Racism vs Reverse Racism
Rush Limbaugh thinks Sonia Sotomayor is a “hack” and worse, “Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist.”
This seems very confused. Being a “reverse racist” can’t be similar to being a “racist,” it needs to be the reverse of being a racist. Limbaugh clearly just thinks Sotomayor is a racist. She hates white people. For a Latina to hate white people isn’t “reverse” racism, it’s racism. Reverse racism would be if you had a white person who hates white people. It would be like racism, where you hate people of other races, but in reverse.
At any rate, I’ve made this point a million times, but it’s fascinating to me the kind of double standard conservatives apply to these issues. You never hear Rush Limbaugh decrying everyday racism against non-whites in the United States. You never hear him recounting an anecdote about an African-American man having trouble hailing a cab or being followed by a shopkeeper. He doesn’t do stories about how people with stereotypically “black” names suffer job discrimination. He doesn’t bemoan the fact that the United States has an aircraft carrier named after a fanatical segregationist. Which is fine. Everyone’s interested in some things and not in others. Rush isn’t interested in racism. Except that like most conservatives, he’s actually very interested in allegations of racial discrimination against white people. He sees the defense of white interests as integral to his political mission. And he hates identity politics.
83 Responses to “Racism vs Reverse Racism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I know it’s ridiculously naive, but I was actually quite shocked to hear Rush on the radio describe Sotomayor as “utterly unqualified” and “utterly incompetent”.
This isn’t even conservative talking point mongering, it’s simple, sheer fraud and deceit.
I enthusiastically encourage the Republican Party of the Dixie Confederate Uprisin’ to keep up the good work.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
How about fewer posts about what rightwing lunatics are saying and more about the opinions of liberals.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
For good or ill, the term “reverse racism” is now well-established. Per wikipedia, reverse discrimination is “the practice of favoring members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of members of a historically advantaged group”, with reverse racism being this notion as applied to racial groups.
And yes, it is a confusing phrase when taken literally, but it isn’t exactly the first such phrase.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Well then, when someone says that a latino woman would make a better judge then a white male, what would you call it?
What if someone said that a white male would make a better judge than a latino, what would you call that?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Agree with DTM. Also, what does it matter when Limbaugh decries racism? If a minority decries racism against minorities, but not against majorities, should we stop listening to them? Of course not.
Which is not to say that Limbaugh is actually saying anything worth saying. This isn’t racism, or reverse-racism. But Matt’s point doesn’t make any sense – except, I guess, to make fun of Limbaugh?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Also, has Matt gotten more and more shrill/sensationalist/etc since the election? Or is it just me? I used to find his posts insightful and not incredibly dogmatic, but not so much anymore. Calm down, Matt! Bring back the old you!
May 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Actually, Rush call Sotomayor “a racist.” He said you could soften it if you wanted to, but left open the possibility that you just keep it simple and directly apply the racist tag to Sotomayor.
He called the President of the United States a “reverse racist,” which is fine and dandy. No problem there.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
DTM, “reverse discrimination” is a commonly-used phrase, but “reverse racism” isn’t. You can’t make the leap from one usage to the other. The former refers mainly to a policy that may or may not be legal or justified. But no one is ever justified in being a racist, however more understandable it might be if you were yourself a victim of racism (i.e., it’s wrong to be prejudiced against random white people, just because one or some treated you unfairly). It hardly needs to be said that there isn’t a shred of evidence that Sotomayor holds any such hostility towards random white people.
Rush clearly doesn’t mean that Sotomayor hates white people, because he doesn’t have a scrap of evidence for it. And if she did, plain old “racism” would be the right word for it. What Rush is trying to do is to tar any discussion of diversity or mitigation with the brush of bigotry, and that’s why he had to resort to the clumsy coinage.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I agree with many of the above commentators. Also, I don’t see what the relevance is of a person’s own race as to whether they are a plain old racist vs. a reverse racist. If I’m a black person who hates black people, or a white person who hates white people, I don’t see how that makes me less of a racist than if I belong to a different group. Calling this “reverse racism” is kind of silly.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Judd,
IF someone said that a latina is defacto a better judge than a white male it would be disturbing, but since Sotomayor didn’t say that we’re not concerned
Really if this nonsense and the Ricci case is all that you trolls can come up with She should cruise to confirmation.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I, too, second what DTM says. Idiomatic and technical expressions can’t always be analzed compositionally. “Reverse racism” means “discrimination against white people” in the context of the US. Mr. Limbaugh’s point in saying that it “softens” the accusation to call it “reverse racism” is just decrying the unfair euphemism in the first place. His overall point is the same as Matt’s: that racism is just racism, and if Sotomayer is a racist it should count against her.
