Skip to main content

The Context of Chris Hayes' Racism Quote

Last Saturday, Chris Hayes had Richard Belzer, the actor and comedian on the show, and during and exchange with him, said "It is undeniably the case that racist Americans are almost entirely in one political coalition and not the other." Alex Tabarrok attacked criticized him for that, citing survey data showing equal racist representation in each party, while John Sides added some nuance showing racial resentment weighted more towards Republicans. Kevin Drum has the best case for Chris, I think, saying that while there are surely racists in every party...
[Republicans] tolerate racism in their ranks far more than Democrats do. Bernie Goldberg, a liberal turned conservative, admitted this on air earlier this year when he told Bill O'Reilly, "I am immensely uncomfortable with the bigotry on the right, and I don't care how many people don't like it. I am sick of it." Republicans are also more willing to make political appeals with an anti-minority racial subtext, as Fox News did during its Summer of Hate in 2010, or as Mitt Romney is doing now with his claims that Obama is gutting work requirements for welfare.
For the past 40 years, Republicans have opposed virtually every effort to address racism in the legislative sphere. Politically, this has been suicidal for their standing in the nonwhite community, and it's safe to say that they wouldn't have done this unless there was a corresponding benefit for them among whites. Quite clearly, appealing to white resentment of minorities is an important part of the Republican brand in a way it's not for Democrats, even if plenty of racists still inhabit the Democratic Party.
I agree. What's missing here is the context of the quote. Belzer was not a great fit on the panel, which as usual was talking wonky policy stuff, while he is more of a comedian and polemicist. Belzer changed the subject from Romney's and Ryan's tax returns to start talking about how maybe Romney was bullied into choosing Ryan by the base, and:
Belzer: ...the base, the word is disgusting, they are base—
Hayes: Well, they're human beings.
B: They are human beings, but—
H: They're our fellow citizens, we're just trying to understand them.
B: I mean, but what are the family values? Misogyny, racism, homophobia, warmongering...
H: Well, look, I don't know...
B: That's not hyperbole, Chris, but go ahead.
H: I don't want to get in an argument over the base, but I try to give people the charity that they—
B: Well most people are basically decent, but there's this core of racist elements within that party that is rearing its ugly head and unashamedly race-baiting, and it's disgusting.
H: I will say this: it is undeniably the case that racist Americans are almost entirely in one political coalition and not the other, and that the nature of American politics of the moment.
(Emphasis mine, of course. Find the video here, about 3:30 or so.) Hayes then immediately changed the subject back to Paul Ryan's tax returns.

It was an awkward exchange, and clearly driven by the fact that Belzer (a celebrity entertainer) did not have the policy chops to add anything substantial to the tax discussion, and so waded in and wandered off into the more friendly territory of a random diatribe against the Republican base. Hayes kept trying to head him off, and finally just ended the conversation with the line in question.

It is the case that appealing to white racial resentment has been part of Republican political strategy for more than a generation. It's tapered off somewhat in the last 15-20 years, but it used to be front and center. But regardless of which party the racists are in, we should acknowledge that this line came out of an exchange where Hayes was defending the Republican base's basic humanity against Belzer's broad stereotyping.

Comments

  1. In 1976, Ronald Reagan described the "welfare queen" who drove to the welfare office in her Cadillac and collected $150,000 a year in public aid. And even though she was never identified, we all know what race she was.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free will, part II

This post is dedicated to Mark Bedau , my philosophy professor at Reed, a great guy and a wonderful teacher, by far the least pretentious philosopher I've ever met. He is responsible for this post only insofar as he sparked my interest in the subject; its many shortcomings are mine alone. Who's ready for some unqualified philosophical rambling? I'm not going to do much more than summarize, as this is probably one of the five biggest problems in philosophy and the material quickly gets out of hand. Anyway—let's start with some terms, appropriately hefty philosophical ones. (I'm going to steal shamelessly from Wikipedia, as the free will article is very good.) Free will is "purported ability of agents to make choices free from constraints." Some call it the "ability to have done otherwise," but that definition runs into problems which I'll describe later. Determinism is the view that all events are caused by previous events, while indet...

On Refusing to Vote for Bloomberg

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg is attempting to buy the Democratic nomination. With something like $400 million in personal spending so far, that much is clear — and it appears to be working at least somewhat well, as he is nearing second place in national polls. I would guess that he will quickly into diminishing returns, but on the other hand spending on this level is totally unprecedented. At this burn rate he could easily spend more than the entire 2016 presidential election cost both parties before the primary is over. I published a piece today outlining why I would not vote for Bloomberg against Trump (I would vote for Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Biden), even though I live in a swing state. This got a lot of "vote blue no matter who" people riled up . They scolded me and demanded that I pre-commit to voting for Bloomberg should he win the nomination. The argument as I understand it is to try to make it as likely as possible that whatever Democrat wins t...

RIP Stephanie Chance, Niger Peace Corps volunteer

Our Peace Corps family has been suffering some tragedies lately. Stephanie Chance, a volunteer in Niger, has died of what appears to be natural causes. My thoughts are with her friends and family. Below I'm posting a letter from Director Aaron Williams. I am deeply saddened to write that Municipal Development Volunteer Stephanie Chance, an admired member of the Peace Corps family in Niger, died on Thursday, October 7, 2010. Stephanie, 26 years old, was found in her home in Zinder, and, at this time her death appears to be from natural causes. Her sudden passing is mourned by the entire Peace Corps community, including her fellow training group members, who were recently sworn in together as Volunteers on September 23, 2010. Stephanie was a native of Phoenix, Arizona, and she had arrived in Niger for training in July 2010. She had just arrived at her site in Zinder and was busy getting to know the community to help local officials better coordinate local government servi...