation of the seniority of bloodlines defining the virtue of the people, were the founding fathers less heroic because fewer of their fathers had died on this soil? Are the sons and daughters of immigrants who make up a disproportionate number of our fighting forces less heroic because they can't trace their heritage to the Mayflower? Should they be considered less than full Americans? Should they rightly be looked upon with ignorant suspicion?

I hope to keep a copy of your article around for my children to read someday (they are currently two and four years old). I want them to know that the most dangerous forms of racism don't come from the uneducated, rather from the truly ignorant.

Posted by brad | May 20, 2008 11:44 PM

Are the sons and daughters of immigrants who make up a disproportionate number of our fighting forces less heroic because they can't trace their heritage to the Mayflower?

Actually, rural and white Americans make up a disproportionate number of our troops, and of deaths in Iraq.

@Baradir

That is one possible set of explanations for blacks overwhelming support for Obama. 'Racism' is another. Likewise, I'll bet Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Antonio Villaraigosa in the last LA mayoral election -- that too is 'racism' by the criteria of this discussion. The west side of LA has a heavy concentration of both Jews and Jewish politicians -- hmm, do you think that Jews might just vote for 'their own kind' -- is that racism/ethnic voting? Does it help the Kennedy clan that Massachussets has a bunch of Irish Americans? Well, the HillBillies of West Va are an ethnic group too and they see middle class, methodist Hillary as closer to being one of their own.

I look at Obama as a person that used blacks of Chicago as a stepping stone to power, for example, joining Rev. Wright's church because it was one of the largest and most influential around. Adopting black dialect English when it suits him, though obviously raised in a white home, in Hawaii, that is not his natural manner of speach.

Finally, all of you who think this is somehow an indication of the rise of an American reich -- here are some words of a founding father.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. [emphasis mine]

That's federalist number 2 by John Jay, diplomat, opponent of the slave trade, New York merchant, first chief justice. Obviously the US has expanded to incorporate more dissimilar groups -- but up until quite recently it was taken for granted that the US did have a core culture and core people. This attempt on both libertarian right and 'progressive left' to completely overwrite the demography and culture of the country is bound to meet resistance, Parker seems to be one of the first mainstream columnists to put her head above the parapet.

Posted by Mitchell Young | May 21, 2008 5:57 AM

Are the sons and daughters of immigrants who make up a disproportionate number of our fighting forces less heroic because they can't trace their heritage to the Mayflower?

Actually, rural and white Americans make up a disproportionate number of our troops, and of deaths in Iraq.

@Baradir

That is one possible set of explanations for blacks overwhelming support for Obama. 'Racism' is another. Likewise, I'll bet Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Antonio Villaraigosa in the last LA mayoral election -- that too is 'racism' by the criteria of this discussion. The west side of LA has a heavy concentration of both Jews and Jewish politicians -- hmm, do you think that Jews might just vote for 'their own kind' -- is that racism/ethnic voting? Does it help the Kennedy clan that Massachussets has a bunch of Irish Americans? Well, the HillBillies of West Va are an ethnic group too and they see middle class, methodist Hillary as closer to being one of their own.

I look at Obama as a person that used blacks of Chicago as a stepping stone to power, for example, joining Rev. Wright's church because it was one of the largest and most influential around. Adopting black dialect English when it suits him, though obviously raised in a white home, in Hawaii, that is not his natural manner of speach.

Finally, all of you who think this is somehow an indication of the rise of an American reich -- here are some words of a founding father.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. [emphasis mine]

That's federalist number 2 by John Jay, diplomat, opponent of the slave trade, New York merchant, first chief justice. Obviously the US has expanded to incorporate more dissimilar groups -- but up until quite recently it was taken for granted that the US did have a core culture and core people. This attempt on both libertarian right and 'progressive left' to completely overwrite the demography and culture of the country is bound to meet resistance, Parker seems to be one of the first mainstream columnists to put her head above the parapet.