If Rush Limbaugh is inconsistent in his complaints about racism (such that he prefers to draw attention to incidents of anti-white racism), what of it? There are plenty of interest groups that take it upon themselves to draw attention to incidents of racism exclusively directed at members of their own ethnic groups. This is problematic in the case of white people for historical reasons, so the development of a(n effective) NAAWP is not politically expedient at the moment. It is just short of inevitable, therefore, that any counterbalancing defense of white people against racist attacks will take the form of a commentator pretending to be universally concerned with racism against all people. When Mr. Yglesias calls the NAACP racist, he will have earned the moral authority to condemn people like Limbaugh who are likewise choosy about the targets of their anti-racism efforts.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
It’s very odd that Limbaugh seems to be more aware than Yglesias of progressive theories of racism.
Racism isn’t merely hating someone because of their race. Racism is a worldview and a set of institutions, political and cultural, which validate the historical and present oppression of one culture by another. People hating white people because they’re white isn’t racism, it’s just bigotry.
While unsatisfactory for numerous reasons—the very least being that it doesn’t conform to Yglesias’s idiosyncratic literal parsing of the expression—“reverse racism” exists as an attempt to distinguish simple bigotry against the empowered from actual racism.
Yglesias’s post here is something I would have expected from Limbaugh and his ilk—a ridicule of the expression “reverse racism” as an unnecessary obfuscation of the supposed fact that bigotry against, say, whites or any other traditionally empowered group is racism, plain and simple. That’s the message over and over again from the whites like, ironically, Limbaugh, whom Matt correctly points out are far more concerned about “racism” which affects them than they are with real racism.
So, thanks, Matt, for reinforcing the white racist message that there’s little or no difference between true racism and mere bigotry against whites. Good job, you hack.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Well then, when someone says that a latino woman would make a better judge then a white male, what would you call it?
I would call it “a distortion of what Sotomayor said.”
May 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
While unsatisfactory for numerous reasons—the very least being that it doesn’t conform to Yglesias’s idiosyncratic literal parsing of the expression—“reverse racism” exists as an attempt to distinguish simple bigotry against the empowered from actual racism.
ROFL at the idea that Limbaugh intended such a distinction, or wouldn’t scoff at one were it urged upon him.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“Also, has Matt gotten more and more shrill/sensationalist/etc since the election? Or is it just me?”
No, it’s not just you. Snarky political commentary just doesn’t take a lot of brains. For confirmation, go visit Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit, etc.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
A quote from a post by MY earlier today. I posted this on that thread by I think it is pertenant to this post as well.
I had assumed that the way this was going to go was that conservatives would complain that Sotomayor is too liberal, then progressives would try to imply that conservatives were opposing Sotomayor because she’s too Latina, and then conservatives would whine.
So let me get this straight. You thought that the Republicans would complain that Sotamayor was too liberal. This seems unassiablible, as every opposition party always complains that every nominee is to extreme. Harry Reid suggested Roberts as a potential moderate choice for Bush, then Bush nominated Roberts, and Reid said he was too conservative. That is just the way it is.
So, the Republicans suggest she is too liberal. They would do this to any nominee regardless of race or gender, making it a textbook case of unbiased behavior. Then you would call them racists based on this claim of too liberal, which we have shown would be a totally untrue, baseless, and frankly outragous and morally disgusing claim. You say they would whine about it.
You have on many occasions said that the problems with the Republicans is that they are to sensitive to the non-problem of false accusations of racism. Then you plot to falsely accuse them of racism and discribe their inevitable reaction to such behavior whining.
P.S. I am not saying I think that Sotomayor is racist. Based on what I have seen so far she seems qualified in all the ways I care about and while I do not like her I won’t really like anyone that Obama nominates so I don’t have any major problem with confirming her. That said I do think her ‘wise latina’ line is a little racist, though nothing to get worked up about. I honestly care a lot more about her ‘courts make policy’ line.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Racism isn’t merely hating someone because of their race. Racism is a worldview and a set of institutions, political and cultural, which validate the historical and present oppression of one culture by another. People hating white people because they’re white isn’t racism, it’s just bigotry.
