Broken Covenant

In 2008, when it became obvious that Barack Obama would be the Democratic candidate, some people wondered aloud if having a black president meant that all criticism of the president's policies would automatically be shouted down as racist? At the time, Candidate Obama's supporters insisted that this would not happen. In fact, in order for a democracy to function, people have to be able to question their elected leaders. By running a black candidate, the Left was implicitly agreeing that the the Right would be able to disagree with the President without being labeled racists.

Obviously this compact was not honored. Almost as soon as the Tea Party protests began, they were dismissed as racist. This continues. Last week the Washington Post ran a first-person account written by a self-described liberal journalist who rode along with a bus-load of people going to Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally.

I have two problems with the account. The first is that Beck's rally was not a Tea Party event. While it had political speakers, the focus was on history, honoring the troops, and a return to public religion. There was a big (huge?) overlap with the Tea Party but it was never meant to be or billed as a Tea Party event. Regardless of this, the story is titled "Tea Party road trip: What the movement wants -- and why".

What really bothers me about the article comes about half-way through the article:

Donna Schlagheck, the political science department chair at Dayton's Wright State University, has a different explanation. "Southwestern Ohio culture is extremely conservative, Bible-belt, patriotic and stunned by globalization's impact," Schlagheck will say in an e-mail, noting the closure of several Dayton-area GM plants during the past decade. "And there is no discounting the racism in this Mason-Dixon region. I suspect we're seeing a convergence of culture, economy and fear of a future represented by a black president."

Where did that come from? The article offers no direct quotes supporting this. The closest it comes is the following paragragh:

On the bus, I ask Ann Hucke, a 57-year-old ambulance billing specialist, about the accusations of racism frequently lofted at the Tea Party. She bristles. "I grew up in Oakland, California, which is probably the most diversified city in the United States," she says, "and it's not like I live in a lily-white neighborhood now. There's Section 8 housing right near me."

So, when asked about racism, someone says, 'no it's not a factor,'

Then why include this? What's more, the quote from Schlagheck was an email. I suspect that the article was originally submitted without this and an editor insisted that it contain something about racism. With no actual racist quotes from the participants, the writer was forced to find someone completely unconnected to the event who was willing to include racism based on speculation.

Which brings me back to my original point - this is not the way to run a democracy. We have to be able to question our elected leaders without someone constantly delegitimizing it by crying racism. The grand bargain implied when Obama was elected never had a chance.