“I want to talk today about a controversial word. It’s a word that has been with us for years. And like it or not, it’s indelibly printed in the pages of American history. A word that was originally intended as a derogatory term, meant to shame and divide and demean. The word was conceived of by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man, to render him inferior and unequal and diminish his accomplishments. President Obama has been labelled with this word by his opponents, and at first he rose above it, hoping that if he could just make a cause for what he’d achieved, his opponents would fail in making their label stick. But no matter how many successes that he had as president, he realized there were still many people for whom he’d never be anything more than that one disparaging word — a belief he knew was held not just by his political opponents, but also by a significant portion of the American electorate. And so he decided if you can’t beat them, you’ve got to join them. So he embraced the word and made it his own, sending his opposition a message they weren’t expecting: ‘If that’s what you want me to be, I’ll be that.’Y’all know the word that I’m talking about. Obamacare!”
—MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, on her Sunday morning show, 12/8/13
That Melissa! Setting us up for the dreaded n-word, and then deftly substituting the O-word, since it’s all racism, and really, what’s the difference?
I don’t know what made me pause my remote on MSNBC this morning. I was trying to find any Sunday talking heads show that wasn’t engaged in an orgy of Mandela beatification, and failing miserably, and though I avoid Harris-Perry like the plague, I guess I stopped to see if she was as full of racist paranoia and hate as ever.
I knew immediately that the conservative media watchdog blogs like Newsbusters would pounce on this like a fox on a field mouse, and I was right: it took about 30 minutes. The question, and it is a crucial one, is why every blog, website, pundit, commentator, bar patron, college professor, student, senior citizen, non-resident of a mental asylum, Democrat, Republican, libertarian, fundamentalist Christian or atheist, right, left, or moderate, black, white or Asian American wouldn’t reject such divisive, vicious, insidious, poisonous slander as the threat to political discourse and democracy that it is.
It should not create a partisan divide when a deranged fanatic like Harris-Perry is permitted to make such irresponsible statements using the national media. In a healthy society, it would not. A responsible news organization would not allow anyone who intentionally injected such distrust and racial discord into the national bloodstream to continue to have a forum. She would be banished to the dark and fetid corners of the wackosphere where the products of pathological parenting rant about “the mongrelization of the white race,” and “the Jewish conspiracy,” and how homos are plotting to convert our children to their perverted ways and make it legal to marry goats.
No news organization could survive providing a platform and a megaphone to any of these sad hatemongers, and Melissa-Perry differs from them only in the target of her irrational hatred. Yet MSNBC promotes her, broadcasts her and profits from her. It isn’t just Harris-Perry, of course: there are members of Congress who sing her tune as well. Why is it that the administration of the first black President has resulted in more racial discord and suspicion than the United States has seen in generations? In significant measure, it is because of the proliferation of statements like Melissa Harris-Perry’s, employed in desperate defense of a weak and incompetent leader, by those willing to tear the nation apart rather than face reality, and given authority and influence they should not have in the pursuit of ratings and profits.
I hope and trust that no reader here who isn’t a refugee from the Daily Kos or a mental defective who to be informed how indefensible Harris-Perry’s accusation is, how attaching a political figure’s name to a favored project has been a standard and legitimate practice by opponents and advocates for decades, how before Obamacare there was Bushonomics, Hillarycare, and Reaganomics, and during the Presidential campaign there was Romneycare, and how Harris-Perry’s delusion is supported by neither logic nor fact,, just hate, and the need to foment hate. While it is true that Martin Bashir was not fit for broadcast because he could not be trusted to be civil and professional, and Alec Baldwin was not fit for broadcast be cause he could not be trusted not to embarrass his employers with public explosions of expletives and slurs, what MSNBC permits Melissa Harris-Perry to do in their name is to promote lies that can tear the country apart at the seams.
That is far, far worse than any damage Bashir or Baldwin could do, and why Harris-Perry should have neither viewers, supporters, nor defenders in the United States of America.
Facts: Daily Caller
Graphic: Deviant Arts