No, that’s the definition that a certain strain of academics and activists would like to impose. It has not, however, gained much traction outside that strain, and Yglesias’ usage is the more widely accepted one.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think this is true. Most interest groups committed to fighting racism are fighting for social justice. As a result, you see organizations like the NAACP getting involved in general poverty issues and the like. You also see such groups speak out when something bad happens to other ethnic groups. That is definitely not what Limbaugh cares about. He cares nothing about racism against whites or social justice generally. He is just a racist trying to find a dogwhistle.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Sotomayor is not a “reverse” racist.
She is a racist. “Reverse” has nothing to do with it.
Look, we know that the Democratic Party has always been the party of racists. The Democrats opposed the Voting Rights Act at a higher rate than Republicans. The Democrats are the party of Bull Connor and KKK’er Robert Byrd. And now they are the party of the racist Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.
And Matthew seems to be an apologist for racism. Sad.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I like people who are so incredibly offended by racism – much more opposed to racism than YOU, you liberal racist – that they only manifestation of racial injustice than can find to decry is that too many black people are being admitted to college.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Racism isn’t merely hating someone because of their race. Racism is a worldview and a set of institutions, political and cultural, which validate the historical and present oppression of one culture by another. People hating white people because they’re white isn’t racism, it’s just bigotry.
That sounds like a good definition of systemic racism, but a bad definition of regular old racism imo. The difference between racism and bigotry is that racism is a subset of bigotry. Its like the difference between the a dime and money.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Hi, I’m Al.
I don’t know what the term “has always been” means, and think that history ended some time in the early 1960s.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Well then, when someone says that a latino woman would make a better judge then a white male, what would you call it?
What if someone said that a white male would make a better judge than a latino, what would you call that?
Well, it depends on who is smarter, more careful, which one has the wider range of life experiences and insights. I wouldn’t, as a general rule say that one is necessarily better than the other.
On the other hand, I would say its far more likely for a white male to be promoted to a position of incompetence. God knows, I’ve seen no shortage of those. I would also say that in situations where the Latino Woman is the superior candidate, the usual rule is that the inferior white male is picked.
What do you call that?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
…and then, when he saw the McCain sticker on my car…sob!…didn’t I mention he was a large black man, with black shoes and black jeans and a black sweater?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
DTM, “reverse discrimination” is a commonly-used phrase, but “reverse racism” isn’t.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “common”. Wikipedia says:
A quick Google experiment got 422,000 hits for “reverse discrimination”, 129,000 hits for “reverse racism”. That does in fact make “reverse discrimination” MORE common, but “reverse racism” isn’t exactly Rush’s personal invention.
So personally, I stand by my claim that the term “reverse racism” is well-established at this point.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Do you think that Sonia too is finally proud of America?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I’m sure it’s just some weird coincidence that the same places and people and types of people who used to support the South’s segregationist Democrats now support the Republican Party of the Dixie Confederate Uprising.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Actually, wouldn’t reverse racism be when people of other races hate you?
In that case, Rush Limbaugh is reverse racist
.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Second.
Stop feeding the blob.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Matt, I think you’re missing the rhetorical point of the term “reverse racism,” which is to imply that there is only one direction in which racism ought to go.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
MattY is being especially doltish today. I mean, he’s usually a dolt, but recently he’s really outdone himself.
Regarding the second paragraph, Rush doesn’t really need to do stories about those issues because they’re already eagerly covered by the MSM and by sources like the SPLC and MattY’s own CAP. Those sources are always willing to turn horrific incidents to their own political advantage, attempting to show whites in a bad light in order to obtain race-based power. The other side is not given much of a hearing at all in the MSM; that’s why Rush and others provide the other side of the story.
Also, recall that Obama lied about Rush.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“ROFL at the idea that Limbaugh intended such a distinction, or wouldn’t scoff at one were it urged upon him.”
I wouldn’t piss on Limbaugh if he were on fire, but if you were to actually read what he said, you’d see that he intended exactly such a distinction. He went on to make the claim that since leftists say that you can’t be racist without being empowered, then because Sotomayor might be a Justice of the Supreme Court, that claim is invalid in this case.
