The Soft Bigotry Of Low Expectations.

In September of 1999, Texas governor George W. Bush was already running for president. On September 2 he gave a major address on the subject of education to the Latin Business Association Luncheon in Los Angeles. During that speech, Bush introduced a memorable phrase, “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Here’s what he said:

Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less – the soft bigotry of low expectations. Some say that schools can’t be expected to teach, because there are too many broken families, too many immigrants, too much diversity. I say that pigment and poverty need not determine performance. That myth is disproved by good schools every day. Excuse-making must end before learning can begin.

It is great political rhetoric because he defines a set of beliefs, allegedly held by his political opponents, then easily repudiates them on high principle. I don’t know who was saying those things, about schools not being expected to teach, surely no one, yet the phrase “soft bigotry of low expectations” rang true.

It came to mind today because the Geraldine Ferraro pot is still boiling. On “The McLaughlin Group” today, Pat Buchanan kept pressing the point of, “if he were white, with his resume at the time, would he have gotten the keynote speech in ’04?” The thrust of all this, still being argued with vigor by Clinton supporters in so many words, is that Obama’s is an Affirmative Action candidacy, possible only because of White Guilt and consequent soft treatment by the media.

Obama called Ferraro’s original statement “ridiculous” and that is the correct word for this whole line of reasoning. The most cynical part of the Clinton strategy is that many, perhaps most, of the people making the argument know it is disingenuous, but they’re making it because it resonates with whites of a certain age whose racism takes the following form. Although they do not practice racial discrimination as they perceive it, they still hold a deep-seated belief in white superiority and, therefore, they believe non-whites can only achieve positions of power and authority if they get extra help, i.e., an unfair advantage, i.e., an Affirmative Action pass.

I have seen this in every sphere of life, from people who aver in the most aggrieved way that they are not racists. Yet every time a non-white receives a promotion at work or is singled out for recognition in some other sphere, they grumble about Affirmative Action and Diversity.

That, too, is the bigotry of low expectations, and it is not so soft. The great irony of this flame being fanned by Clinton supporters is that high-achieving women are plagued by the exact same prejudice. About the only time you hear about this is when the speaker is arguing for the abolition of Affirmative Action programs, but it is a lot more pervasive than that. I know many people who react this way to any achievement by a non-white in any sphere.

This attitude seems to be most prevalent in people my age and older. (I’m 56.) I hope I’m right about that, which means it may die out eventually. Many see signs of this in Obama’s success.

Many American whites of my generation grew up hearing overt racism in our family and community, and consciously rejected it. By comparison with that, we’re not racist. But how can we make sure we’re not guilty of “the soft bigotry of low expectations”?

I think it begins with recognition and acceptance of racial awareness, recognizing that no one is “color blind,” either by birth or by training. We have to examine our own beliefs and reflexes with honesty. As white Americans, we have to recognize that the subject of race doesn’t arise only when a person of color enters the room. We have to recognize that all this racial “stuff” is a construct created by whites and racism is primarily a white problem.

So, the seemingly meaningful point being made so earnestly by several commentators, that Barack Obama “wouldn’t be where he is today” if he was white, is ridiculous. Why? Because he is not white. He is who he is just as every other candidate is, and there is only one sense in which that statement is true, and that is by the exact same logic that says Hillary Clinton would not be where she is today if she was black, and John McCain would not be where he is today if he was black, etc.

This is, in fact, a very handy test to determine if you are a racist or not. If you don’t see the statement about Obama and the parallel statements about Clinton and McCain as saying the exact same thing, if you see one as meaningful and the other as spurious and irrelevant, then you are a racist.

Thank you very much. So glad I could help.

Save Us From Well-Meaning Racists.

Geraldine Ferraro strikes me as one of those people who says things that sound better in her head than they do out loud. She is being condemned, correctly, for racism, but this flap is a perfect example of how racism can impair ones judgment.

