Nov 12 2007

Racial Thoughtlessness

Speaking for me only

Brad DeLong is a great progressive commentator on matters economic. But, for a second time that I know of, DeLong has demonstrated a thoughtlessness about race issues. The first, in which he was joined by Matt Yglesias, involved a defense of Bill Bennett's offensive remarks regarding fighting crime through termination of African American pregnancies. (See also Nathan Newman's great piece on the subject.) Today, in pointing out factual errors in a Bob Herbert column (Herbert erroenously confused the Consumer Price Index with the core inflation rate and confusingly used the technical term recession when making an argument about our skewed economy), DeLong, in my view, innocently but insensitively, asked:

How has the New York Times managed to pick Bob Herbert out of the 75 million liberal adults in America? It is a mystery.

Now, everyone is entitled to their opinion about Bob Herbert. Mine is that he is a national treasure. Certainly NOT liking Herbert is a respectable, though wrongheaded opinion. But surely DeLong SHOULD have known what his comment would invite.

For example, “respectable” champion race baiter, Andrew “Bell Curve” Sullivan wrote:

A question only a left-liberal could ask:

“How has the New York Times managed to pick Bob Herbert out of the 75 million liberal adults in America? It is a mystery.”

Is he kidding me?

Get it? It's because Herbert is black. Ha! What a funny racist idiot Sullivan is. And make no mistake. Andrew Sullivan is a racist. More.    

Sullivan is not involved in my point here. My point is our progressive discourse has continued to be, in my estimation, incredibly insensitive to race questions. DeLong did not consider what a race baiter like Sullivan could do with what he wrote? Did he read his comment thread? Might a clarification from DeLong have helped? A word of rebuke about what Sullivan wrote in response would help.

And I have seen similar insensitivity in other good people. When I read Sullivan and saw from whence the thought came, it was like a punch in the stomach to me. I KNOW DeLong does not think like Sullivan. I know other good people do not think like that. But they seem oblivious to the existence of such feelings in others.

What can we do about this problem?

26 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Armando on November 12, 2007 at 03:50
      Author
    • #

    Why does DeLong write that?

    I am depressed about this.

  2. than a racist.

    O/T: The Times editorial page has some of the smartest (Collins, Krugman, Herbert) and some of the stupidest (Brooks, Friedman) people writing today.  

  3. I don’t know if DeLong should be sensitive to Sullivan’s feelings, i.e., Sullivan’s willingness to use Delong’s statements maliciously, though I’m not sure if that’s who you meant.  Did you mean Herbert’s feelings?  

    DeLong certainly seemed frustrated by Herbert’s analysis.  Did he need to insult him?  Probably not, but one could argue, and it seems you have argued, that it was a “color-blind” insult.  It would be helpful for DeLong to smack Sullivan.

  4. Andrew Sullivan today implied that none of the op-ed writers working at the New York Times have their jobs because they are white.

    Writing on his blog Daily Dish, Sullivan implied that none of the stable of European American writers in the NYT op-ed section, not David Brooks, not Thomas Friedman, not Maureen Dowd, not Frank Rich, not Gail Collins and not Roger Cohen, none of them, owe anything about their current positions to the color of their skin.

    Only Bob Herbert can thank his complexion for his cushy job, Sullivan suggested; the rest had to rely exclusively hard, gruelling work and accomplishment.  Being white is at best inconsequential, and worst a hinderance, to getting a job as opinion-maker in the New York Times.

  5. How has the Atlantic managed to pick Andrew Sullivan out of the (shrinking) millions of conservative adults in America?

    That log cabin must be bigger that we think.

    Not trying to slight anybody here. Just wondering whether, after all the gay old times the GOP has had this year, if Sullivan really wants to be going down this road.

  6. here he goes again

  7. Insensitivity to race issues?

    What does that mean?

    Speaking openly….whether you are a racist or a “non” racist is what’s called for…not….I think….”racial sensitivity”….that phrase sounds terribly condescending and prejudice.

    “Progressive discourse” ? What’s that mean?

    Sounds like bullshit to me.

    If a person is a racist…they ought to be able to speak openly about that…freely on TV anywhere…..sensitivity is not desirable….openess is…..If you are a racist and you are not breaking any laws you are supposed to be able to say what you think in this …whatever it is…or was….nation.

    The problem with so many people who imagine that they are not racist is that they are racist and they simply tell themselves they are not because they are uncomfortable with unpleasant truth so it never reaches the point where they can put that “feeling” into words. They just feel it…but they won’t identify the feeling. Prejudice and Racism is a felt event. It isn’t necessary to have a verbal report attached to it.

    That’s why those people who are openly racist are to be trusted more than those “liberals” with their faux pretentious attempts to “protect” “THEM”.

    And when I hear people talk about senisitivity to racial issues I can only think that you are talking about when white people are  talking about other colored people, And it  seems you may be saying white people  need to be sensitive when talking about “THEM”. “THEM” can say what they want because “THEM” is disabled, poor, uneducated people who really don’t understand their situation as well as white people do.

    This is just an intellectualized form of prejudice…nice fancy talk coming from another white person whose interaction with other colored people comes from …you know…the office lunch table…or somethin’

    That’s bullshit.  

Comments have been disabled.