"I'm not a racist, I just wish black people were more white."

Listen closely to outrage manufactured over an utterly innocuous NEA conference call and you can almost hear Pat Buchanan regaling the Republican faithful with tales of brave white soldiers taking "back the streets of Los Angeles, block by block." Fearful his symbolism might prove too subtle, he charged the overwhelmingly white audience to "take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country." He never specified exactly who they would be taking back their cities, culture and country from, but he didn't have to—one look at the army that'd be doing the taking said it all. None of the current crop of complaints are explicitly about race any more than Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican Convention was, but now as then, one look at the enemy they fear and the forces they align against it and the identity of their antagonists becomes obvious.

The question, then, is whether this is a story we want told twice. America, conservatives insist, bought a false sale of goods, and the only way Obama can sustain his popularity is to pull the wool before our eyes via the political equivalent of an atomic wedgie: overt propaganda. Attacking the National Endowment for the Arts comes straight from the '90s script: every dollar the NEA disburses will be tracked by the likes of Andrew Breitbart until the perfect moment to introduce the world to the next "Piss Christ" arrives. They've already begun to remind the troops of all the old tropes, but their attempt to preemptively undermine the institutional credibility of the NEA indicates that this generation of conservative critics might be more media savvy than their '90s counterparts. Tim Slagle's response to a recent MoveOn campaign is a sign of smears to come:

It looks like the NEA’s call for artists to promote health care initiatives has been heard by some comedy artists.

MoveOn was not a party to the infamous conference call, but because it involves actors, and actors are artists, it's a party to the propaganda agenda established during that call. As a consequence of that call, all artists—whether they shoot a crucifix in urine like Andrew Serrano or urinate on themselves like Will Ferrell—will be seen as complicit in a conspiracy to undermine America so grand even Goebbels would blush.

But while they may be savvy, they're far from smart. In the article quoted above, Slagle offers a "prize to anyone who can name all eight [actors in the MoveOn video] without using Google," includes the name of all of them in his tags not once, but twice, and his commenters are still stumped. And the one and odious John Ziegler calls for a return to "the Golden Age of television (the 70's and 80's)," when Americans came together to laugh at black people for the wrong reasons, before he realized—or was told—that he should be laughing at Archie Bunker, not with him.

That his list of programs excludes The Cosby Show is no surprise. He prefers Sanford and Sons because its humor was a function of its characters' blackness, whereas the comedy on Cosby was situational, and Ziegler found its situations implausible. How could a black obstetrician treat white women without race becoming an issue? The specter of miscegenation may not, I confess, be responsible for him preferring Golden Age shows with majority black casts, but his vision of American unity is undeniably odd:

The major networks used to create a de facto “team photo” of our nation which (after a slow start) eventually included everyone in the picture. Now, each race, gender, and age group has their own “team” and tends to watch programming that is built to only appeal to them. In short, we end up living in very different realities with almost nothing in common[.]

So in the Golden Age, when Norman Lear was adapting the BBC sitcoms Till Death Us Do Part and Steptoe and Son for American audiences, television became "a de facto 'team photo' of our nation [that] included everyone in the picture." First, white and black do not a photograph of America make; second, in Ziegler's photograph there are shows with majority white casts and shows with majority black casts, but none, like Cosby, with what could be called integrated casts. Ziegler further complains that his inability to find Tyler Perry funny represents "a net loss to the strength of the fabric of our country," because once upon a time he could laugh at the scheming of Fred Sanford, but now that black people have shows built to "appeal to them," they appear to be "living in very different realities with almost nothing in common."

He seems not to realize that they did then and do now. A commenter who named himself after Dane Cook does his damnedest to embody the plain racist underpinning of Ziegler's argument:

For the most part, blacks on television have assimilated into the mainstream of society and no one thinks much about it any more.

The mainstream of society . . . they assimilated into the mainstream of society . . . now what would that be again?

(x-posted.)

