It seemed to me that the tone of the debate around racially-charged issues was palpable and disturbing, including the way the crowd boo-ed Juan Williams for pressing his line of questioning about Newt's racial (in)sensitivities, and the way the crowd gave Newt a standing ovation at the end of his tirade. Newt didn't back away from or try to explain away his repeated description of Obama as a "food stamp president"--and the crowd loved it. (See the Washington Post's fact check of Newt's claim). And they also really loved Perry's rousing call for a new civil war in South Carolina (prompting one tweeter to wonder if the explosions we were hearing here at the end of the debate meant the war had actually begun). I asked my kindly guide Dan Balz of the Washington Post whether he could remember a similarly raucous debate audience, and he could only think of one: last year's tea-party hosted debate. Which tells you something.
But it's also important to remember Mr. Williams' own past role in America's racial discourse. It's not unimaginable that he was playing willing foil for the kind of "color blind" rhetoric that many white Americans find empowering and reassuring (and that FOX News, his employer, revels in). It's not racist, according to this rhetoric, to insist on "work" and "responsibility." As Newt blandly asserted, there is no racial overtone to calling our first Black president a "food stamp president." Cue the wildly cheering crowd.
The exchange did little to damage Mr. Williams, and did a great deal to boost Newt.
Keep your eye on how the media handle this tangled, difficult topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment