Code Words

When the baby's born
Oh, let's turn it to the snow
So that ice will surely grow
Over weak and brittle bones
Oh, let's leave it to the wolves
Oh, their teeth turn it to food
Oh, its flesh keeps them alive
Oh, its death helps life survive
Oh, the world can be kind in its own way
--- Noah and the Whale – "Jocasta"

A bit ago, I responded with sarcastic fury to a response left on a friend's Facebook post. The friend's post had innocently asked what, if anything, we might be able to do to reduce the gun violence plaguing the U.S.; this was just after the "incident" (see http://thismodernworld.com/archives/7175 re the "incident" language)  in N.Y.C., coming so soon after the "incidents" in Colorado that it was actually reported.  The response that pissed me off  (well, two posts, by the same author) first noted with despair that given that as a country we were "unable to figure out how to balance the national checkbook" or to "agree on how to best raise our children" the situation was pretty hopeless.  As to gun violence (second reply to my friend's post by this author) well, her family all had guns, and (so far at least, in recent memory) none of them had killed anyone, so guns clearly weren't the problem, and gun control would just leave us all "sitting ducks" for armed criminals.

I responded first to the latter post, which struck me as so mind-bogglingly stupid that it needed a reply,  But my fury, really, came from the first post.  Forget, for a moment, that to "balance one's checkbook" is a somewhat outdated phrase, meaning to *reconcile* your own records of your expenditures and deposits with the bank's.  It has nothing to do with a balanced budget, nor with budgeting more generally.  Forgot, for a moment, that the nation does not actually *have* a "checkbook."  Forget, too, that, unlike the rest of us, the nation is  legally permitted to print money.  Leave all of that aside.  What got my goat -- caused bile to rise in my throat, etc. -- was the casual coded language used here.  Not "I think we need to have a serious discussion about the U.S. GDP/Debt ratio."  Not even "I think the U.S. GDP/government spending ratio is too high."  But the trivializing "oh, we need to balance our checkbook" -- which always means "we need to balance the budget" (not reconcile our records with the bank's, because, well, there isn't a bank in this case, per se, and in any event,  there is no evidence that the U.S. government has been doing a poor job of record keeping) and hence that "we need to 'cut spending'" (not raise revenue).  Because, when you find at the end of the month at home, that you've spent more than you've earned, well, what do you do?  Most of us are already working for as many hours, and for as much money, as we can.  So we have to cut back.  And really, isn't the country just like our house, only bigger?  So: "balance our checkbook" = "cut spending" = "fuck the poor, the elderly, the weak."  It's a code, you see.  So you don't have to say "I think that the rich paying a 35% top marginal tax rate, rather than a 40% top marginal tax rate, is more important than school lunches for poor children."  Because saying that would make you sound like a sick bastard, wouldn't it?

But now let's forget all that, or at least put it aside for a moment. What does it mean to say that we can't, as a country "agree on how to best raise our children?" This asshole's response to my friend's post with the well-meaning question about gun violence was made in the context of people (the people that usually reply to my friend's posts, or for that matter to mine) that are gay- and trans-friendly; some are gay-, trans-, or gender-queer in other ways, some are "just" allies.  So.  What the fuck does it mean that we can't, as a nation, agree on how to best raise our children?   What's *that* code for?  If, as Noah and the Whale's lyrics implies, there was real doubt in the U.S. about how to best raise our children -- if there were people arguing seriously for the abolition of child endangerment and abuse laws so that they could leave their newborns on the frost-covered hills for a few nights, just to see -- this wouldn't be an offensive post; it wouldn't be code. It would be referencing a real argument about how best to raise our children.  Should we protect them (generally) from the elements?  Or should we leave them out at the first frost, in order that only the toughest (or at least most cold- and wolf-resistant, or I suppose, most successful wolf-manipulating) survive?  But where is the disagreement?  Is anyone really arguing for letting wolves raise / eat babies, as they see fit?  Does anyone really think that the best approach to parenting is to leave the child alone and see what happens?  These are questions that we have, as a society, decided upon, with good reason.  What is still up for grabs?  Oh, yeah, whether gay and lesbian couples, or couples than include trans-gender, gender-queer, or other 'non-traditional' members, should be permitted to adopt children, to marry, and to 'count' as full members of society. 

So.  To summarize.  Using coded language, to hide the ugliness of the claims being made, this person claims that a) we need to cut funding for services for the poor and elderly, so the rich can keep ever more of their money, b) gay people shouldn't be raising children.  So when the next post was "and if you take my gun away, I'll be a sitting duck," well, I kinda lost it.  Because really, what?  You having a gun doesn't make you safe from gun violence -- if someone wants to rob you at gun point, your having a gun isn't all that helpful, because in general, their gun is out first, and in general, the person with the gun  already out and pointing wins.  If someone wants to kill you with a gun, your having a gun is even less useful, because in general, the person who shoots you wins, and unless you already know that they want to kill you, you won't have your gun out.  Guns are *fantastic* tools for killing people; guns *suck* for "self-defense", unless the "assailant" *doesn't* have a gun (and you are willing to kill them). 


So who is this person imagining that they will be a 'sitting duck' to if their guns are taken away?  I'll give you three guesses.  Hint: the fact that our President in a Black Man might have something to do with it.