Limbaugh only used the term “reverse racism” so that, once he has acknowledged that leftists claim that racism against the empowered is oxymoronic, he could then point out that Sotomayor would be powerful as a Justice.
He intended to set up a false dilemma for progressives: either admit that racism doesn’t depend upon the context of the power relationship, or admit that this argument no longer applies now that (he claims) racial minorities are self-evidently empowered because they are, for example, being appointed to the SCOTUS. He knew exactly what he was doing in using that term and was hoping that progressives would take the bait and accept one of the two choices that he forced upon them—as Yglesias stupidly did.
“No, that’s the definition that a certain strain of academics and activists would like to impose. It has not, however, gained much traction outside that strain, and Yglesias’ usage is the more widely accepted one.”
More widely accepted among those who know little about racism, or who have thought little about racism, or who have a vested interest equating bigotry against the empowered with institutionalized oppression of the disempowered…or all three. Which are you?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
More widely accepted among those who know little about racism, or who have thought little about racism, or who have a vested interest equating bigotry against the empowered with institutionalized oppression of the disempowered…or all three. Which are you?
I’m among those people who aren’t bell hooks. You’ll have to try much, much, harder if you want anyone outside of Third World Studies departments to adopt your Racism = Prejudice + Power equation
May 27th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Just for the record we’ve got more than 1 multi-billion dollar warship named after an ardent segregationist. Heck, just among the Nimitz-class carriers there’s the Carl Vinson as well as the John Stennis.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
And he hates identity politics.
Au contraire, what he does is quintessential identity politics. Just not the sort of identity politics that you like.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Hee hee.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Look, we know that the Democratic Party has always been the party of racists. The Democrats opposed the Voting Rights Act at a higher rate than Republicans. The Democrats are the party of Bull Connor and KKK’er Robert Byrd. And now they are the party of the racist Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.
Yes, it’s a well known fact ideological composition of political parties never changes. In fact, it is mystically encoded in the name of the party itself. This is why the base of the Republican Party remains the Northeast, and it’s key plank is emancipation.
Why, just look at the recent Presidential campaign. As we all know, John McCain went on and on about keeping slavery out of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and Obama just talked about his opposition to the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I don’t care what words you use, but anybody who claims that prejudice against privileged groups is- NOT OK, that would be a dishonest misconstrual of the point I’m making – but a social problem of a remotely comparable order with prejudice against disadvantaged groups, is a stupid asshole.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Well, it depends on who is smarter, more careful, which one has the wider range of life experiences and insights. I wouldn’t, as a general rule say that one is necessarily better than the other.
I agree. But that is not what she said, she did indeed generalize by saying group A would make better decisions than group B. Not that big a deal, for sure, but, like JD said, certainly a little racist.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Look, we know that the Democratic Party has always been the party of racists. The Democrats opposed the Voting Rights Act at a higher rate than Republicans.
Seriously, Al, you’re not fooling anybody with this crap.
Two words: Southern Strategy.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“that they only manifestation of racial injustice than can find to decry is that too many black people are being admitted to college”.
Actually too few blacks are admitted. One reason is that disproportionate numbers of Asians and Jews go instead. Of course, if somebody came along and said fewer Asians and Jews should be admitted your fucking head would explode.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Oh, and of course since those platforms are encoded in the names, things change completely if you write them in runic or hieroglyphs.
Democrats suddenly become the party promoting open discourse with the barbarians from the West as well as blowing up the moon, while Republicans become the party of freely-contracted group marriages and strong anti-Visigoth policy.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
1. Can anyone point to a court decision of Sotomayor that somehow reflects this horrific “reverse racism”? Don’t say Ricci, because that appears to be a Title VII question muddied by the fact that noone was promoted in that case.
2. Not to beat a horse that ought to be dead, but when you actually read the ENTIRE SPEECH she gave, you’ll discover that she really wasn’t arguing what you think she was.
3. Clearly, a lot of GOP operatives, still fuming that McCain didn’t decide to make Rev. Wright the centerpiece of his campaign, have decided to make Judge Sotomayor their new Rev. Wright.
4. It’s amazing that Al still keeps beating the drumbeat that the Democrats in the 60’s were KKK members, opposed Civil Rights, etc. Al, remind me again WHICH political party came up with a strategy to pander to Southerners pissed off about Civil Rights in order to win National Elections (hint: it wasn’t the Democrats). Al, remind me again what party does Senator Sessions, who has complained that the Civil Rights Act was “intrusive”, belong to? Which party had a Senatorial candidate who hung a Confederate Flag in college and used a racial slur during a press conference?
