Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
A CLARIFICATION.
Nick Gillespie points out that the Heritage blogger who originally quoted Arnold Kling cropped the quote about "thugs ransacking my home," and so the one I used was decidedly out of context:
Kling is correct that he did begin his statement by criticizing Paulson before criticizing the Obama Administration. We only left out the mention of Paulson because of space. Believe us, we have had plenty of criticism of Paulson and Bush ourselves. Kling also claims he did not refer to Barack Obama by name but was referring to his administration when he said "like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs." We have corrected the quote accordingly. We apologize for the error.I should have been more careful to make sure this quote was in its entirety before I posted, and I apologize for that. All I had to do was pick up the phone. That said, I still think Kling's reference to reparations was inflammatory, especially given Kling's "insight" that "People who pay income taxes tend to vote Republican. People who live off taxes tend to vote Democratic," and the context in which Obama and reparations are usually discussed on the right. The debate on public spending has often been rife with coded racial language, even recently, and that's what I was reacting to.
But contrary to what Gillespie says, I never called Kling a racist, because like I said, I could care less about whether he, as a person, is racist. I think everyone's racist, and I think we all come out our faces every once in a while.The world would be a better place if we were able to admit it when we do it, rather than fearing that use of the term "racist" defines who we are as people. What Kling said offended me, and I posted about it. I don't know what's in the man's soul, and I don't pretend to. I reacted to what he said, or in the above case, what I thought he said.
Megan McArdle writes that "we have made overt prejudice into the social equivalent of a capital crime. I approve of this." Well I don't. I think it's exactly like throwing people in jail for smoking weed. Everyone does it, and yet, as with Michael Phelps, everyone pretends to be scandalized when it happens. Racism becoming the social equivalent of a capital crime only fosters white guilt, that most useless of emotions. I've learned all too personally how that guilt curdles into resentment, resentment turns to hatred, and that hatred can lead to violence. As with the War on Drugs, the disproportionate response exists to perpetuate the disproportionate response. Well we shouldn't pretend, and we shouldn't be scandalized. We should just be honest. So let me be honest and say that I reacted somewhat belligerently to McArdle, and while I stand by my argument, I regret my tone. But I have no interest in making people feel prolonged feelings of guilt or shame over something everyone occasionally does. I just want to explain why something is messed up, rag on them a little bit, and move on. And I hope people will have the charity to do the same for me.
Gillespie writes that "I really hope that we don't get into a situation where criticisms of Obama's policies are routinely turned into prima facie evidence of racial animus, coded or uncoded." Well, me too. But I also hope that criticism that is motivated by racial animus, coded or uncoded, isn't rationalized as oversensitivity simply because some people don't want to take a hard look at what it is they're really saying, or because Obama's presidency means racism no longer exists. Either way, I'm not going to be telling anyone to shut up, and I don't think anyone should.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (15)
I think someone would have to be pretty dense or callous not to understand where you were coming from after this. Great piece.
I wonder if McArdle and Kling will acknowledge your apology or just ignore it. Here's to hoping the former.
Posted by: Awkward Silence | February 13, 2009 9:50 AM
It be nice to hear Mr. Kling acknowledge how someone, anyone, would have been coming from the same place as Mr. Serwer.
And thanks Mr. Silence, your previous comment helped verbalize some of my thoughts.
Posted by: red | February 13, 2009 10:26 AM
Megan is wrong, but you are too. There is *no* "social equivalent of a capital crime. The social equivalent of a capital crime is shock, disgust, horror and ostracism and none of those equate to state sponsored termination of life. That's because society, in that diffuse sense, isn't the state. Conservatives applaud the use of social forces (condemnation, shunning, hostility, criticism) to control the behavior of the lower classes, women, children and others dangerous to the social hierarchy while getting their panties in a twist when the same opprobrium is applied to them. Its not a matter of principle,but of expediency and doesn't require any respect or thoughtful disagreement but instead firm pushback.
A good example of what I'm talking about is (any) one of Jeff Jacoby's articles. Two days ago he wrote one excoriating the octuplet mother and the medical system that enabled her as examples of feminism, narcissism, and liberty run amuck. He is angry (he says) because he thought that the right to condemn people and make fun of them and humiliate them into following authoritative group norms had been degraded by liberal society. Confusing "society" with "the state" he complained further than in vitro doctors were held to no standards at all because thanks to lesbians insisting on in vitro fertilization over the objections of christian fundamentalist doctors there could be no laws at all restricting fertility.