Posted by Mitchell Young | May 21, 2008 5:59 AM

It is clear from last night's commentary that Obama is afraid of a revote in MI and FL. He believes that he might lose, if it happens. How ironic that a candidate promoting unity and racial harmoney has denied the voting rights of millions of voters.

The DNC and Obama cannot expect any Democrats to "fall in line" when they have destroyed the public's trust.

Matt writes about Linda Douglass joining the Obama campaign. Welcome to the Titanic!!!

Posted by nobama | May 21, 2008 2:23 PM

President Barack Obama. Get used to it.

Posted by gobama | May 22, 2008 9:12 AM

Ben said: shouldn't the writers and readers of "Jewish World Review" know that purity tests based on bloodedness are an incredibly bad idea?

Hell, yeah! That was the part that truly floored me - I wasn't going to say anything until my mouse drifted over the link. Then my jaw dropped to the ground.

Someone should hit the JWR editors over the head with a very large clue stick and ask them, "Didn't your ancestors spend centuries on the wrong side of such purity tests?"

And this isn't just a Nazi comparison; my ancestors immigrated to the U.S. from what was then Russia before WWI to escape pogroms, which were hardly a new thing even then.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 22, 2008 9:39 AM

Talk about elitism, eh? No consideration for the American Indian, of course they are not 'murikan enough... and they don't count.... So if she's not a pure and simple racist what is she? I'll venture she is just inbred....

Posted by casin | May 22, 2008 9:42 AM

"Does anybody think that the Republicans would not vote, in droves, for Arnold Schwarzenegger in a blink of an eye if he could be President? Difference: African vs. German 'Blood'."

Schwarzenegger is of Austrian descent.

Given the history of Austria and specifically the Anschluss, it's a distinction without a difference.

And Schwarzenegger is not merely "of Austrian descent": he was born and raised in Austria and immigrated to the US when he was 21. Obama was born and primarily raised in the US by an American mother. Yet people like Parker consider Schwarzenegger to be a real American but think of Obama as "not a full-blooded American."

Nope, no racial coding there.

Posted by Mnemosyne | May 22, 2008 10:40 AM

"Blood equity" IS racism. It's the definition of racism.

Posted by pbg | May 22, 2008 11:00 AM

"Blood equity" IS racism. It's the definition of racism.

Posted by pbg | May 22, 2008 11:00 AM

My American roots go as deep as they can possibly go without being Native American.

And my roots tell me Kathleen Parker is a bigoted shithole.

Posted by True Blue | May 22, 2008 11:43 AM

The Emperor Has No Clothes!

Posted by nobama | May 22, 2008 12:48 PM

This is so frightening because it illustrates how very far from the real values that our founders held - that people are entitled to a fair playing field, that no one is entitled to rank or political power because they inherited it, that there is no such thing as a divine right of kings and that success is based on merit, rather than heredity.

It is specifically mentioned in the constitution that no one is to inherit a title or office and no one can accept a hereditary title or emollient while in office or serving in any capacity of government.

Posted by BevD | May 22, 2008 2:46 PM

John McCain is considering Boby Jindal, a first generation Indian-American as one of his potential VP candidates. BJ was born Hindu and converted to Catholicism in his teens. He has no American blood of any color. He does share the deeply social conservative belief system of the south!

RT

Posted by rt | May 22, 2008 4:18 PM

John McCain is considering Boby Jindal, a first generation Indian-American as one of his potential VP candidates. BJ was born Hindu and converted to Catholicism in his teens. He has no American blood of any color. He does share the deeply social conservative belief system of the south!

RT

Posted by rt | May 22, 2008 4:19 PM

John McCain is considering Boby Jindal, a first generation Indian-American as one of his potential VP candidates. BJ was born Hindu and converted to Catholicism in his teens. He has no American blood of any color. He does share the deeply social conservative belief system of the south!

RT

Posted by rt | May 22, 2008 4:19 PM

Black Americans can trace their roots on this continent further than most other Americans (except indigenous peoples). We have fought in every war, bleed, died. We have loved America, even when America didn't love us. So what is full blooded?

Posted by dee dee walker | May 22, 2008 6:11 PM