Here is what she said:

If [Sen. Barack] Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

I have no trouble accepting her subsequent statements that she is not anti-black. That is one kind of racism, this is a different kind, the kind that causes one to process just about everything in terms of race. That kind is a little more complicated but no less racist.

As a consequence of Ms. Ferraro's excessive awareness of race, she fails to realize that her statement is incorrect and illogical. Obama isn't where he is because the media and the rest of society is "caught up in the concept" of an African-American president. Just the opposite is true. To the extent anyone is "caught up in the concept," it is because Barack Obama is an extremely attractive candidate who happens to have dark skin. For Ferraro's statement to be true, she would have to argue that the culture was ardently looking for a black man to install as president and found Barack Obama as a result of that search. Where is the evidence of that?

The important story here is the game the Clintons are playing. What they are doing, in a very clever way, is offering racists a kind of permission to let their racism influence their decision. They want to make sure that people whose racism is weak and in danger of being overwhelmed by other considerations, such as disdain for the type of politics the Clintons practice, get the kind of reinforcement that will bring their racism back to the surface. They're appealing to the person who will think, "well, although I'm not racist, there are a lot of racists out there and that will hurt the Democratic ticket in the fall, therefore I must vote for Senator Clinton."

That they got Geraldine Ferraro to carry this particular water for them is also offensive. Everyone in politics talks about their base. Senator Clinton's base appears to be elderly, alienated, disaffected white women.

Who Can You Trust? Chuck Todd.

This year, everyone is a political commentator, even fictional characters from 1980s sitcoms.

With all the blather out there, who can you trust for the straight scoop? My choice is MSNBC's Chuck Todd. His title is Political Director, but he is the numbers guy and, as a friend of mine likes to say, "without good data, you're just another asshole with an opinion."

As Todd points out, behind all the hysteria about Tuesday's Clinton comeback are some hard numbers. Hard, that is, for Senator Clinton to overcome.

Delegate totals have to be estimated because it's unclear which super delegates are committed to whom and because the final delegate allocation from Texas isn't known yet, due to the caucus system. But Todd estimates that the net gain for Senator Clinton from Tuesday is about eight delegates, which leaves her about 140 delegates behind Senator Obama. For her to overtake him, she not only has to win in the remaining primaries, she has to beat him like a drum. Unless his campaign collapses, that seems unlikely.

Which explains all of the spinning, especially in the Clinton camp. About all she can do at this point is prevent Obama from getting to the convention with 2,024 delegates (the magic number) already in his pocket. He most likely will finish the primary campaign with the lead in delegates, votes cast and states won. Which is why she is furiously selling the idea that she has done best in the key states Democrats have to win to prevail in November. True enough, but that argument depends on the assumption that large numbers of her supporters in those states won't support the Democratic nominee in the fall. That proposition is debatable, but it's all she has.

The New Democrats Are the Old Republicans.

Daniel Gross has a great essay in the current Newsweek. The headline is "Dems Are the New Republicans." The gist of it is that, this time around, the establishment candidate is a Democrat, Hillary Clinton. So-called Wall Street Republicans are frustrated with the Bush administration's incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility. The business elite traditionally has been fiscally conservative but socially moderate. As the Republican Party has become more and more extreme in its social policies, as well as spendthrift, it has alienated that key part of its base. Right now it matters because those individuals are big donors, but they represent a lot of votes too.

Unfortunately, the Democrats face the same risk. As they move to fill the vacuum left by the Republicans, they move further and further away from what it is fair to call their Socialist wing. Conceivably, a leftist splinter third party candidacy could have the same effect Nader's had in 2000. Working against that scenario is the fact that the 2000 election came at the end of an eight year Democratic administration. Now the electorate is suffering from Bush fatigue, so a leftist third party candidacy seems unlikely to get much traction.

And although Hillary Clinton grew up as a Goldwater Republican in Park Ridge, Illinois (which is known locally as Park Rigid), it seems hard to imagine that a Hillary administration won't be Democratic in most traditional senses. Having grown up a Goldwater Republican myself, I'm not too worried.