Tim Wise on Obama Red-baiting: Socialism as a New Black Bogeyman

This was originally posted on Tim Wise’ facebook page,and we’re reproducing it here for folks to discuss, critique, and comment on. Tim Wise is a white guy known for his writings on white privilege.

Red-Baiting and Racism: Socialism as the New Black Bogeyman

By Tim Wiseobama-marx
August 10, 2009

Throughout the first six months of his administration, President Obama–perhaps one of the most politically cautious leaders in contemporary history–has been routinely portrayed as a radical by his opponents on the far-right. In particular, persons who have apparently never actually studied Marxism (or if they did, managed to somehow find therein support for such things as bailing out banks and elite corporations) contend that Obama is indeed a socialist. Reducing all government action other than warmaking to part of a larger socialist conspiracy, the right contends that health care reform is socialist, capping greenhouse gas emissions is socialist, even providing incentives for driving fuel efficient cars is socialist. That the right insists upon Obama’s radical-left credentials, even as they push an Obama=Hitler meme (something they apparently think is fair, since, after all the Nazis were National Socialists, albeit the kind who routinely murdered the genuine article) only speaks to the special brand of crazy currently in vogue among the nation’s reactionary forces.

As real socialists laugh at these clumsily made broadsides, and as scholars of actual socialist theory try and explain the absurdity of the analogies being drawn by conservative commentators, a key point seems to have been missed, and it is this point that best explains what the red-baiting is actually about.

It is not, and please make note of it, about socialism. Or capitalism. Or economics at all, per se. After all, President Bush was among the most profligate government spenders in recent memory, yet few ever referred to him in terms as derisive as those being hurled at Obama. Even when President Clinton proposed health care reform, those who opposed his efforts, though vociferous in their critique, rarely trotted out the dreaded s-word as part of their arsenal. They prattled on about “big government,” yes, but not socialism as such. Likewise, when Ronald Reagan helped craft the huge FICA tax hike in 1983, in a bipartisan attempt to save Social Security, few stalwart conservatives thought to call America’s cowboy-in-chief a closet communist. And many of the loudest voices at the recent town hall meetings–so many of which have been commandeered by angry minions ginned up by talk radio–are elderly folk whose own health care is government-provided, and whose first homes were purchased several decades ago with FHA and VA loans, underwritten by the government, for that matter. Many of them no doubt reaped the benefits of the GI Bill, either directly or indirectly through their own parents.

It is not, in other words, a simple belief in smaller government or lower taxes that animates the near-hysterical cries from the right about wanting “their country back,” from those who have presumably hijacked it: you know, those known lefties like Tim Geithner and Rahm Emanuel. No, what differentiates Obama from any of the other big spenders who have previously occupied the White House is principally one thing–his color. And it is his color that makes the bandying about of the “socialist” label especially effective and dangerous as a linguistic trope. Indeed, I would suggest that at the present moment, socialism is little more than racist code for the longstanding white fear that black folks will steal from them, and covet everything they have. The fact that the fear may now be of a black president, and not just some random black burglar hardly changes the fact that it is fear nonetheless: a deep, abiding suspicion that African American folk can’t wait to take whitey’s stuff, as payback, as reparations, as a way to balance the historic scales of injustice that have so long tilted in our favor. In short, the current round of red-baiting is based on implicit (and perhaps even explicit) appeals to white racial resentment. It is Mau-Mauing in the truest sense of the term, and especially since Obama’s father was from the former colonial Kenya! Unless this is understood, left-progressive responses to the tactic will likely fall flat. After all, pointing out the absurdity of calling Obama a socialist, given his real policy agenda, will mean little if the people issuing the charge were never using the term in the literal sense, but rather, as a symbol for something else entirely.

To begin with, and this is something often under-appreciated by the white left, to the right and its leadership (if not necessarily its foot-soldiers), the battle between capitalism and communism/socialism has long been seen as a racialized conflict. First, of course, is the generally non-white hue of those who have raised the socialist or communist banner from a position of national leadership. Most such places and persons have been of color: China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, assorted places in Latin America from time to time, or the Caribbean, or in Africa. With the exception of the former Soviet Union and its immediate Eastern European satellites–which are understood as having had state socialism foisted upon them, rather than having it freely chosen through their own revolutions from below–Marxism in practice has been a pretty much exclusively non-white venture.

