Racism Works, Part 1 Million
In light of the controversial UAE port deal, a new Rasmussen poll shows that 43 percent of Americans now trust Congressional Democrats more on national security, while 41 percent trust President Bush more. If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time since September 11 that Democrats have had such an edge. Maybe even the first time Democrats have polled better on national security in a long time; I don't really know. The poll also found that Americans opposed the port deal by a 64 to 17 percent margin.
So what happened? Although Bush's national security poll numbers have been falling steadily as his War for Terrorist Recruitment spirals out of control in Iraq, he has still maintained a substantial lead over the Democrats on national security matters. The Karl Rove strategy of massive fearmongering and anti-Arab racism has successfully kept Americans frightened and supportive of Bush. So in order to take the national security advantage away from Bush, the Democrats essentially did a better job of using scare tactics and scapegoating minorities.
While there are no doubt legitimate questions about the secretive nature of the deal, the reason this has become an issue is pure, simple anti-Arab racism. The Democrats argument is basically that Arabs as a whole are scary, untrustworthy, and bent on harming America. While I enjoy seeing Bush and his cronies in serious political trouble, it's sad that Dems had to use Bush's own dirty, racist scare tactics on him in order to gain an edge. For all the progress this country has made on issues of tolerance, it never ceases to amaze me how scapegoating minorities (typically blacks, immigrants, Arabs, gays, or a few others) almost always works in politics.
posted by Joe at 4:33 PM
8 Comments:
Joe, I don't recall hearing Dems cry out against the UAE deal because they were against Arabs running our ports. I agree, racism does work, but what Dem said we don't trust the deal because they are Arabs?
You're right- the critics of the port deal (most of them, anyway) have not used the language of racism to justify theur complaints, instead using the language of national security. Similarly, when Republicans try to stick an amendment into our Constitution specifically discriminating against one group, they often won't even talk about "gays" but they'll talk a lot about "defending marriage."
My point is this: If the port had involved, say, South Korea or Chile instead of an Arab country, would there have been any outcry in the first place? Would this even have been a story? Would blowhards like Joe Biden still be complaining?
The Republicans criticizing the deal are being racist, too, often more blatantly so. But that doesn't change the fact that Democrats have used the specter of Arabs running wild at our ports to gain their first edge on national security in years (Maybe even since LBJ or Truman).
Haha. In the larger scheme of things, it's not a big deal Joe. What I find amusing is the fact that Bush is the one trying to make a "nuanced" argument this time. Lol. We all know what a nuanced man he is, afterall.
But Democrats aren't being as reactionary as it seems. They've been on the issue of port security for a long time. I would say they'd rather not have any foreign company run the ports, no matter where they're from. To your point, if it were the French, who are extremely anti-American on foreign policy, acquiring control, there wouldn't be as big of a deal, except maybe on fox news if they were paying attention, where they are xenophobes across the board.
I'd rather have us capitalize on an edge on national security along with every other issue with the up-coming elections on their way...no matter how it happens.
This is because Democratic control of congress will lead to an overall far more TRULY nuanced policy in all matters. And this will more than counterbalance whatever perceived slight the ports deal dishes to Arabs.
It's just a government controlled company, not a privately-owned Arab business, and the UAE HAS had relations with Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the hi-jackers in the past.
Therefore, I would say that the nuanced position is, surprisingly, exactly the postion Democrats have staked out...caution under consideration of all the facts. Just because this happens to coincide with the red american reason for opposing the turnover, namely, racism, doesn't mean it is the Democratic reason as well.
Take care
I've been wary of commenting on this post, but I'm also wary of the DP ports deal.
There may be racism in there, but there are legitimate concerns, as Josh points out above. Bear the following in mind:
*The UAE (not Dubai proper, but the overarching UAE organization) has substantial ties to al Qaeda.
*Bankers all across the UAE, Dubai included, are notorious for hiding/laundering terrorist funds.
*Dubai Ports itself has been under suspicion quite recently of helping to traffic weapons and nuclear matter into Tehran.
Those are red flags if anything is, yes? It bothers me greatly that the administration invaded a country whose al Qaeda ties they couldn't prove, and allows a state whose al Qaeda ties they CAN prove to manage American ports.
Good points, all. My point isn't that the Dubai deal is OK, or that there aren't legitimate things to criticize. Yes, the UAE, like most conservative Gulf peninsula countries, have a degree of ties to al-Qaeda. Yes, the deal was back-handed and yes, the very idea that any other country should be controlling our ports is messed up. Also, like Josh said, the Dems have been hitting on the port issue for a long time.
Having said all that, I think my point may have overreached a bit, but it was also slightly misunderstood.
What I mean is this: This story would not have developed in the 1st place without the anti-Arab element. Democrats would not have seized upon it, and the public would not be in line with them without the starting point of anti-Arab fear and racism. And if Dems and the Congress as a whole was so concerned about UAE ties to al-Qaeda, why didn't we hear about it more often before? Whether they control our ports or not, it's worth noting.
However, the response I've gotten has made me reconsider a bit. A few of the things you listed, too, Mike, are things I hadn't heard before. Let me conclude by saying while the Dems may not be behaving in a racist manner, at the very least they are basking in the support of a racist public on this issue.
So if you can't tell from the schizophrenic nature of this comment, I have conflicting feelings in a way I didn't when I angrily typed the post.
Joe, both sides against the port deal are gaining support from racists who do not understand the issues but reacted reflexively. However, John Kerry campaigned and debated on securing our ports. The silly, weak, 911 investigation that claimed "lack of imagination" led to the attacks, at least investigated port security and the UAE. When it comes to "business deals" BushCo would sacrifice our safety. Check out his family's ties to the money of the royal family of Dubai. Carlyle group got 100 million investment. Neil, with his educational software program has done lots of business with the Dubai royals.
Karena,
The family ties aspect of this story is also significant, one I don't think anyone has mentioned so far. I haven't seen Dems use this line of attack much (perhaps they're afraid of sounding like Michael Moore?), but it's certainly a valid one.
And yes, when it comes to whipping up support from racists, no one does this better than Republicans, and Congressional ones are back at it on this deal. Unfortunately for them, people have a hard time separating the Congressional Republican opposition from Bush's support, so much of the anti-Arab crowd is getting behind the Dems.
I think this discussion is accurately microcosmic of the larger conflictions liberalism itself is having over this deal. I have two instinctive reactions to it.
My first, knee-jerk one would be to say what Joe originally did, that is, essentially, "don't be a silly republican, just okay the damn thing."
Subtle racism and blatant fear-mongering are trademarks of the Bush administration I absolutely do not want any part of. The Boston Globe, my favorite paper, even endorsed the deal according to this line of thinking.
Knee-jerk responses, though, are also trade-mark reactions of the Bush Administration, and also something I want no part of. More careful evaluation of the issue, as I said earlier, thus leads me to my second, stronger instinction in favor of more contemplation.
That's where I think the Democrats are, and I support it.
Post a Comment
<< Home