Andrew Breitbart's conservative "journalism": Letting Frank Gaffney race-bait the president

Conservative impressario Andrew Breitbart was held up recently as an intellectually honest conservative, of sorts, for his stand at the National Tea Party conference against Joe Farah's "birther" speech against Barack Obama.

“It’s self-indulgent, it’s narcissistic, it’s a losing issue,” Breitbart said. “It’s a losing situation. If you don’t have the frigging evidence — raising the question? You can do that to Republicans all day long. You have to disprove that you’re a racist! Forcing them to disprove something is a nightmare.”

Good stuff. But if he's serious about that stance, why on earth is he publishing Frank Gaffney's Big Government blog post suggesting that Obama is putting missile defense under the control of the Muslim hordes?


Now, thanks to an astute observation by Christopher Logan of the Logans Warning blog, we have another possible explanation for behavior that — in the face of rapidly growing threats posed by North Korean, Iranian, Russian, Chinese and others’ ballistic missiles — can only be described as treacherous and malfeasant: Team Obama’s anti-anti-missile initiatives are not simply acts of unilateral disarmament of the sort to be expected from an Alinsky acolyte. They seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah.

What could be code-breaking evidence of the latter explanation is to be found in the newly-disclosed redesign of the Missile Defense Agency logo (above). As Logan helpfully shows, the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo.

This is paranoid nuttiness of the first order. And it does exactly what Breitbart suggested was exactly the wrong thing to do: It "raises the question" of Obama's loyalties without any evidence -- only speculation -- of intent.

Breitbart clearly wants to have it both ways: He gets to stay somewhere in the vicinity of respectable opinion by taking down the clearly nutty Joseph Farah. But he's also happy to let writers on his site continue to plant baseless "Manchurian Candidate" seeds of doubt among his readers. The proof, I'd say, is in the publishing.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7142

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Race bait?

I thought Islam was a religion practiced by many races and not a race unto itself.

I'm not defending anything you criticize in this post, Joel. I'm just wondering if you meant to imply Islam is a race? It's either that, or you're saying that any wacky criticism of the president is by definition "race-baiting." And there's no way you meant to imply that.

What Gaffney writes is damningly kooky enough without tacking on the serious charge of race-baiting in the headline when it is not supported at all in what you cite of Gaffney's BG piece. I think you might want to consider editing your headline here.

Re: Race bait

I take your point Jim, and I anticipated your objection. But I'm going to stick with "race-baiting" in this instance, because -- correct as you are in your parsing of my terminology -- I think this is another attempt to paint the president as literally un-American in a way that doesn't generally happen with white politicians. (Democrats are often painted as "surrender monkeys" and "too French" on terror issues, sure, but how often is it suggested that they're actually, literally in league with radical fundamentalist terrorist Muslims? Not often.)

Not all -- or even most -- criticism of the president is racial in nature. While you're correct that Islam is a religion and not a race, I think that many and maybe even most Americans tend to conflate the religion with certain non-white races. I think it's a little silly to pretend otherwise. So while "Muslim-baiting" might be a more narrowly accurate description of Gaffney's efforts, I don't think the racial element here is all that hidden. I can take my lumps for being imprecise on this one.

No Good Word

Also, I'm not sure there's a good English word for what's going on here. It's true that this isn't quite race-baiting but it's not religion-baiting, either.

I think the term's accurate, too, Joel, in the sense that Obama's skin color is what allows this kind of thing to come out the way it does. George W. Bush would never have been accused of being an undercover Muslim and neither, as you rightly point out, would any other white politician. They might be accused of being too cozy with Arabs -- as Bush was with the Saud family -- but never of actually being Muslim. Purely political claims, when leveled against Obama, morph into (baseless) claims of identity and faith.

I think I might have already mentioned the e-mail message forwarded to me by my father claiming that Obama ordered the U.S. Post Office to issue a stamp celebrating the Muslim holiday of Eid. Of course the stamp has been out for almost a decade and George W. Bush praised it in a public speech, but never mind that -- it's a Muslim stamp so the good white Christians of the Post Office must've been forced to print it by the brown-skinned guy in charge!

Re: No Good Word

Agreed. MAYBE a term like "crypto-racist" gets a little closer, but crypto-anything has taken on such a loaded, conspiratorial tone lately that I'd probably be hesitant to use that, as well. I sympathize with Jim's objection, I truly do, but I also understand why Joel chose the word, and I think I probably would have let the term stand, as well.

CF

I always see it used in "cryptofascist" and almost always have to look it up again when I do. It's a lovely evocative word but, damn, I just can't remember it.

I believe "pararacist" is the word

you are looking for.

"There's a reason we don't quote Hitler when we discuss highway spending. It just puts too much noise into your signal." Joel, 2010

Tpyo

Oh, and, far be it from me to nitpick, but "impresario" has one S.

Tpyo! The Sea Na'vi Have Agreed to Join Us!