And even the Russians were seen through racialized lenses by some of America’s most vociferous cold warriors. To wit, consider what General Edward Rowney, who would become President Reagan’s chief arms negotiator with the Soviets, told Manning Marable in the late 1970s, and which Marable then recounted in his book, The Great Wells of Democracy:

“One day I asked Rowney about the prospects for peace, and he replied that meaningful negotiations with the Russian Communists were impossible. ‘The Russians,’ Rowney explained, never experienced the Renaissance, or took part in Western civilization or culture. I pressed the point, asking whether his real problem with Russia was its adherence to communism. Rowney snapped, ‘Communism has nothing to do with it!’ He looked thoughtful for a moment and then said simply, ‘The real problem with Russians is that they are Asiatics’.”

In the present day, the only remaining socialists in governance on the planet are of color: in places like Cuba or Venezuela, perhaps China (though to a more truncated extent, given their embrace of the market in recent decades) and, on the lunatic Stalinist fringe, North Korea. These are the last remaining standard-bearers, in leadership positions, who would actually use the term socialist to describe themselves. Given the color-coding of socialism in the 21st century, at the level of governance, to use the label to describe President Obama and his administration, has the effect of tying him to these “other” socialists in power. Although he has nearly nothing in common with them politically or in terms of his policy prescriptions, he is a man of color, so the connection is made, mentally, even if it carries no intellectual or factual truth.

Secondly, and even more to the point, we must remember what “socialism” is, especially in the eyes of its critics: it is, to them, a code for redistribution. Of course, some forms of socialism are more redistributive than others, and even late-stage capitalism tends to engage in some forms of very mild redistribution (as with the income tax code). But if you were to ask most who grow apoplectic at the mere mention of the word “socialism” for the first synonym that came to their mind, redistribution is likely the one they would choose. Surely it would be among their top two or three.

Now, given the almost instinctual connection made between socialism and redistribution, imagine what many white folks would naturally assume when told that this man, this black man, this black man with an African daddy, was a socialist. Even if those using the term didn’t intend it to push racial buttons (and that is a decidedly large “if”), the fact remains that for many, it would almost certainly prompt any number of racial fears and insecurities: as in, the black guy is going to take from those who work and give to those who don’t. And naturally, we all know (or at least our ill-informed prejudices tell us) who’s in the first group and who’s in the second one. Thus, the joke making the rounds on the internet, and likely in your workplace, about Obama planning on taxing aspirin “because it’s white and it works.” Or the guy with the sign at the April teabagger rally, which read, Obama’s Plan: White Slavery. Or others who have carried overtly racist signs to frame their message: signs suggesting that Obama hopes to provide care for all brown-skinned illegal immigrants, while simultaneously murdering the white elderly, or that cast the President in decidely simian imagery, and refer to him, crudely but clearly as a monkey. Or Glenn Beck’s paranoid screed from late July, which sought to link health care reform, and virtually every single piece of Obama’s political agenda to some kind of backdoor reparations scheme. This, coupled with Beck’s even more unhinged claim to have discovered a communist/black nationalist conspiracy in the administration’s Green Jobs Initiative. All because the initiative is headed up by author and activist Van Jones: a guy whose recent book explains how to save capitalism through eco-friendly efforts at development and job creation. So even there, it isn’t about socialism, so much as the fact that Jones is black, and was once (for a couple of months) a nationalist, and has a goatee, and looks determined (read:mean) in some of his more contemplative press photos.

Fact is, the longstanding association in white minds between social program spending and racial redistribution has been well-established, by scholars such as Martin Gilens, Kenneth Neubeck, Noel Cazenave, and Jill Quadagno, among others. Indeed, it was only the willingness of past presidents like FDR to all but cut blacks out of income support programs that convinced white lawmakers and the public to sign on to any form of American welfare system in the first place: a willingness that waned as soon as people of color finally gained access to these programs beginning in the 50s and 60s. But even as strong as the social program/black folks association has been in the past, it has, until now, never had a black face to put with the effort. With a man of color in the position of president, it becomes far more convincing to those given to fear black predation already. It isn’t just that the government will tax you, white people. It’s that the black guy will. And for people like him. At your expense.

Much as the white right blew a gasket at the thought of bailing out homeowners with sub-prime and exploding mortgages a few months back (and if you listened to the rhetoric on the radio it was hard to miss the racial animosity that undergirded much of the conservative hostility to the idea, since they seemed to think only persons of color would be helped by such a plan), they now too often view Obama’s moves to more comprehensive health care as simply another way to take from those whites who have “played by the rules” and give to those folks of color who haven’t. Even as millions of whites would stand to benefit from health care reform–and all whites, as with people of color would enjoy greater choices with the very public option that has drawn the most fire–the imagery of the recipients has remained black and brown, as with all social programs; and the imagery of the persons who would be taxed for the effort has remained hard-working white folks.

