three reasons why joe wilson is a racist

Music: Talk Talk: Laughing Stock (1991)

The trusty Oxford English Dictionary tells us in the 1989 revision that a "lie" is "an act or instance of lying; a false statement made with the intent to deceive; a criminal falsehood." As everyone at this point knows, South Carolina representative Joe Wilson interrupted the president's address to a joint congress by shouting, "you lie!" not once, but twice. He asserted, in other words, that Obama was making a false statement (in this case, concerning whether or not the health care initiatives he proposed would provide service to illegal immigrants), a false statement that was made with the intention to deceive. Presumably, the president was trying to deceive the television audience, since most of the congresspersons in the room would have (well, should have) a working knowledge of the president's proposals.

What is both amusing and disturbing about the fall-out this week regarding Wilson's angry outburst is that no one is calling him out for being a racist. Let me be clear:

Joe Wilson's statement was racist.

If it appears that I am collapsing what Wilson said and did with who Wilson is, I confess that I am. I would make an authority appeal for doing so---"trust me, I know, I'm from the south and know how to read such rhetorical righteousness"---but I know the more conservative of Rosechron's readers won't go for that. So, let me make the case for why Wilson's statement, indeed, his whole performance, is racist, and then suggest what is troubling about the fall-out and the MSM's failure to take-up the much larger story here, that Wilson's "symptom" is part of a much larger, hateful political movement emboldened by Wilson's defiant posturing.

Again, consulting our standard of English meaning, we find that racisim is:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occas. in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities.

I think the last qualification, probably added with the 1989 revision (I'm not sure), is particularly important. What it means is that race is a mark, an identifier, not necessarily the "color of one's skin," as is often assumed. Strictly speaking, "race" is a cultural category used to label someone as "other," or "not like me." What we call "race" is not based in science, genetic or otherwise, and it is commonly assumed race is therefore a negotiated category (this is not to say there are not genetic variations or "frequencies," marks for phenotypic difference, and so on---it's to say, rather, that what we dub "race" didn't come from science, it came from culture). In other words, that I can "racialize" a white Canadian who looks almost identical to me---think about the word "kanuck," which used to be offensive---means that race is what we call a "floating signifier": a word that doesn't have a stable signified or referent. Race is a "concept" that applies to a broad spectrum of references depending on context (so does gender, for that matter). Instead of thinking about race as a thing, we should think about it as a function: what does race do? It marks difference. And as the OED definition points out, the difference is marked because of a fear of a threat of some kind.

What, then, do we have with "race?" We have a floating signifier used to mark difference out of fear. Fear from what? The OED responds "cultural" or "racial integrity" or "economic well-being." Yes, you argumentation theory mavens, we're still operating at the analytic level here---but note how the OED sneaks in a little synthetic statement through affect.

Now, let's move back to Joe Wilson's statement, "you lie!" What was Obama saying when Wilson charged him with intentional dishonesty? "There are also those who claim that our reform efforts will insure illegal immigrants. This too is false! The reforms, the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those here illegally." Obama's statement is that illegal immigrants will not benefit from health care reform. Wilson asserts this is an intentionally deceptive statement. In his apology, Wilson elaborated:

It [my outburst] was spontaneous. It was when he stated, as he did, about not covering illegal aliens, when I knew we had those two amendments, and I say that respectfully . . . . We need to be discussing issues specifically to help the American people. And that would not include illegal aliens. These are people -- I'm for immigration -- legal immigration. I've been an immigration attorney. But people who have come to our country and violated laws, we should not be providing full health care services . . . . "

"These are people," Wilson begins, but stops himself short. What does Wilson stop short of saying? "These are people who ______ X," right? He was about to define what kind of person an "illegal alien" is, but stopped himself. He was about to describe the other. He was about to say, "these people who take our opportunity and rob us of our stuff!"

To think more critically about Wilson's statement, we need to note first that he is wrong. Neither amendment Wilson indicates provides for the coverage of illegal aliens. At best, he could be charging that the wording of the amendments is ambiguous enough to allow for the possibility of coverage for an illegal alien here and there---but really, that's stretching it. It's one thing to say the wording of the legislation is ambiguous and may allow for illegal aliens. It's quite another, however, to suggest Obama is deliberately lying so that illegal aliens can get covered. The latter is what Wilson was suggesting with "you lie!" His outburst, however spontaneous, could be described as a "lie" itself---doing precisely what he is accusing the president of doing.

Of course, many commentators have noted that the repeated appeals of the "conservative right" to stop "illegal immigration" are racist. "Illegal Immigrant" is just another racist signifier for "the other who threatens to take away my cultural, racial, and economic integrity." In the popular imaginary, the scenario appealed to is the climax of The Night of the Living Dead, where white people (oh yeah, and one black man) are trapped in a shack with racialized others trying to pour in and eat them/their stuff. Well, I digress: again, "stop those illegal immigrants!" is an obvious appeal to fear based on racialized difference, or if you prefer, difference as such.

