I’d assumed, if Barack Obama was the Democratic nominee for president, that even unhinged, far-right writers would be cautious about how they’d go about smearing him. Unbridled racism would be considered a political liability, and therefore shunned. Transparent nativism might work for conservatives in certain communities, but might also annoy moderate suburbanites, and would probably be used sparingly.
I didn’t expect Kathleen Parker — a columnist syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group — to start drawing a line of patriotism based on “blood equity” and “bloodlines.”
As Glenn reminds us, the Financial Times had a dispatch from West Virginia last week, which noted the ignorant, painful bigotry that drove at least some of the anti-Obama vote in the Mountain State. The piece concluded with a quote from West Virginian Josh Fry, who said he was “more comfortable” with John McCain than Obama because, as Fry put it, “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president.”
Most reasonable people probably rolled their eyes at such nonsense. Parker, however, devoted her column this week to defending the notion of judging Americans based on whether they meet the “full-blooded” standard or not.
Full-bloodedness is an old coin that’s gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.
Who “gets” America? And who doesn’t?
The answer has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin, which Obama donned for a campaign swing through West Virginia, or even military service, though that helps. It’s also not about flagpoles in front yards or magnetic ribbons stuck on tailgates.
It’s about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.
Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Fry’s political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically — and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century — there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.
We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants. But there’s a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.
Glenn called this one of “the most repellent columns one will ever read.” I’m hard pressed to disagree.
What’s striking is that Parker seems to think she’s stumbled onto something new, as if ugly nativism is somehow a modern creation. What she may not realize is that similar columns, using nearly identical language, have been published in this country for generations.
Most sensible Americans look back at the bigotry of the mid-19th century and wince, thankful that our culture and society has progressed beyond nativism. And some Americans look back and think, “You know, maybe they had a point about the Irish, the Italians, the Germans….”
For that matter, it’s odd that Parker seems to believe that Obama does not yet meet the standard for “blood equity.” His “bloodlines,” for some reason, are not yet traced “back through generations of sacrifice.”
How’s that exactly? Barack Obama’s grandfather fought in Patton’s Army. Barack Obama is a distant cousin of Dick Cheney, for crying out loud. Obama’s “roots” are deemed inadequate?
For that matter, even if Obama were a first-generation American, who the hell cares? America isn’t a country club or fraternity reserved for the white, wealthy elite. Obama’s story is a uniquely American story. The notion that we must judge citizens based on a right-wing notion of “heritage” — more generations = more American — is an idea that offends everything our country stands for.
Parker concludes:
[What] so-called “ordinary Americans” … know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.
Republicans more than Democrats seem to get this, though Hillary Clinton has figured it out. […]
Some Americans do feel antipathy toward “people who aren’t like them,” but that antipathy isn’t about racial or ethnic differences. It is not necessary to repair antipathy appropriately directed toward people who disregard the laws of the land and who dismiss the struggles that resulted in their creation.
Full-blooded Americans get this. Those who hope to lead the nation better get it soon.
Maybe we can chip and buy Parker a book about the Know-Nothing Party. She probably doesn’t realize it, but her column, if it were slightly better written, could have been pulled from party’s platform, nearly 160 years later.