4. Finally, explain to us, conservatives, how waging an overtly race baiting campaign against Sotomayor is going to help you attract more Latino and women voters to your cause?
Enjoy living in the fucking wildnerness.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Well, judd, shall I recycle some of the admiring quotes from conservatards about the unique African-American perspective Clarence Thomas would bring to the bench?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said on C-SPAN Wednesday morning that Judge Sonia Sotomayor would be confirmed by the United States Senate and become a member of the Supreme Court.
Well, duh. Democrats will soon have 60 votes. Of *course* she’s going to be confirmed. Elections have consequences.
I, for one, am OK with it. She’s a racists, to be sure. And it’s never good to have a racist on the Supreme Court. OTOH, as a political matter, it’s nice to have it so obvious that the Democrats are the party of racists (and apologists for racists). Moreover, she’s probably the weakest of the high profile candidates. So it’s all good.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Well, judd, shall I recycle some of the admiring quotes from conservatards about the unique African-American perspective Clarence Thomas would bring to the bench?
Sure. Would you like me to also recycle some of the quotes from the left that disparage Thomas as “inauthentic” because his political views don’t match up with what the left “thinks” african-americans should think?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Why do you imagine that would bother me? It doesn’t invalidate anything I’ve said or have any stake in, whereas the right’s praise for Thomas shows the likes of you to be fucking hypocrites when you attack an out-of-context quote from Sotomayor.
Idiot.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Rush Limbaugh is a racist asshole.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
SRSLY now: What’s with the rightwing trolls? This is a blog for progressive policy wonkery…I don’t get it.
Al, is your life that empty? I mean, I suppose I could spend my day trolling the Smashmouth fanclub webforum trying to point out how much their member’s taste in music sucks, but I don’t.
Why do you think that is, Al? Oh yeah. That’s right: I have a fulfilling life. Also, I’m handsomer than you, you ugly fuck.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Well, duh. Democrats will soon have 60 votes. Of *course* she’s going to be confirmed. Elections have consequences.
I agree this is obviously true, but saying obviously true things isn’t a given in politics. In this case, by admitting this obvious truth, it takes away some of the argument for at least prolonging the process. And so I suspect what Grassley has concluded is that a prolonged process isn’t likely to be in his political best interests.
Moreover, she’s probably the weakest of the high profile candidates.
I’ve seen a lot of “conservatives” comforting themselves with this thought. It will be interesting if it turns out they are wrong–I don’t yet have a personal opinion on Sotomayor’s jurisprudence, but I wouldn’t rule out yet the possibility that she could actually be a fairly influential Justice in the long run. Among other things, she will be the only former District Court judge on the current Court, and if used correctly, I think she could leverage that background quite a bit.
Incidentally, just in general there is a good chance that Sotomayor could be more influential than Justice Souter, representing a net gain for the “liberals” on the Court. See here, for example:
Professor Rossum on Souter versus Sotomayor
Rossum’s basic point is that Souter was a reliable vote but not much of an opinion-writer for the “liberals”–what Rossum calls being a bench player instead of a starter. Accordingly, Rossum concludes:
So we’ll see if Al’s complacence is in fact warranted, but I am getting the feeling that Justice Sotomayor is going to be a lot tougher than people like Al are hoping.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
In this case, by admitting this obvious truth, it takes away some of the argument for at least prolonging the process.
I don’t see how the Republicans can ask for a prolonged process. They don’t have the votes. Republicans have no leverage in the situation at all. She will get hearings and a vote in the judiciary committee when Democrats want one. She will get a vote in the full Senate when the Democrats want it. And she will get 60-something votes (at least) for confirmation whenever the Democrats want it.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
This is the most perplexing thing to me. I suppose for Rush, it’s just about money. The more hateful he is, the more money he makes. It’s the genuine party hacks that I don’t understand. There isn’t anyone withholding their vote because Republicans are not bigoted enough. The disingenuous attacks on Sotomayor’s ability and the not-so-thinly veiled racism just lose votes from the only demographic group that Republicans can possibly woo to put them back in the majority.
