Rhetorical despotism and the "race issue" on National Public Radio

I feel bad for Columbus Ohio whose mayor Michael Coleman was invited to speak about race and the presidential election on the National Public Radio program “Talk of the Nation” yesterday October 30.

Early in his remarks he said:

The election of Barack Obama he and this country will overcome the issues of race, and that’s one of the good things about this election, is we are overcoming the race factor.

Even in context (especially given what he says later) it is not entirely clear exactly what he means. A harsh interpretation is that the election of Sen Obama will mean the United States has finally gotten over race. (And if you do not vote for him – then you are perpetuating race as a problem.) At first this is what I thought he was saying and was pretty annoyed at the presumption and what can only be described as a kind of moral blackmail. (Vote for my guy or else you are a racist.)

But he continued to suggest race will still be a factor in American society no matter who is elected. So perhaps a more generous interpretation is that race is a factor in this election but Sen Obama is able to overcome it (that is – it will not prevent the success of his election bid). Fair enough.

What really frosted my mug was his next remarks which represent racial rhetorical despotism. Mayor Coleman argued that some things said against Sen Obama represent “code”.

I do think some folks around John McCain have used code words that frankly I think display some racial insensitivities.

The interview (to his credit) pressed for specifics.

“Risky.“

(Hold on. Swallow your coffee. Don’t hit your computer.)

I hear commercial after commercial calling Barack Obama a “risky candidate”.

The mayor then drew on his own experience when he ran for election as mayor in which his opponent labeled him as “risky” and this somehow was code language with racial (racist) undertones.

While it {such language} is not a direct assault it does underlie some underpinnings getting people to think some thoughts privately “what does that mean, ‘risky’?”

Mayor – no offense with all due respect(?!?)… no. And what you are engaging in is rhetorical despotism.

What does risky mean? The word risky has racial overtones? For Sarah Palin to suggest Sen Obama loves America less than she does has some “bothersome underpinnings”? (I wish Gov Palin would not say things like that but in what sense do such comments have racial over- I mean undertones?)

So if someone is a cipher, does not (at least according to that politician) have much hard experience or qualifications for a particular job, we cannot trust him as much, do not think he would do as good a job in office, and you call that “risky” that is somehow an appeal to racist attitudes? You have got to be kidding me.

Out of curiosity – what is a non-racist non-”code” way to say “risky”? If “risky” (and other such terms that you assert are code words) is unacceptable do be so kind as to provide us with an acceptable vocabulary for political discourse.

No? You will not? Because this is not about code or really about terms with bothersome racial undertones. This is about silencing the other side with unprovable assertions and guilt. “I am a member of ethnic group x. With the sole power of my own personal authority I declare that you are not allowed to use those words against the candidate I prefer. Because when you say tomato I assert unilaterally that what you really mean is orange and orange is racist”.

This is racial rhetorical despotism. Not to mention – and this is not a very polite thing to say – genuinely stupid. We need to stand up to this sort of arrogant foolishness.

I hope he is a better mayor. (According to my research – he is.)

For the record – some McCain supporters have sometimes said (or published) attacks against Sen Obama that are in my opinion genuinely racist. Yes I can show you specific examples. But spare us please this “code” nonsense. All that does is try to shut people up with fear and guilt.