Regardless, Wilson's statement at the level of content, "health care reform will help illegal immigrants" is tantamount to saying, "health care reform will help the Jew" or the "ni----r" or "the s---k" or "the g--k." Such an observation does not discount the real problems that illegal immigrants create in this country---especially in Texas. I'm simply pointing out that there is nothing prima facie "bad" about the concept of "illegal immigrant" except, er, the "illegality" I suppose (those of you who steal cable are "illegal," as are those of you who download MP3s . . . .). But what makes the term a "devil term" is not "illegal," but rather that "illegal immigrant" is associated with the fear or threat of a racialized other. What reasons do people give for opposing immigrants? Racial integrity (mixed raced children), cultural integrity (no Spanish, English only!), and economic integrity ("they'll take our jobs!"). Consequently, fear appeals about illegal immigration, even on the rhetorical surface, are by definition racist.

Let us bracket, for the moment, the racist undertones of getting righteous about illegal immigrants and turn, next, to the context of Wilson's outburst. Many news stations and programs have been showing clips of British Parliament and other world governing bodies that display an obvious incivility: people throwing things, screaming, booing, profane signs held up by elected officials, and so forth. Presumably, such clips are used to show how "good" we have it in the United States, and that things could be much worse than Wilson's outburst.

The problem with this MSM reasoning, of course, is that it completely ignores the context of our system, for which the word "lie" is banned. No matter how heated the discussion, the norms of decorum in both the House and the Senate are such that one is enjoined to never accuse others of deceit. In part, such norms are governed by the idealized "public sphere" which, we recall, Habermas said includes the assumption of equality and bracketing of social status, respect for all ideas, the moderation of emotions, and so forth. Wilson's statement violated many norms of public discourse, not just the prohibition against calling someone a liar. He interrupted the President of the United states, implying he was not of a special status. Worse, such an outburst implies that the president is not worthy of equality or due consideration. In other words, Wilson's outburst means that he did not think (a) the president was worthy of equal status or respect; and (b) that the president's views were not worthy of being heard. What such a statement says, in other words, belies everything he said in his presumed apology: "you lie!" is not about the president's views or policy recommendations, it's about his person. It is not a statement of fact---we know Wilson was, in fact, wrong---it's a statement of about the value of the president as a person. It is a classic ad hominem, a "to the person" attack.

So, we have two observations: (a) the illegal immigrant issue appeals to racism; and (b) an ad hominem attack on the president of the United States as a deliberate deceiver. Do (a) and (b) have anything in common? Oh, gee whiz, why yes, they do! They both concern the racialized other. Obama, in case you didn't know, is black. So we must ask the question: would Wilson have felt compelled to call a white person a liar? Before you answer that question, let us move on to exhibit C.

The oldest living politician to serve in the Senate was Strom Thurmond, a former governor of South Carolina who came to national prominence on a vocally racist, segregationist platform. Not long after Thurmond's death in 2003, Esse Mae Washington-Williams came forth to reveal she was the daughter of Thurmond, born to a black maid Thurmond employed in 1925. It was revealed Thurmond supported Washington-Williams financially throughout her life, and actually took a strong interest in her welfare (and apparently she was treated like a family member). This news, of course, makes Thurmond a complex man indeed---and certainly helps to demonstrate how race is "a floater." Nevertheless, Joe Wilson declared to the media that the revelation was "a smear on the image that [Thurmond] has as a person of high integrity who has been so loyal to the people of South Carolina." Although---as with the recent snafu---Wilson was forced to apologize, he still maintains that Washington-Williams should have remained quiet about whom her father was, presumably to keep up appearances (those from the South are well acquainted with this one).

Is the reason that Thurmond's heroic reputation was damaged was because he had a child out of wedlock? Or is it because his child is part African American? Or is it because Thurmond abused his power and prayed upon a 16 year old woman/girl in his employ? Or is it because a visibly and vocally racist man revealed himself not only to be a sexual predator, but a hypocrite?

Regardless of how one answers this question, Wilson's chosen stance---to condemn the racialized child of a well-known and vocal racist---really sort of seals the deal on what saying "you lie!" to the President of the United States on national television means: "You're a ni---r! and I want my constituents and the white-right to hear me call you out!" Let's not play dumb here, as it seems our journalists of national prominence continue to want to do. As I said, I'm from the south and I know how to read all these affective codes; so do most of us raised in the land of people like Wilson. And I want to say everyone watching the president last week knew exactly what was being said. Everyone with a a body that feels and reacts knew what was happening; it was a racist gesture, through and through.

So if you don’t buy my appeal to authority, maybe these three reasons are enough to convince you? If not, sorry. I did my best. I confess that "knowing" Wilson did a racist thing is, in fact, more felt than reasoned, a sort of knee-jerk kind of knowing, the same kind of knee-jerk, unspoken knowing that inspired many to make signs that say "you lie! you lie! you lie!" and parade about at City Halls and capitals everywhere, tea-partying their hatreds and wallowing about in fear and . . . lies.

Finally, if Wilson's remarks are read "symptomatically," as many have suggested that we should, what is it a symptom of? I worry it's a symptom of a growing, racialized backlash of whiteness, a backlash riding the wave of hatred I blogged about recently, which seemed to characterize this summer's televisual displays. Note that in discussing his refusal to offer another apology to Congress, Wilson stated his outburst was akin to what happened in the Town Hall meetings this summer. Is this an explanation, or a call to solidarity? I think it's the latter. And I think and feel that's something to be really fearful about.