Drat. Thought "Tpyo" was going to be another Avatar post. Er. That was the name of the bald Jamie Foxx-looking one, wasn't it?

An anecdote, FWIW

When I was living in Vegas just after 9/11, the local Nation of Islam branch was furious about the WTC bombings -- not only because the bombings were horrific actions, but also because their particular branch of Islam was being lumped in with the jihadists.

Our edit board met with several of the local leaders, and let me tell you, they could have come into the room humming Lee Greenwood. It was fascinating.

Some standard, Joel

Why let accuracy get in the way of a good slur against someone you don't respect, like Gaffney. Much easier to just throw out "race-bait." Not honest, though. But that's your choice.

You can try to justify it all you want by remotely burrowing yourself into Gaffney's brain and divining what he really meant by what he said — even though he didn't say it. And you may think that is all the support you need to justify hurling the most damaging accusation possible in American society at a public figure like Gaffney.

I think it's dishonorable.

RE Accuracy

"Why let accuracy get in the way of a good slur against someone you don't respect,"

I'm curious what you think would be a better word or headline. Like crywalt, I am at a loss as to what I would have written in Joel's stead. Do you have any suggestions?

Re: Some standard

I think Gaffney's discredited himself enough, frankly, without any help from me.

In any case, I'm not saying that he's racist. I'm saying that he's "race-baiting." Which, as far as I'm concerned, is the same thing that conservatives refer to as "race hustling." About which we've talked quite a bit around here. Apparently only conservatives get to make that kind of accusation against liberals? Only conservatives get to burrow into the minds of their opponents to infer legitimate gripes and illegitimate attempts to put people on the defensive? "Race hustling" is fine to say, but "race baiting" is a bridge too far?

Right.

Jim, I don't expect you to agree with me on stuff. I don't expect to agree with you on stuff. But your calling me out as "dishonorable" involves you making the same kinds of speculation about my intent that you say I'm unfairly doing to Gaffney. I'll try to examine my own conscience to see if I've been unfair -- I really try to do that regularly -- but seriously: I don't need lessons in "honorable debating" from you.

New headline

How about just "slur" or "lie about"? Or "Breitbart 'Journalism': Letting Gaffney Push Obama's a 'Secret Muslim' Lie"

But it's clear that such a headline just wouldn't do, because Joel's intent was to cast Gaffney as a race-baiter, with no evidence but his own supposition, and the idea that "not all — or even most — criticism of the president is racial in nature." Joel appears to have a nose for sniffing out that criticism that is secretly racist in nature. We should all be grateful he shares his talent for that as a public service.

RE: Headline

"Joel appears to have a nose for sniffing out that criticism that is secretly racist in nature."

Do you even read what I write?

Re: Re: Headline

And finally, Jim, what got me cranky here is not that you think I'm wrong. It's that you decided that instead of being merely wrong, that I had "dishonorable" intent for doing so -- that, in essence, I'm not just a wrong person but a bad person. I don't think that's fair.

Bad

You are a bad person, Joel, but not because of this post. You're just bad. Even I can tell you're bad from way over here on the east coast. I mean, come on. You're as bad as Michael Jackson. Jam on it!

Re: Bad

"Even I can tell you're bad from way over here on the east coast. "

That shouldn't be too difficult. I live in Philadelphia.

RE Bad

"I live in Philadelphia."

Yup. Bad.

Swilly?

I forgot you're close by, Joel. That explains the smell!

Man, are you guys SCREWED with today's snow. I was down there a couple of weeks ago trying to park in South Philly to visit friends and holy crap! The city of Philadelphia just threw up their hands two snowfalls ago and said to everyone "You're on your own!" The result is hilariously awful. You might say it's the dream of the libertarians, where everyone has the right to shovel their sidewalks, parking spaces, and street however they like. Or even leave it alone. Trying to climb over three-foot-high piles of frozen dirty snow only to find someone shoveled a three-inch-wide strip on the sidewalk is fun. Seeing every available space marked off with spare kitchen chairs is a hoot. I mean, parking down there's ridiculous under optimum conditions, but now....

The only reason my friend's street was even plowed was all the residents got together and hired a guy to do it. Half the back alleys are untouched, nothing but bumps under the snow where the cars are.

My town, being a typical New Jersey communist utopia, has kept everything pretty clear. Not that we're allowed to park on the streets anyhow. This one's looking really bad for us, though. I think we've got a foot already and the snow hasn't even slowed.

"I was down there a couple of weeks ago trying to park in"

" I was down there a couple of weeks ago trying to park in South Philly to visit friends ..."

Friends? in South Philly? now the ugly truth is revealed to all.

"There's a reason we don't quote Hitler when we discuss highway spending. It just puts too much noise into your signal." Joel, 2010

Friends

I feel bad for them. They were living in Brooklyn but the rent overwhelmed them, what with unemployment and all, and had to move in with family in South Philly. It seems I keep getting dragged back to Philadelphia every so often: My wife was from there, and by the time her family had moved away one of my best friends lived there, and he finally escaped a couple of years ago, and now I have friends back there again.