I was never one to lend much credence to the idea that Republicans were going to disappear any time soon, but now I’m not so sure. They seem absolutely insistant upon pursuing a coalition that can never again be a majority. The demographics are getting worse for them, and they’re narrowing their prospective coalition anyway. It wouldn’t surprise me if it soon became advantageous to lose the baggage of the Republican label in order for a new conservative coalition to achieve a majority.
It might even be effective for a new party of economic conservatives, moderate religious traditionalists, and hawkish foreign policy types to point at a Republican party of bigots and zealots and say, “We’re not them.”
May 27th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Al,
The Democrats managed to slow down Alito’s confirmation by 20 days as compared to Roberts. You might go back and look to see how that worked.
The difference, by the way, is that the 72 days for Roberts (which is pretty standard) gets this wrapped up just in time for the August recess. The 92 days for Alito would push this into August, and thus potentially past August into the fall. And that would give Sotomayor limited time to prepare for the new term.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Al,
Is this based on willful misinterpretations of the Ricci decision and her “wise Latina” comment, or do you have something else?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Sotomayor is white, so its interesting that she hates white people.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Is this based on willful misinterpretations of the Ricci decision and her “wise Latina” comment, or do you have something else?
It’s based on accurate interpretations of the Ricci decision and her statement that Latinas are better judges than white men.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Al,
The comment about “white men” was with respect to how personal experience plays a part in a judge’s hearing of a case whether they wish it to or not. The comment was made while discussing cases of race and sex discrimination.
The allegedly racist line is:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
If a case is about racial or sexual discrimination, shouldn’t someone who has experienced such discrimination first hand be better at judging whether a plaintiff has a case or not? Note, she is not saying that a latina would be a better judge, but rather that she should be a better judge. If she has her experience, but is not better, it is because she is otherwise lacking.
If there was an intellectual property case, wouldn’t you expect a judge who had a former career as an engineer to have more insight into how the patent process works, and shouldn’t this give him an advantage over otherwise equal judges?
Ricci has been dealt with elsewhere. There is no racism ther.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Yeah, screw the law and the constitution. What are your life experiences? What a joke.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“reverse racism” is miscegeny. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Judd: if the Law and the constitution were all that was necessary to apply the law, we would have not use for a supreme court. A district court would be more than enough to interpret the existing framework. SCOTUS is precisely in place to handle complex issues where interpretation of the law and the constitution is necessary. The Sotomayor quote put in context of the speech is an argument that diversity in life experience lends great wisdom in judicial ruling. You may disagree with that, but its hardly racist ideology. I’m sure she’ll be a fine jurist.
That said, I find Sotomayor kind of an underwhelming candidate. She’s certainly qualified on paper – and may be able to craft intricate interpretations of complex cases – but she doesn’t seem to be able to communicate these thoughts properly. A great justice, in my mind, needs to be able to write the riveting dissent that captures someone’s imagination generations down the line, and she doesn’t seem to be it.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Judd, the idea that ANYONE is capable of blocking out their life experiences shows that you’ve spent zero time on self-reflection. Grow up, and learn to be honest with yourself.
The fact is, rich white people have lived a very privileged life, and it gives them a very twisted view of how the system actually works. They’ve always had too much power within the system, and that changes how they view law enforcement and authority in general. They’ve been playing life in god-mode, and they judge other peoples circumstances as if they were as well.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Rush Limbaugh Fun Fact:
Back in January, Rush was ticked about the mean Democrat Senators not letting Rolland Burris take his seat. Harry Reid & Co. were only keeping Burris out, said El Rushbo, “because Burris is BLACK.”
So I’m afraid you’re mistaken, Matt: Rush truly is a tireless opponent of racism, in all its forms, wherever it may rear its ugly head.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
shorter choad: Dred Scott was adjudicated by the best people in the United States to do so at the time.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
but if you were to actually read what he said, you’d see that he intended exactly such a distinction.
Life’s too short to read transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh program, but from your description, it sounds as though he were making one of his periodic attempts to be clever.
Point is, he doesn’t really believe that anti-black racism ought to be distinguished from anti-white racism, or that racism by the powerful ought to be a larger concern than racism by the powerless. He is just postulating the difference, admitting it contingently, to try to box in whatever interlocutors he imagines himself to have. But since there are a couple of light-years between the horns of his dilemma (e.g., elevation of minorities to high office could be a necessary but not sufficient condition of equality), he has only succeeded in amusing himself and his half-wit listenership.