Comments

[The Modesto Kid]

"The Jeffersons" was (atrocious but) integrated, right? Even had miscegenation!

[Bob Reed]

The meme that one is a racist for opposing Obama's agenda is getting tired, it's time for his promoters to add a new twist. Besides, I don't understand why you fellows don't recognize the post racial aspect of those critical of Obama that they oppose him for his policies and not simply his race...

And, the problem with NEA call is that there was an overt attempt to use public funds in support of a partisan piece of legislation that the majority of the public opposes. I mean, George Soros has deep pockets, let him bankroll these "artistic" endeavors; he's still the patron of the left, isn't he?

[SEK]

I didn't say that opposing Obama was racist: I pointed out that race played a significant role in Buchanan's infamous "Culture War Speech," that the last time 'round the culture warriors went after the NEA as well, and that race seems to be playing a role in the Culture Wars, Part II.

In fact, not only am I not saying that opposition to Obama is racist, I'm saying that---because racism is a structural element of the complaints of culture warriors---had Hillary won, we would still have seen an uptick in racially suspect remarks.

[Karl Steel]

On the NEA and public opinion: really? Do you have a poll you can direct us to?

he's still the patron of the left, isn't he?
What are some of the major Leftist media arms or think tanks or newspapers he's funding?

What about Scaife? Who's he funding? Who's funding Reason magazine?

Who is saying all opposition to Obama is racist, Bob? Are you saying none of it is?

[Bob Reed]

Pardon me if I misunderstood, SEK,
But there semed to be an underlying assertion along those lines that I percieved throughout your essay. Perhaps it was more related to what you said more directly in your comment, that racism is a stuctural element of the culture wars.

I disagree with that too, and believe that it is no more an element of the culture wars than class, age, provinciality, and closed-mindedness are.

I think that the whole culture wars concept is one of perception though. As many folks that feel somehow that women and minorities are culturally put upon, there are an almost equal number that feel our nation has become one of minority exceptionalism and the celebration of mediocrity-all in the name of a stilted "diversity" that is forcibly superimposed regardless of setting. Neither extremem would have been what Dr. King was referring to when he spoke of a color blind society.

[Bob Reed]

Karl,
You misunderstand my sentance, the majority of the public is not opposed to the NEA, but is opposed to the health care legislation that the White House and the Democratic leadership in congress is proposing.

http://tiny.cc/1pEmK

And I don't know if Scaife is behind "Reason" magazine, but I'll take your word for it. It doesn't matter really though, because no public funds are going towards advancing his ideological agenda, which is the point I was making about Soros funding pro-Obama agenda art instead of the NEA.

Finally Karl, there are many on the left side of the political spectrum that decry the opposition to Obama's agenda as being revealing of racism, conscious or otherwise. The list is too long for me to make a complete one, but let's start with Jimmy Carter, Howard Kurtz, Joe Klein, Maxine Waters to name but a few. And while I never said that there are no racists who oppose Obama soley for his appearance, these are a minority-and nonexistent in the circles I run in, so to speak...

[Gary Farber]

"Besides, I don't understand why you fellows don't recognize the post racial aspect of those critical of Obama that they oppose him for his policies and not simply his race..."

So true.

[Martin Wisse]

Hey, if you don't want to be called racist, don't hang around with fucking racists. It's that simple. Don't pretend you're the one opponent with pure, policy motivated objections to Obama and then hang around with people who walk around with whitefaced Obama posters.

Especially when you are now objecting to shit that was a lot worse in the previous eight years.

[chuck]

you are sick and should seek professional help

[chuck]

white is not a color, eveyone has a right to exist...

[chuck]

obama is not a bad president because he is black, he is just in over his head...he has no idea on how to run a country, I could not do any better.. but then I do not have the title of "COMMANER IN CHIEF"... NO GOVERMENT CONROLLED HEALTH CARE... NO MATTER WHAT YOUR RACE....