I watched Shirley Sherrod's whole 40-minute speech just now and was intensely moved by it.
She reminded me very much of my own paler-skinned Southern relatives. She lived through experiences my gang never had to face, of course. But one recognizes the same idiom, the same attitudes, the same strange mix of wisdom and un-wisdom.
There's all that excel-in-school and whup-your-kids stuff, for example. But Shirley is really genuine. There's nothing scripted or calculated there. An ideological muddle, by the exigent standards of my lefty mailing lists, but obviously a thinking person, with some very sharp insightful things to say, and besides that, a good generous heart.
So of course they ditched her.
The response has been so fierce, and the embarrassment so intense, that they may end up backtracking. I hope they do, but only because I want Shirley to have a good steady job for a few more years. The important, the telling thing, is that they ditched her in the first place -- because some right-wing loon put together a cut-and-paste three-minute pastiche of what she said.
Now this is an old story. My lefty mailing-list comrades are already comparing her to Joycelyn Elders and Lani Guinier -- though, being intellectuals, my e-comrades think Lani and Jocelyn's fate is "worse" because the latter two were purged for their ideas. Proportional representation and masturbation -- proportional or otherwise -- there's the liberal Palladium for you.
Absent the ranking, though, the comparison is right on target. Same phenomenon. And the persistent calculus involved is so childishly simple it's embarrassing to point it out: If you dump a Guinier, or an Elders, or a Sherrod, you won't lose any black folks or white liberals because, hell, where are they going to go? You've got them sewn up.
On the other hand, you might pull in a few wavering pissed-off white guys. Especially if they're unemployed. and have a vague memory of their Grannys telling them about Roosevelt, but they're still kinda worried about the nigs.
So there's no downside risk in tossing Lani, or Jocyelyn, or Shirley to the sharks. But there's a possible conjectural gain.
Integrate -- in the mathematical sense -- this function over a few years, and where do you end up?
Show your work.
Comments (5)
Not so sure it's as much about gaining and losing voters in the immediate moment as it is about keeping the corporate donors happy and The Party united, plus the fact that the Obummer squad 100 percent agrees with the premise of the flak, which is that serious appreciation of the society's racial history and racial present should remain a forbidden topic.
Speaking of flak, this takes me back to _Manufacturing Consent_. Only the right gets to make flak, and it is a highly effective device.
Posted by Michael Dawson | July 22, 2010 1:13 AM
Posted on July 22, 2010 01:13
"Integrate -- in the mathematical sense -- this function over a few years, and where do you end up?..."
With the perfect stooge, in Barack Obama. He served as a token for lily white gliberals and Yglesiated swooners, on the way into the shit seat he so desperately wanted. Their covering hex, so to speak.
And he'll serve as a token for the protos gone fascist, on his way out. The gliberals had him as a stand in for their self-congratulatory enlightenment, for their wonking towards rump state hell around our collective corner. The Jesus fascists will have him as a stand in for "all that is wrong with America."
Either way, the actual heads of state get their way. A historicky historicality to cover all their post-Bush depredations. And a justification for "fixing" the problems with austerity, the Milice State and ubiquitous law enforcement, after he's torched in effigy as the scapegoat for all their sins.
No props to him, though. He wanted the job. And he's murdered many in the doing of it.
"...Show your work."
Nah.
Posted by Jack Crow | July 22, 2010 1:52 AM
Posted on July 22, 2010 01:52
This story says to me that Obama values war over peace between the races; otherwise, he wouldn't have had a racial peacemaker like Shirley Sherrod fired from her job. This means that Obama would rather have white plebs and black plebs fighting with each other. Because if the fighting were to stop between these two racial groups of plebs, then they may indeed come together and unite as a single peaceful force, enabling them to harness a larger portion of wealth and power from the plutocrats, both black and white alike. And if this were to happen, Obama would have a harder time sucking up to the plutocrats, thus greatly reducing his chances of walking away from the White House in 2-6 years as a very rich plutocrat himself.
This story also says to me that Obama places more value on lying than he does on telling the truth; otherwise, he wouldn’t have had a truth-teller like Shirley Sherrod fired from her job. This may explain why he broke most of his campaign promises to the plebs, both black and white alike, which enables him to lie his way into the White House. If Obama never broke these campaign promises, then this would have hindered his ability to use the office of the presidency to make himself richer by helping make the plutocrats even richer.
So, from this I conclude that Greed is what motivated Obama to throw Sherrod under the bus!
Posted by Cynthia | July 22, 2010 7:10 AM
Posted on July 22, 2010 07:10
This story says to me that Obama values war over peace between the races; otherwise, he wouldn't have had a racial peacemaker like Shirley Sherrod fired from her job. This means that Obama would rather have white plebs and black plebs fighting with each other. Because if the fighting were to stop between these two racial groups of plebs, then they may indeed come together and unite as a single peaceful force, enabling them to harness a larger portion of wealth and power from the plutocrats, both black and white alike. And if this were to happen, Obama would have a harder time sucking up to the plutocrats, thus greatly reducing his chances of walking away from the White House in 2-6 years as a very rich plutocrat himself.
This story also says to me that Obama places more value on lying than he does on telling the truth; otherwise, he wouldn’t have had a truth-teller like Shirley Sherrod fired from her job. This may explain why he broke most of his campaign promises to the plebs, both black and white alike, which enables him to lie his way into the White House. If Obama never broke these campaign promises, then this would have hindered his ability to use the office of the presidency to make himself richer by helping make the plutocrats even richer.
So, from this I conclude that Greed is what motivated Obama to throw Sherrod under the bus!
Posted by Cynthia | July 22, 2010 7:12 AM
Posted on July 22, 2010 07:12
The hysterical under-bussing as an outreach/appeasement program looks pretty accurate to me. The Democrats are notorious for actively disliking and demobilizing their supporters. They're running true to comprador stooge form in that. They resent their voters in the same way any corporate management resents its customers and employees. They want better supporters—more and better supporters, if you will. They can't provoke their best customers, e.g. money bundlers and sinecure providers, but they're happy to reach out to potential markets at the expense of anyone they're in a position to stomp. Two birds, one stone. They slap the uppity, difficult, demanding consumers and pitch woo to the notional competition's customer base.
The potential market is entirely a fictive creation of the Little McNamaras in the strategy room. The gratin wingnuts they want already have a favored brand. They don't want a brand they associate with loss of social status. The big money customers occasionally want a change of compradors, but that's disciplinary, not ideological and it's certainly not a change in their own business model.
Posted by Al Schumann | July 22, 2010 8:20 AM
Posted on July 22, 2010 08:20