Look, you are absolutely right that personal attitudes are a small part of the racial picture, and that the ways well-meaning people and institutions propagate racist attitudes without really being aware of it are a bigger problem than overt racial resentments. Perhaps just as importantly, racism in the South has been, at least since the late 60s, as much about keeping poor white people in their place (by distracting them with racial resentments) as it has been about oppressing minorities.
But Rush thinks nothing of the sort, he just thinks blacks need to “get over it”, that the “right to work” states of the South are a libertarian paradise, and his feeble little socraticisms assuming the contrary are wholly uninteresting and unconvincing.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
This is the Rush Limbaugh who said that “Racism is the exclusive provenience of the left,” correct?
Who cares what that old hack thinks? Did he squeeze this brilliant analysis before or after playing the theme to The Jeffersons over the audio of a black Congressman giving a speech?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
An all male, or all anglo court certainly suggests injustice. The idea that a woman or minority being selected is affirmative action is insulting and bigoted. Since this woman’s whole career is public record, this teeth-gnashing over her personal attributes is lazy and clearly bigoted.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
He sees the defense of white interests as integral to his political mission. And he hates identity politics.
That is as gorgeous a post-closer as I can recall reading in quite a while.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
[...] a “hack,” a “racist,” and a “reverse racist.” Matt Yglesias tries to understand Limbaugh’s outrage and apparent confusion about the difference between racism and reverse [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Ethnic pride is undeserved, unhelpful, and delusional. It’s all about cherrypicking and tribal nonsense, whether it’s a Mayflower descendant feeling good about how long her gene pool has been on this continent or it’s Eddie Murphy singing a song (a mistake to begin with) about how he was an African king. Sotomayor can rightly infer that her life as a Latina and as a woman might give her some insight that white men wouldn’t have, but that’s about as far as it ought to go, and I do wish she hadn’t said such a thing in the first place. But do we have any evidence that her ethnic pride went further than that? And isn’t ethnic pride rather different from racism? Yes, both are based on a stupid preoccupation with phenotype, but if I had to pick the greater evil, racism wins by a wide margin, and I’m way more concerned with actual racists than people who essentially think fondly of themselves and recognize the racial identity that others will foist upon them even if they personally don’t give a shit.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
a stupid preoccupation with phenotype
and lived cultural experience plus valuing certain traditions that shapes people as part of groups within society. A white Christian celebrating Christmas isn’t “ethnic pride,” but a minority group trying to teach its children its traditions is. OK.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
So let me get this straight…In order to be a racist, you have to hate another race. Does the same apply for sexism? Do men who own golf clubs that don’t allow women to play golf hate women? Or do men that don’t promote women at the workplace based on sex alone, hate women?
Do any of you understand what racism actually is?
Rush Limbaugh is wrong. It’s not reverse racism…it’s racism. If you favor one race over another…whether you hate that race or not…IT’S BY DEFINITION RACISM.
The question is, does Sotomayor believe that a person’s race disqualifies them from certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Ricci case, without a doubt, says yes. I’m sure she doesn’t hate white people, but deciding that a white person, because they’re white, doesn’t deserve the same Constitutional protections as an African American, is not only unconstitutional, it’s racist. Let me say this again…if race is the predominant factor in a decision, then it is RACIST…it has nothing to do with hate.
Having read the post, now I can understand why some of you think the way that you do. When you create a program, that de facto says to a particular race, ‘you’re not good enough or smart enough to do this on your own without MY help’ you view that as kind hearted…and because being racist means hating a race to you…you don’t see the hypocrisy.
It really is amusing to see the lengths to which you delude yourselves into believing that you don’t think that certain races or groups are inferior to others. Moreover, it’s even more amusing that you choose to separate people out by race, or by gender, when historically speaking…that’s how racists succeeded in separating white from non-white.