Similarly, in an on-line debate about Obama's ill-chosen "you didn't build *that*" line (where, with respect to the "that," every marginally honest and sane individual recognized that Obama meant it to refer to the *infrastructure* -- the internet, the roads, the legal system, etc. -- and not to the individual businesses themselves) someone I hadn't known to be a racist fuckwit came out as one, using carefully coded language, mind you.  First, of course, we had to get clear that the President had hurt his feelings, because he felt like he'd worked hard, and hadn't had anything handed to him, ever.  (Amazing how many white, middle-class, men feel that way, isn't it?)  OK, he had to admit, *he* didn't actually build any roads, but fuck it, he paid taxes, and that's what taxes are for, so really,  he had built the roads (huh?), and the military, and everything else. None of that had been handed to him, even the stuff that was here when he was born, because that stuff was here because *his parents* had built it, or their parents, but anyway, someone (someone like him) built it, and that's why raising the top marginal Federal income tax rate on taxable incomes about $250,000/year by about 5% was a bad thing.  Because I -- or people like me (not like "them" mind you) built all this, and despite the fact that I'll never earn a quarter of a million a year, let alone have a taxable income of enough more than $250,000 for the tax to matter (hey everyone! fun fact.  If the top marginal rate is raised on taxable incomes above a quarter million a year, and you earn a quarter million a year, the tax doesn't impact you!  Amazing, huh!?  Also, if your salary is say $300k/year, it won't effect you, either, cause you probably have more than $50k/year in deductions!  But I digress...), higher taxes to pay for infrastructure are bad, because we (the good people) built it already, and to claim that we were handed it and should be paying it forward is just wrong.  And Obama hurt my feelings, by claiming that it wasn't all me, a random middle-class white guy, who built all this.

But this guy went on to note, he could hardly expect better from the President, because the President (unlike random middle-class white guy) actually *had* had everything "handed to him" in life. 

Let *that* sink in for a moment.  The President, of the U.S., born to a mixed-race couple in the U.S. in the 1960s, had everything handed to him in life, and never had to work for anything. 

Now, if one were to claim this about Romney, it still wouldn't be *true* but there would at least be a grain of truth to it -- unlike Obama, say, Romney grew up immersed in wealth and privilege.  Lots of things *were* handed to him that were *not* handed to the rest of us.  But Obama?  Where could that come from?

Oh, yeah, that old boogie man of the Right --  "Affirmative Action."  Because the President is Black, and successful, he must not have earned it.  Because there really can't be any other explanation for how a Black man could possibly be successful. 

I mean, how *else* could he have gotten into college -- let alone Harvard Law School?  After all, his father hadn't gone to Harvard, so he wasn't a legacy admission, and his family wasn't really rich, so he couldn't have been admitted on the basis of likely future donations.  So really that just leaves Affirmative Action, doesn't it? 

It is amazing how racist you can be, without actually coming out and saying it, if you just choose your (evil) words with sufficient care.  Isn't it?


In a response to post about Romney's comments about the 47% of American's who don't pay (Federal) income tax (see my similar post in this blog),  a friend commented that "You left out the barely-crypto appeal to, let's say, racialized assumptions."  True, I had left that out.  The galling factual errors struck me first, the racist crap a bit later, because, Romney did a better job here hiding his racism than his disdain/loathing for the poor.  But they are related.

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement ... And they will vote for this president no matter what ... These are people who pay no income tax ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

So.  It would be amazing if the 46-ish% of Americans who, in 2011, had no Federal income tax liability, all voted for Obama.  But they won't.  Not much more than half of those that actually vote (and/or who are able to vote -- disenfranchising voters in the bottom half of the income range is much easier than doing it to people at the top) will in fact vote for Obama.  Perhaps 60% of voters in the bottom two-fifths of the income range will do so (see links in previous post). 

So who the hell is Romney really talking about?  Not the 47% of Americans who in 2011 had no Federal income tax liability (most of whom still earned enough money to pay Federal payroll taxes & state-income taxes).  He's not *really* talking about them.  It is barely true that a significant majority of them will be voting for Obama.  Not everyone.  And he knows that a major part of the Republican base are poor-to-barely working class White men.  Who are part of that 47% (though they often don't understand that; see previous post).  So not them, surely. 

So what segment of the population does poling show really has about zero percent support for Romney?  Who is it that Romney really has no chance with?  Oh, yeah, Blacks.

And who is it that Romney, and his supporters, really believe "are dependent upon government," and who Romney, and his supporters, really think "believe that they are victims" -- oh,  yeah, Blacks. 

Because when you hear "welfare" in America, the Republican party, and the right wing more generally, have done a  lot of work to make sure that the picture in your head is of a Black (a Black woman, in fact). 


And of course, who is that "believe that they are victims" (but of course really aren't) at least according to the Republican right wing?  Yeah, that's right, Blacks.  Because come on, segregation hasn't been the official law of the land for almost 50 years, so what's the problem?  (Of course, racially integrated public schools were really a short-lived experiment, albeit quite successful during its brief life -- see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/integration-worked-why-have-we-rejected-it.html -- but that's another issue.)

So, codes.  Don't talk about making cuts to spending for the poor so the rich can keep ever more of the money they "earn" -- talk about "balancing the nation's checkbook."  Don't write that gays and lesbians aren't fully human -- write about how sad it is that we, as a nation, can't agree on "how to best raise our kids."  Don't come out and say that Blacks can't succeed on the basis of their own merit -- motion vaguely towards particular successful Blacks who didn't "earn" their success.  And don't come out and tell even your own racist supporters that they need to get you elected, lest their tax-dollars go to support Black welfare cheats; no, talk about half of Americans not being willing to "take responsibility for their lives" and let your supporters figure that that's all the Blacks, plus some mooching Whites.  Code.