If first prize is a week in Philadelphia, and second prize is two weeks, I'm pretty sure I came in last.

Race-baiting, race-hustling, Islam-bashing, etc.

I like Jim's substitute headline better: "Breitbart 'Journalism': Letting Gaffney Push Obama's a 'Secret Muslim' Lie." I think that captures the nut of the post, Joel. You (or Rywalt) no more know whether Gaffney is motivated by racially-motivated suspicion (crypto-, pseudo-, quasi- or otherwise) of Obama than Gaffney knows Obama's administration is in thrall to Shariah law. Anyway, the origin of the "secret Muslim" nonsense has less to do with Obama's skin color than his parentage and early upbringing in Indonesia. Let me put it another way: The distinction between race and Islam has been too easily muddled and confused in the discourse, and you aren't helping clarify matters.

Now, on "race-baiting" versus "race-hustling." Just so everyone is clear, I'm the guy who applies the term "race-hustler" to the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and their lesser ilk. I will continue to do so until they're dead or I am. A race-hustler is in the business of stoking racial differences for some sort of benefit, usually monetary but not always. The description fits Sharpton, et. al., perfectly.

You might have heard about the recent hullabaloo at UC San Diego. I'm trying to finish a post I started the other day. I sympathize with the black students there, I deplore the idiot fraternities, and I wish the editor of the Koala would fall down one of La Jolla's inviting cliffs. But I really, really detest the opportunists who've emerged from the woodwork to make hay of the issue, from the political hacks in the state Legislature to the ethnic studies professors to the NAACP. Hustlers all. And I have special loathing for the student government, which is using the controversy as an excuse to censor unpopular and even crude speech. They're hustlers, too. But more on that -- perhaps -- later.

That said, I don't for a moment think you're dishonorable, and I think that's a poor line of argument to take. This is touchy, emotional stuff -- and difficult to discuss in any real dispassionate way. I don't think we should be trying to divine motives; I'd prefer we argue ideas and their consequences.

To sum up: I wish Gaffney hadn't written that post in the way he did. I wish Joel had written a better headline. I wish Jim hadn't questioned Joel's honor. I hope we can let tempers settle a bit and get back to doing what we always do.

Re: "Race baiting"

Ben, thanks as always for being the grownup in the room. I'll try harder to emulate that.

To the extent that it detracts from the point I was trying to make, I regret the term "race baiting." I still think it's naive at best to pretend that for many Americans, "Islam" signifies not just religion but also, to some extent, race* -- and that it's naive to believe there's no racial element to the Muslim-baiting of the president. Muslim-baiting, though, is bad enough on its own, and I probably should've made my point on that basis.

*Indeed, the recent work of National Review's Mark Steyn, I'd argue, relies to some extent on the conflation: The idea that Fundamentalist Muslims are going to outbreed Western Europeans and Western Civilization into submission. It's an idea that makes no sense, really, unless you start thinking of it in racial terms. I've got my dad's skin color, but I don't have his faith. Only one those characteristics is genetic and immutable.

But to get back to my original point: We already know that Frank Gaffney is a Muslim-baiting loon. His latest Big Government post is what he does. Andrew Breitbart, from what I can tell is one of the leading distributors and shapers of mainstream-slash-populist conservative thought: He certainly knew what he was getting when he allowed Gaffney on his site. It would seem that he's fine planting the seeds of the "secret Muslim"/birther panic within his readership.

I know I sound like a broken record on this topic, but really: I'm having a very difficult time these days knowing where mainstream conservatism ends and fringe nuttiness begins. And I don't think that's my fault.

It's Obvious to Me: Obama Secret Trekker

that missile defense logo thing is nothing if not reminiscent of a re-booted Trek insignia.

Damn you, J. J. Abrams!

"There's a reason we don't quote Hitler when we discuss highway spending. It just puts too much noise into your signal." Joel, 2010

New Pepsi

It looks a lot like the new Pepsi logo. Probably due to the close relations between our government, the corn industry, and corn-syrup flavored beverages.

I expect to see Obama doing speeches from the newly redesigned, beige and maroon Oval Office, saying, "Make it so, Number Rahm."

." I still think it's naive at best to pretend that for many Ame

Just another example of high-in-mighty liberal thinkers convinced the most Americans are just plain stupid. Ergo; only they can save us from ourselves with government control and take over. Now of course I just have a job, pay taxes, support my family and pray; but I don’t know anyone that associates Islam with being black or racially inclusive at all. Don’t you people live in this country or talk to people who aren’t ego-canonical journalist. We also understand that all Christians aren’t white and that all Jews aren’t greedy rich men. I realize that the elitist ideological cocoon limits both traitorous left and dangerous right understanding and that rabid support of the agenda presumes common national idiocy but come on guys. It obvious how little the “media” thinks of those they are suppose to inform; yea, right…inform!