Garofalo, Tea-baggers, and Race

I like Janeane Garofalo.  I really do.  She’s knowledgeable, funny, and seems to be truly passionate about society’s problems.  But I think she suffers from a pretty common partisan/ideological affliction that keeps her from seeing things accurately.  This was certainly on display on Friday when Garofalo appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher.  Here’s the first thing that she said:

It’s obvious to anyone who has eyes in this country that teabaggers, the 9/12ers, these separatist groups that pretend it’s about policy, they are clearly white identity movements; they are clearly white-power movements.  What they don’t like about the President is that he’s black, or that he’s half black.  What also is shocking is that people keep pretending that this isn’t the case with these people . . . It’s weird that whenever this comes up in conversation, so few people are willing to say that it’s racism . . . What if black people showed up bearing arms at a McCain rally?

First thing’s first: bringing guns to presidential rallies is stupid. Any philosophical point that the gun-toter is trying to make is significantly outweighed by the message of violence toward the president that the gun sends. But bringing race into this seems equally silly.  Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure that the guy in this video who brought a gun to an Obama rally is not white.

Second, Garofalo is quick to paint an entire movement with a racist brush – a movement that, on its face, is not about race, but about the philosophical direction of this country.  She’s willing to peer into these peoples’ souls (a la Bush peering into Putin’s) and conclude that they are motivated by a racist agenda; a collective disgust that a black man is President.  But isn’t it possible that these people are motivated by the grievances they actually cite?  Last time I checked, there’s a real ideological divide in this country about the proper role of government and, last time I checked, this divide is as old as the country itself.   Surely the fact that a black man is President shouldn’t turn this centuries old debate into one dominated by race.

Interestingly enough, Garofalo is much more careful about her generalizations when the conversation shifts to Hollywood’s support of Roman Polanski.  After Bill Maher lists some names who have pledged their support for the director and voices his frustration with greater Hollywood over this, Garofalo chimes in as follows:

Hollywood is not this monolith of like-minded people.  Hollywood is not this entity that moves with one mind.

Here, I agree with her 100%.  There’s no reason that the decisions of Woody Allen and Martin Scorcese to support Polanski should rub off on all of Hollywood.  But why can’t she give an equal benefit of the doubt to tea-baggers?  True, some of them might be racist.  But a portion of any mob might be racist, regardless of what they’re preaching.  And, even so, why should the racism of a few rub off on the rest of a group, especially when the grievance they explicitly cite isn’t racist?

Let me explain myself a little more here.  I’m no tea-bagger, 9/12er, or any other member of a partisan/ideological organization.  Nor am I a fan of large demonstrations like the ones we’ve been seeing.  Strategically speaking, they tend to strangle their own causes, no matter how legitimate, by opening themselves up to accusations of craziness, racism, etc. (as evidenced by this post).  But I do think it’s possible to parse through some of the hysteria in these movements and find a legitimate point worth addressing and debating.  And when I hear certain people make accusations of racism in, what seems to be, an effort to discredit anything that the movements stand for, I start to think these people just don’t have a real answer.