Even If Perry Isn't Racist, It Doesn't Make Cain a Race-Baiter

More

And anyone who got upset when the Godfather Pizza CEO called Niggerhead Ranch 'insensitive' takes umbrage too easily

cain full f.jpg

Aristotle argued that for every virtue, there is a vice of excess and a vice of lack. A courageous man, for example, is understood to occupy a middle ground between rashness and cowardice, while a confident man must exhibit neither undue humility nor excessive vanity. My reaction to racial controversy is informed by the same sort of attitude. What I want from politicians, pundits, and my fellow citizens is impossible to sum up in a single word -- ideally they'd react to a given situation with some mix of thoughtfulness, sensitivity, pragmatism, empathy, and the presumption that folks with whom they disagree are operating in good faith. Far easier is describing the excesses to be avoided. On one hand, there is excusing racism, or acting as an apologist for bigotry; on the other, there is taking undue offense, or reacting with exaggerated pique.

Of course, in between condemning "nigger" and taking umbrage at anyone who says "niggardly" there is an enormous gray area. And that is where Herman Cain found himself when asked about the fact that a parcel of land where Gov. Rick Perry used to hunt was named Niggerhead Ranch. Cain replied, "That's just very insensitive. There isn't a more vile, negative word than the n-word, and for him to leave it there as long as he did, before I hear that they finally painted over it, is just plain insensitive to a lot of black people in this country." Two days later, he said he'd moved on. Millions of Americans, presented with an accurate account of his response, would say that Cain gave a perfectly reasonable answer, whether or not they agreed with it. That's my judgment. And in the absence of other data points, I neither think that Perry is a racist nor that this revelation should hurt his chances in the GOP primary I hope he loses.

As it turns out, however, some in the conservative movement see it differently. They say that Cain took undue offense, or exaggerated his pique to score political points. The term they use for this is "playing the race card." These critics believe that the Washington Post "played the race card" when it published the story about Niggerhead Ranch, and that Cain became complicit in their unseemly hatchet job. I'd be in respectful disagreement with these people if they consistently criticized folks who react with pique to racial controversy, and championed the ideal that in racially fraught situations, basic goodwill ought to be assumed whenever humanly possible. There is a strong case to be made that we'd all be better off if we took offense less readily.

For the most part, however, these Cain critics adopt their tough-minded, skeptical, anti-taking offense attitude only when it is liberals, especially liberal minorities, accusing white conservatives of racial transgressions. It's as if, having long ago encountered Al Sharpton and the least thoughtful members of the Duke faculty, they lost the capacity to evaluate racial controversy on the merits, and just started assuming, sans evidence, that a huckster lurks behind every one. Let one of these people discover even the possibility that an unfair racial criticism has been levied, however mild it may be, and they whine and play the put upon victim every bit as much as any undergraduate activist taking unnecessary offense at something written in the school newspaper.  

Rush Limbaugh is the most pronounced example of this pathology. In this monologue, he expresses disappointment in Herman Cain for being complicit in "smearing" Perry. So just how objectionable does the talk radio host find off-the-cuff accusations of racial misbehavior generally? Back in 2009, I cataloged the accusations of racism that he levied himself in 2009 alone:  

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates? "He's a racist," Mr. Limbaugh said. "He's an angry racist." Sonja Sotomayor? "She's a bigot. She's a racist," Mr. Limbaugh said. "How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive."

President Obama? He's "the biggest reverse racist in history." On another occasion: "Just as he is ACORN, just as he is Van Jones, he is racism."On a third: "How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people." So implicitly Mr. Limbaugh is labeling multiple figures within the administration as racists too.

Democrats generally? "The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign."

Liberals? "You know, racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left."

The media circa January? "We're witnessing racism all this week that led up to the inauguration. We're being told that we have to hope he succeeds. That we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father's black, because this is the first black president."

Minorities generally? "The days of them not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution. That's what Obama's about, gang. He's angry, he's gonna cut this country down to size, he's gonna make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made, it's mistreatment of minorities. I know exactly what's going on."

Oh, and don't forget the NFL. As of this week, it is "an outpost of racism and liberalism." 

Next take Andrew Breitbart, the ends-justify-the-means rabble rouser. Remember when he published that misleadingly edited video that made USDA employee Shirley Sherrod appear as if she was proudly racist, when in fact she was offering a self-deprecating story about overcoming prejudice? And when, confronted with the full video, he claimed that he was trying to prove that the NAACP was racist, not Sherrod herself? Despite the fact that an innocent woman was unfairly tarnished as a racist thanks to Breitbart's negligence, Glenn Reynolds gave him the benefit of the doubt, airing numerous Breitbart defenses, attempts to focus blame on others, and even statements criticizing the victim of the debacle.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Juice Cleanses: The Worst Diet

A doctor tries the ever-popular Master Cleanse. Sort of.


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Juice Cleanses: The Worst Diet

A doctor tries the ever-popular Master Cleanse. Sort of.

Video

Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion

Video

What If Emoji Lived Among Us?

A whimsical ad imagines what life would be like if emoji were real.

Video

Living Alone on a Sailboat

"If you think I'm a dirtbag, then you don't understand the lifestyle."

Feature

The Future of Iced Coffee

Are artisan businesses like Blue Bottle doomed to fail when they go mainstream?

Writers

Up
Down

More in Politics

Just In