You would think that some of you might have taken Sociology 101 or even a race and ethnicity class in college…apparently not. Armchair bigots and racists are so very amusing. Thank you all for your generous bones to the rest of society.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I assumed we would hear a lot about how many babies she believes the constitution thinks it necessary to abort, so all the affirmative action talk is a surprise of sorts. Personally, I would like to know where she stands on drug decriminalization. To my knowledge, actual careers of hundreds of thousands of Americans actually rest on what we criminalize with respect to posession of drugs. But by all means, continue discussing the theoretical careers as civil employees and Ivy league law students that are so shaking the foundations of our societies.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I don’t know what you’re talking about, Anthony. I never said anything about Christmas or white Christians. If I had, you would know that I think religious pride/tribalism is just as stupid and awful as ethnic pride.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
tinisoli,
Interestingly, part of Sotomayor’s argument is that it is simply inevitable that one’s experiences will affect how one judges to at least some extent, and she is expressing the aspiration to make the best of the situation. So I’m not sure that even counts as an “ethnic pride” argument.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
If you want to argue that the Ricci decision was racist, actually argue this with regard to what the law in question actually says and what the decision actually says. You can still argue in good faith that it was a bad decision, but the fact that conservatives have latched onto this one case so strongly while doing so little analysis of the actual written law and decision itself instead of the optics of the decision are revealing. Then again, after the majority decision of Bush v. Gore said that such a major decision would not be a precedent and how the conservative movement’s main concern with the SC is overturning precedent (Roe v. Wade), conservatives don’t really have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to arguing about the Court and constitutionality.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Also conservatives, when the majority of African-Americans, Latinos and Asians vote for the Democrats, going around saying that the Democrats are the real racists (pointing to voting in Congress from the mid-1960’s on Civil Rights issues especially) implies that American minorities are stupid. It’s rather insulting. We’re smart enough to know we’re not wanted in the modern GOP.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Since nutjobs go crazy no matter who Dems nominate, it would be nice if the next Democratic president would actually pick a liberal instead of another moderate. Squishy moderates might make sense if Rs controlled the Senate but with both Ginsburg and Sotomayor, Dems were/are above 55 in the Senate. Meanwhile when Republicans are in the majority they nominate ideologues like Roberts and Alito.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Reality Man,
With regard to the law, I’ll cite the 14th Amendment. Now you and I may disagree as to whether or not that right should be applied in this case, but what neither of us can do is look at Ricci to figure out what the nominee believes. She felt that a discussion of whether the 14th Amendment would apply in this case wasn’t important enough to examine. The reason she did that, at least according to folks that understand how these courts work, was to attempt to ensure that the Supreme Court wouldn’t notice the case. Her arrogance didn’t go unnoticed and now she’s going to have to answer for her decision-making as the case gets reversed.
Now, I don’t have an insight into her psyche. I can only go by what she’s said (that being a latina gives her a better understanding of the law than a white male) and what she’s done (the Ricci case isn’t the only one that she’s going to be questioned about). But considering the fact that she believes that her race seems to give her advantages over other people that don’t share her genetics, then I’m inclined, by definition, to say that the woman is prone to racism and/or sexism.
What you guys on the left can’t seem to get through your heads is that good intentions mean nothing when compared with final results. You all bitched and moaned (rightly in my opinion) about Iraq…Don’t you think that the President had “good intentions?” This is the exact same philosophy taken to a different logical extreme. Just because you and others think it’s the right thing to do, doesn’t invalidate the inherently racist (and/or sexist) philosophy that you’re espousing. You don’t have to hate to be a racist. Hate has nothing to do with the underlying reality that RACE is the primary variable upon which one is making their decisions.
If you don’t understand that very simple distinction, then you’re no better than the legions of evil men that have existed throughout history that have used the excuse that they were trying to make the world a better place. Results are what matters, not whether or not you think you’re right.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Ed,
That isn’t what she said. That’s what lying right-wing blowhards tell you that she said. Why don’t you read what she said in context, rather than taking the word of Rush Limbaugh. Then, if you’re honest, you will see that what she said was not racist.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“(that being a latina gives her a better understanding of the law than a white male)”
Why don’t you actually read the thread? Other trolls brought up the exact same bullshit arguments, and those have been shot down repeatedly. It’s not just hat you are a liar, but repeating a lie that’s been exposed just above your very comment makes you look stupid.
“about Iraq…Don’t you think that the President had “good intentions?” ”
No.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:44 am
[...] for Sonia Sotomayor, well then I think that tends to reenforce the sense that conservatives are very interested in white people’s problems and not so interested in anyone [...]
May 28th, 2009 at 11:56 am
bout Iraq…Don’t you think that the President had “good intentions?”
Does anyone think that? Really?!
May 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
When somebody who’s female and non-white is more qualified than white men in the same position, yet no one will acknowledge their qualifications because they aren’t a white male, what’s that called?