This is a fairly common dodge on the right. First, everyone's liberty is crushed when one person's liberty to do something or to refuse to do something is exalted over the "liberty" of the majority to express hostility, disgust, or even to criminalize the behavior. So the right is always suffering every time any individual, anywhere, is free to disagree with the right. Then, the right suffers further because as majority opinion shifts away from conservative opinion even the refuge allotted to the naysayers, the right to arrogate to themselves criticism and ostracism, becomes harder to excercise in the social field. And finally, the tables are turned and the new status quo flexes its muscles and exercises its own right of majority rule to say "hey, stop calling us dykes! or stop calling us n***ers, or stop calling us christ killers! or we won't invite you to our cocktail parties.!" The next step is always for the right to jump to the conclusion that we are going to outlaw them ("capital crime!") and even extinguish them (freedom of choice means forced abortions!) because *that is what the right would have done if it could have given the power of the state.
Its called projection. There is not, in fact, a slippery slope between saying "I won't associate with racist bastards" and execution, even in a metaphoric sense. Refusing to have assholes at your cocktail party, or to negotiate with them in political or social settings, is excercising the freedom of association, not social murder.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | February 13, 2009 10:59 AM
Kling : "People who pay income taxes tend to vote Republican. People who live off taxes tend to vote Democratic"
The Republican party is a coalition of warfare-state lunatics, highway dependent sunbelt suburbanites, rural social conservatives, and those in the upper income tax brackets that Kling is so fond of. The latter group has proven that it will use government to crush labor any chance it gets.
Milton Friedman proposed a negative income tax - Kling prefers defend the plutocrats.
Posted by: Zxcv | February 13, 2009 1:32 PM
It's nice that you're sorry: it speaks well of you.
It would be even nicer if you could provide a corrected quote, but don't worry, I'll do it for you.
Here are Arnold Kling's actual opening words:
Thank you. I'd like to thank the sponsors of this conference for inviting me to speak.
I think about what's going on, what's happening today, as an economist, but I feel it as a father. My wife and I have three daughters, aged between 19 and 25, and when I see what's being done to their future, I am really angry.
Back in September, when they were talking about taking $700 billion to "unclog the financial system," I wanted to take Henry Paulson and *yank* him out of the TV screen and say, "You keep your hands off my daughters' future!"
But he got away with it. And I had to -- for me it was like sitting there watching my house being ransacked by a gang of thugs. And now we've got a new gang of thugs, and they're going to do the same thing.
So, anyway, that's how I feel, we'll go back to how I think.
[talk continues]
Posted by: George | February 13, 2009 3:54 PM
Hey George,
Stop being a tool, he hyperlinked the quote.
Posted by: Awkward Silence | February 13, 2009 4:05 PM
He did? Where? All I see is a link to another misquote.
Posted by: George | February 13, 2009 4:58 PM
Right in the first sentence he links to an article about the misquote which includes the apology made by Heritage and the transcript...
Posted by: Awkward Silence | February 13, 2009 5:03 PM
Yes, and that Reason link in the first sentence contains, as I said, another misquote.
Compare it to the actual quote I included above, or go see the video at econlog.econlib.org if you don't believe me.
Posted by: George | February 13, 2009 5:17 PM
It contains the original misquote AND the correct transcript.
Posted by: Awkward SIlence | February 13, 2009 5:28 PM
ah, it's all contaminated halliburton water under a collapsed bridge to nowhere that judge dredd can't cross.
Posted by: red | February 13, 2009 5:43 PM
AS,
No, the URL http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131660.html which goes with the word "points" in the first sentence does not contain the correct transcript. The correct transcript is in the comment I posted above, and that text does not appear at the Reason URL.
You can verify this by going to econlog.econlib.org and viewing the video.
I don't understand why you're arguing about a fact, especially an easily-checkable one.
Posted by: George | February 13, 2009 6:55 PM
George is right. Check for yourself.
Posted by: ed | February 13, 2009 8:26 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/10/why-the-stimulus-wont-work-thugs-ransanking-my-house/
This is what the Reason article links to for the quote. What's incorrect in this transcript?
Posted by: Awkward Silence | February 14, 2009 4:14 PM
Adam,
I just wanted to thank you for your writing here.
You articulate so well these ideas that so many people have problems understanding.
Racism is a system, not a character judgment. I love that you pointed out: white people only need worry about being called racist, so that is what they think is most important. I think it encapsulates the idea nicely.
I've loved reading your posts ever since you started with TAPPED. Your analysis is always top-notch and is much needed in the still-largely-white-and-male-dominated higher-traffic liberal blogosphere.
I love that the Prospect had the smarts to take Ezra under its wing, knowing the places he'd go -- and honestly, I am hoping to see the same with you as well.
Posted by: amandaw | February 18, 2009 6:19 PM