Limbaugh's latest coded attacks on Obama

On the way into school today, I heard Rush Limbaugh refer to Barack Obama as having been a "street organizer," a bit of racially-coded jargon pioneered by the Republican National Committee. (It doesn't even make sense -- you can't organize streets.) Limbaugh, who previously called Barack Obama a "little black man-child," also contrasted Obama's past with Sarah Palin's "quintessentially American" life story -- classy stuff. I'll post a link to Media Matters when they have a transcript and audio up.

Update 9/2 8:13 PM: In fairness to Limbaugh, Rob points out in comments that Obama himself used the term "street organizer" to describe what he did. I'm still uncomfortable with Limbaugh using it, however.

Comments

[Howard Craft]

Ah, I think it's more a part of a campaign to show him as a radical fringe type guy.

In middle-America it's "grass roots" (a positive thing) but in an urban environment it invokes inciting riots and civil disobedience.

It also implies low-level stuff (a bit like people quipping over the small size of Wasilla in Alaska).

I would not apply the racial tag unless old Rush was invoking images of the Black Panthers, or such.

I think it has more to do with promoting the Ayers tie-in innuendos from the Corsi book and 507 campaigns.

[Rob]

There's a small flaw in your logic, Brendan. According to the New York Times, Obama has referred to himself as a street organizer:

Mr. Dillard said, “I remember Rickey chiding Obama that, ‘What do you know, Barack? You grew up in Hawaii and you live in Hyde Park. What do you know about the street?’ To which Obama shot back: ‘I know a lot. I didn’t exactly have a rosy childhood. I’m a street organizer by profession and a lot of my area, once you get outside the University of Chicago neighborhoods, is just as tough as your West Side, Rickey.’ ” (p.3)

At the time [1995], Mr. Obama said he was running to mobilize people to work for change. He wanted to apply techniques of community organizing to elected office. In a 1995 profile in The Chicago Reader, he said, “What if a politician were to see his job as an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?” (p. 2)

Is it really racially-coded jargon to describe Obama's job in the same words he used?

[Howard Craft]

I looked into this a bit more and you are generally correct Brendan. This is not "coded" at all - that is one way Rush has defined his activities - as engaging in "inner city race politics".

Rush knows he is using Obama's own words (not that it really matters, in terms of meaning) and will say so.

That is part of the Rush routine - he can try to take what others have actually said and portray it in a negative way (whereas the original person had used the term in a positive way, of course). Rush can and will express audacity that the original person had used that language themselves.

These are part of the Rush Limbaugh technique and message - using race and racial issues to be divisive however or whenever it suits him.

There are no restrictions on that - that is his his free speech. Combining anger and other negative emotions with racial identity (or the role of race in society) isn't "racism".

So I think your original post is accurate Brendan, but it doesn't demonstrate that Rush is racist (and I am not saying that he is) nor that he was doing anything that should be prohibited.

Rush does not assail Obama because he is a minority but he uses his racial identity (and the issue of race in politics and in our society) as part of his criticism of him, but it is specific to Obama.

Conversely, Rush will laud Clarence Thomas and use his his racial identity (and the issue of race in politics and in our society) as part of his praise.

It would be better for society, IMHO, for more people to challenge what Rush says because he fabricates weak arguments and draws weak conclusions and then hammers these ideas home with extremely emotional rhetoric.

I do not mean his views on Obama, per se, but his views on society and on government and his deep deep personalization of politics where he makes judgments (or defends judgments) based on his subjective assessments of other people's intentions, morals and values.

[Speener]

We need to stop validating Limbaugh. He has no place in serious discussion.

[Howard Craft]

Speener - he has a place because he has several million listeners.

Pointing out what he actually says and how he says it is also very different from "validating" him.

Saying he should be ignored is a bit like saying individuals shouldn't care what is included in a paid political ad on TV, based on the premise that we know in advance that the ad will have a bias favoring one candidate over another.

Of course Rush is getting far more exposure, in terms of stations and air time, than any paid political ads.

The additional argument that Rush is only broadcasting to an audience of like-minded listeners isn't compelling either. Part of his mission is building political a affiliation based on anger, resentment and closed-mindedness.

He is moving a portion of the electorate away from fact-based decision making and away from seeking results-based policy choices.

That activity should be recognized as having a primary end goal - creating partisanship.

I don’t think ignoring his commentary is appropriate or beneficial.