http://www.theroot.com/views/jimmy-carter-true-son-south-hits-nail-head

I suspect Carter’s reaction was much like mine: a knowing, bodily response or recognition, that the outburst was an assertion of racist righteousness. THEN we try to go back and figure out what to say about that feeling. I’m not so sure I would have framed it as Carter did, though. He kept stressing it wasn’t a southern reaction, but I think predominately it is. I do mean south geographically, I mean the southern imaginary.

Ron Greene had a bunch of us read Houston Baker Jr.’s Turning South Again back in 2002. That book haunts me, still.

<blockquote cite=[For fear to continue], there must be some hope of being saved from the cause of agony. And there is a sign of this: fear makes people inclined to deliberation, while no one deliberates about hopeless things. (2.5.14)

Given the extent to which neo-con rhetoric tends to invent from fear, one must wonder if Wilson’s outburst is a gasping attempt to maintain deliberation and hope against the insurgent liberal guerrillas.

The difference, tho, are substantive policy concerns with Dubya/Cheney’s cabal verses the affective fear-mongering we see today with Obama. Not that there isn’t plenty to quibble over in Obama’s strategies and policies, certainly, but the Right is not engaging in substantive debate: instead, we get “death panels” and gun-toting town hall attendees or hysterical (in both senses) teabaggers. BUT I will quibble with Josh over making racism solely a matter of Wilson’s biography, motives and strategies. Yes, Wilson was clearly “swept up” in the affective moment in a fit of possession, but we should be careful to distinguish a racist from racism since I’d agree that he was guilty of the latter even if we can also demonstrate a history of the former. Check out the provocative post on
RACISM FATIGUE for more. Still, plausible deniability of overt racism is a time-honored Southern tradition (“I’m not a racist BUT…”) so it should come as little surprise that the most ardent bigots rarely announce the Klan mask hanging in the closet at home (even David Duke now sells himself as a traditional conservative). Wilson made exactly the remarks he wanted to, the intention of which was precisely NOT to appear racist, but nonetheless betrayed the affective force of those convictions steeped in racism, classism, and a faith in White Supremacy. Yet he said it by not saying it.

Maybe Josh should amend his pending copyright for tee-shirts announcing “It’s the Structure, Stupid!” Perhaps another, sold to our Right Wing dopplegangers, would instead read: “It’s the Circulation, Stupid!”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m with you 100% on your critique of Wilson. I’m not trying to romanticize anything he did. I think what you’ve written is perfectly clear and spot on. My post isn’t directed at you, more at liberal opinion leaders who often have precisely the same criticisms for leftists who deploy confrontational strategies as they now do Wilson (I’m thinking of last year’s anti-Tom Tancredo protest at UNC and the anti-Horowitz demo here at UT). As I follow the coverage of Wilson, it’s astonishingly similar. But again, that’s not intended as a defense of Wilson.

I certainly don’t think Habermasian norms of publicity are wrongheaded in principal. Not only do I think it’s sometimes pragmatic, but a view of the public sphere as normative and counterfactual should, I think, be an ethical drive underlying all of our politics. I like Levinas for similar reasons. However, I think we also have to be invested in creating spaces for authentic publicity, which entails breaking with norms of publicity. I’m thinking less of Fraser’s critique of Habermas in this regard and more of Warren Montag’s critique of his “fear of the streets.” When we prematurely foreclose upon agitational and indecorous protest strategies, we exclude certain voices.

What I am trying to argue is that the norms governing decorum, especially in the context of the president speaking joint, presume this “equality of personhood” that Wilson violated. In other words, regardless of whether or not outbursts are good or bad or politically strategic or not, the gaff concerns a violation of norms that says, performatively, the president is not worthy of due consideration. It’s not that he said “you lie!” to be civilly disobedient or, as he claimed later, to draw attention to the identification process (bullshit), but rather he said “you like” in the way Doud says he said it: “You lie, boy!”

In other words, the violation of decorum is not bad per se (although I think in this context it is for, a-hem, reasons that make the norms of publicity important, however flawed), its the motive and values behind the outburst here that I’m critiquing. In other words, yes, I don’t think ANYONE should interrupt the president (and on this we do disagree), but even so, my pointing out his norm violation has to do with his racist political inspiration. Does this make sense?

As for the wrong-headedness of the Habermasian norms of publicity itself: I’m not so sure. Certainly there are contexts in which the bracketing of inequities works for pragmatic gains. Ultimately I’m a pragmatist, despite my idealism. It’s hard for me to take a principled stand against, say, norms of publicity, when relying or playing to those norms can save a human life (for example). In general, I’m not a principled person in the sense of personal integrity, etc. We can have a good conversation about this if you like, but, ultimately my commitment to brotherly and sisterly love comes before principle. I’m thinking here, in particular, of the famous “your ex-con friend wants to borrow your ax” scenarios . . . .

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100009567/maureen-dowds-disgusting-insinuation-that-joe-wilson-is-a-racist-would-land-her-in-court-in-britain/

I have no qualms about indecorous protest in principle and I suppose that’s a complaint I have about how many on the left–chiefly the Maddows and Oblermanns out there–have opted to respond to this. Wilson gets lambasted for his incivility rather than his racism. Dowd’s the first figure in the MSM that I’ve seen mention race in relation to this.

I think principled opposition to indecorous protest is politically wrongheaded. As you do a fine job of pointing out above, there’s plenty to attack Wilson on for the substance of his conduct. As someone who has heckled my fair share of political targets (John Ashcroft, David Horowitz, to name a few), I think how we judge those protests should be bound to our normative critique of their political content and their political expediency, not an investment in a Habermasian public sphere where substantive antagonisms exist.

This concerns me because the right is currently the largest political constituency in the country willing to get loud and nasty. They look silly now but they’re already derailing health care reform and having an impact on public discourse that overestimates their size. They look silly today but I fear that sooner or later we’ll be drawing up another Contract w/ America.