By allowing the right to throw around terms like socialist to describe the President and socialism to describe his incredibly watered-down, generally big business friendly approach to health care, while not recognizing the memetic purpose of such arguments is to ensure that the right will succeed in their demonization campaign. To respond by pointing out how the plan really isn’t socialist, or how Obama really isn’t a socialist misses the point, which was never, in the end, about economic systems or philosophies: none of which the folks on the right raising the most hell show any signs of understanding anyway. This noise is about race. It is about “othering” a President who is seen as a symbol of white dispossession: dispossession of white hegemony, white entitlement, white expectation, and white power, unquestioned and unchallenged from the darker skinned other. This is what animates the every move of the angry masses, individual exceptions notwithstanding. Unless the left begins pushing back, and insisting that yes, the old days are gone, white hegemony is dead, and deserved its demise, and that we will all be better off for it, the chorus of white backlash will only grow louder. So too will it grow more effective at dividing and conquering the working people who would benefit–all of them–from a new direction.

Tim Wise is the author of four books on race and racism. His latest is Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama. (City Lights: 2009).

Advertisements

4 responses to “Tim Wise on Obama Red-baiting: Socialism as a New Black Bogeyman

  1. Tim says that it isn’t about economics and that it’s entirely about race. Though I find his usual binary way of thinking (it isn’t about this, it’s absolutely about that) not very helpful, I think that he’s actually touching on something in this piece . . . I’ll let others chime in on their thoughts.

    I want to point out one thing about Tim’s last sentence:

    “So too will it grow more effective at dividing and conquering the working people who would benefit–all of them–from a new direction.”

    It’s interesting that Tim seems to understand something about socialism and working class politics, yet his ending is incredibly vague. How will the working people (and “all of them”, as we’re told) benefit from a “new direction.”?

    Homeboy, you just spent thousands of words talking about how Obama is no socialist and that he’s being red-baited by the white right and how the “white left” (socialist groups, presumably . . . all of whom are not white, and which Tim’s dismissal of borders on making them invisible, but which are definitely pretty pasty as a majority) But when it comes to actually talking about the multiracial working class’ interest in revolution and socialism he punks out and talks about a vague “new direction.”

    perhaps our white brother Tim is afraid of being brandished as a socialist himself? would it maybe make a dent in his wallet by making his booksales take a dip? Whatever it is, it’s disappointing because this dude has the ear of so many people that he could be talking to about some real shit instead of making an interesting and insightful racial analysis and then fumbling the ball at the end . . .

    Just my two cents as a communist of color.

  2. this piece goes well with an essay by barbara epstein titled “Why the left is weak – and what to do about it” (http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21992). both essays SUCK.

    they both have in common the claim that the label “socialism” is a liability that we the left should bow to rather than address head on.

    tim wise should be saying “hell no obama isnt a socialist… thats his problem!”

    instead he graces us with another one of his oh-so-played-out white guilt based anti-racist formulaic pontifications, which offer no practical solutions other than self-negation (a non-strategy).

    why doesnt he go get white workers to see themselves in solidarity with working class people of color? why doesnt he encourage solidarity strikes against Israel, or for New Orleans residents’ right to return? instead he tries to defend the commander in chief of amerikkka from the viscious racist slur “socialist,” and tries to get us to sympathize with obama’s bailout-no-universal-health-immigrant-oppressing-IMPERIALIST ass… why? just cuz he’s black? defending president obama is racist, because it necessarily means the perpetuation of a (mostly white) capitalist attack on the overwhelmingly non-white global proletariat. wise is a hypocritical liberal chump.

  3. It seems to me that the main criticism of Wise is that he’s not a socialist [which he doesn’t claim to be] and this therefore invalidates any point he may make, or at least does not require us to take him seriously enough to address his actual arguments.

    Hijole! says: “Tim says that it isn’t about economics and that it’s entirely about race.” That’s not what Wise said. He said that the accusations of socialism are not about Obama’s economic policies, and then goes on to provide examples of state economic policies that should also have been denounced as socialist [“when Ronald Reagan helped craft the huge FICA tax hike in 1983”], except they were enacted by white presidents. Under Bush, the state had become larger and even more intrusive than ever, and yet where were the cries of “socialism” then? Obviously Bush was no socialist, but the popular image of socialism revolves around redistribution of wealth, and a powerful state. Whether that is the proper definition is beside the point. The point is that’s how people see it; redistributive, state-driven policies have been implemented by white presidents [like the EPA and OSHA under Nixon] and they were not called socialists. So what’s different now, or isn’t it obvious?

