race, class, and the health care proposal
Lately there have been a spate of charges and counter-charges regarding race in politics and, especially, criticisms of the Obama Administration. First came Gates-Gate where the race issue was admittedly hard to avoid. Then came posters showing Obama as Heath Ledger as the Joker with the word "socialism" in the background--a stretch, I think, but perhaps with some hidden racial overtones. Now Paul Krugman, in the NY Times, has written that the angry behavior of opponents of Obama's health plan is driven by "the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement," part of the "angry white voter" strategy that dates back to Richard Nixon. (Comments on Krugman's column were closed by 9:15 this morning, suggesting that the angry people may have included some Times readers.)
I may be missing something, but I find it awfully hard to see racial overtones in the health care debate. What I see, instead, is incipient class warfare: the 70 or 80 percent of people who are more-or-less-satisfied with their health care are not particularly anxious to share it with the 10 or 20 or 30 additional percent (depending on the proposal) who would benefit from the Administration's proposals. This isn't particularly admirable, but it was surely foreseeable, particularly as the entrenched groups are concentrated and organized and the challengers are diffuse and demoralized. (Where is Mancur Olson when you need him?) That Obama has been unwilling to take on the largest entrenched interest (unions) by calling for taxes on excessive health benefits, choosing instead to pretend that we could have expanded coverage without any significant sacrifice, has not helped things either.
The surprising thing to me is not the behavior of the health care opponents but that the Administration's supporters have not been better prepared for it. Part of it, I think, has to do with the education and sensibility of what passes for today's political left. People have been doing identity politics for so long that they seem honestly unable to confront what is essentially an economic or class issue. The marxist nostrum that everything is about class has been turned on its head: everything is ultimately about race, gender, or personal identity, even when at first it seems otherwise. So liberals talk about Skip Gates or Heath Ledger while conservatives rally people toward their basic economic interests. In elite circles the former may triumph. But as a long term political strategy, it's nothing short of bizarre.
posted by michael a. livingston @ 9:15 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Similarly, Phillip Kennicott, a writer for the Washington Post, claims the Obama/Joker posters expose racial fear and stereotypes as the Batman film is titled “Dark Knight,” and since Heath Ledger portrays an urban make-up wearing, inner city villain. The writer argues that comparing President Obama to the Joker reflects whites’ fear and belief that blacks are unpredictable and prone to violence. This argument fails for six reasons. First, as far as I can tell, Heath Ledger was white. Second, “Dark Knight” likely refers to Batman’s dark costume and his somewhat dark, afflicted character—not the Joker. Third, there is no indication that the Joker either resides, or was born in the inner city, or that an inner city or ghetto even exists within Gotham. If anything, the Joker was raised in an affluent neighborhood. The Joker’s character, in its latest form, is essentially that of an anarchist. My experience is limited, but I have found that only guilt from being a well-fed child of the bourgeoisie is capable of fueling the need to engage in anarchy—not the frustration of growing up in the inner city. Fourth, even if there is such a thing as urban makeup, by virtue of what is the Joker’s makeup urban as opposed to rustic or suburban? Furthermore, the idea that a style of makeup can refer to inner city men is puzzling. Other than transvestites, I doubt many inner city men wear makeup, and I am unaware of any inner city transvestite who aspires to resemble the Joker. Fifth, it seems odd to suggest that a reference to the Batman flick exposes whites’ fear of blacks, whom they supposedly view as being prone to violence, given that towards the end of the film, a virtuous African-American inmate takes a non-violent measure to sacrifice his own life for the lives of law abiding citizens in the adjacent ferry. Finally, if President Obama’s comparison to the Joker exposes a racial stereotype, is it a stretch to say his comparison to JFK exposes the stereotype that African-American males lack family values given Kennedy’s affair with Marilyn Monroe?
I liked this post and the comment.
The surprising thing to me is not the behavior of the health care opponents but that the Administration's supporters have not been better prepared for it. Part of it, I think, has to do with the education and sensibility of what passes for today's political left. People have been doing identity politics for so long that they seem honestly unable to confront what is essentially an economic or class issue.
That makes sense. I've wondered at how unprepared people have been at the town hall meetings. Even on the details, as if details, the class aspects and other things were nothing that they expected to have matter.
It has been puzzling as anything, to the extent I've wondered if some of the critics might possibly be right, even if it did not seem likely, because what other reason could there be for how bolixed the responses have been.
That is a great insight.
Post a Comment
<< Home