    Contrary to what esteban claims, I see no evidence in this that Wise considers the label “socialism” a liability. His focus is on the ways in which racists have re-invoked the link between anti-communism and racism, made even stronger now that there are no European countries prominently calling themselves socialist, to put aggressively promote a racial ideology. Moreso, the left is often missing the point because we don’t recognize this. These reactionaries are not against Obama’s policies. If they were put out by John McCain, they would probably find them acceptable and maybe even fight for them.

    Rather than defending Obama against charges of racism, Wise contrasts his policies to socialism and finds them inadequate: “By allowing the right to throw around terms like socialist to describe the President and socialism to describe his incredibly watered-down, generally big business friendly approach to health care…”

    Wise is right to point out that the reactionary anti-Obama campaigns are not about his particular policies, it is about what they *feel* he represents. Does he represent, literally, the destruction of capital? Of course not, any cursory glance at his policies would show the exact opposite. What he represents to them is a challenge to their racialized class perspective in which black people cannot be competent enough to have power, certainly not to run the empire. Another source of anxiety for white supremacists is the notion that their interests are “normal”, subsequently, if Black, or any non-white peoples are able to attain influence, they will only look out for their interests. Therefore only white people can represent all the people. When David Dinkins was elected Mayor of NYC, many white people said “I hope he doesn’t just do for his own,” in order to evade the ways they have naturalized white privilege.

    So does this amount to defending Obama? No, it is a recognition that white supremacy is so entrenched, even as the head of the most powerful empire on earth is not immune to it.

    Also esteban’s criticism of Wise overall is off the mark. He says: “why doesnt he go get white workers to see themselves in solidarity with working class people of color?” This is highly misinformed since this is exactly what Wise does, and why white workers? Do we want other white people to be racists or are they so locked into their class position that they can’t possibly oppose racism? Does ideology really work in that narrow way? I would suggest that people investigate Wise’s history and work [he got politicized doing solidarity work for El Salvador] before they start passing judgment.

    For the purposes of this essay, I think it’s fine that Wise does not make concrete proposals for action. Why should he? He is exposing the racial underpinnings of this reactionary upsurge and this is important, but we won’t see this as long as our concern is more on what we think he should be saying rather than what he IS saying.

  4. “So does this amount to defending Obama? No, it is a recognition that white supremacy is so entrenched, even as the head of the most powerful empire on earth is not immune to it.”

    To expand on this point, consider the different incidences of people bringing guns to Obama events. During the Bush years, no Muslim or South Asian would even consider bringing a Swiss army knife within 10 blocks of Bush unless they wanted to feel the full wrath of state power. The “anti-healthcare movement” is evidently racist, esp. with references to taking “our” America back. This should be obvious with their blatant misrepresentations of Obama’s bill. In many cases, they can’t even describe what they actually oppose, but actually say they are “losing their country.” Now with a black man in charge of the empire, with an apparatus that includes nuclear weapons, and highly trained military forces, reactionaries are sending two messages to two audiences: Obama and all other non-whites.

    In their minds Obama represents an encroachment on their privilege, but that’s because, in reality, his presidency does reflect the continuing changes in the makeup of the population and corresponding shifts in social consciousness. We will not be a white-majority population in 100 years, or even less. In order to maintain the long-term existence of the empire, certain policy concessions were made to neutralize resistance in the 60s and 70s, which set in motion a liberalization of ideology and social interaction that the right has been concerned to contain or roll back. Now it’s reached all the way to the top – Obama’s presidency has exceeded the bounds of their vision. More than that, it has given the green light to others that we should expect more.

    This is the core of their second message, and that’s directed at the general non-white population. The racist attacks on Obama signify that non-whites have forgotten their place, and need to be reminded.

    I am not interested in “defending” any imperialist, black or not, but I think it’s wrong not to see the larger implications of this anti-Obama movement which is becoming more vocal, unhinged and dangerous. As esteban points out, Obama does not represent the interests of non-whites, proletarian or otherwise, but the right think he does and will act against him, and us, on that basis. When I say “the right” I’m talking about white workers too, not just the bourgeoisie.

    Our challenge is to maintain a revolutionary stance of opposition to Obama’s imperialism without appearing to have common cause with fascist reaction. We need to make clear our hostility to racism, which can never be justified, while putting forth a more principled, radical perspective. In this process, we cannot write off allies from other classes in the name of working class ideological purity, we need to win as many people over as possible, or we will never be able to build the kind of movement we need for a socialism.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s