Keli Goff, Hater

I don’t know what Keli Goff did to earn her right to be a US citizen other than be born in the US, live in the US, use natural resources in the US—you know, eat, breathe, shit in the US. She’s privileged though and apparently privileged enough to believe that she has the right to tell all of us who is more American than others—privileged enough to make very lazy arguments about immigration reform and people that incorporate conservative, racist tropes to make an emotional rather than intellectual point.

In making an emotional appeal for a friend, she reduces immigrants to a stupid, insensitive binary: those who are in the US illegally yet have proven their legitimacy and those who are in the US illegally and are illegitimate. Apparently, Goff believes two things: 1)that The Dream Act would be a great way to sort who belongs from who doesn’t and 2)that knowing somebody is as simple as hearing stories about them.

Goff believes a Pulitzer Prize winner has earned his stay more than a mother of three because he’s not a burden on tax payers and she is. PATENT HORSESHIT. (Of course, Goff is talking about media darling and liberal pet cause of the moment Jose Antonia Vargas, who I should mention does say a little bit about how everybody deserves equal treatment not just fortunate educated people. I give the guy credit, but his appearance now is much safer than it would have been when he was sixteen.) The problem is that her comparison is flawed and unjust. I think it’s relatively clear why we do not want to compare these two based upon their appearances and CVs. People have stories, just like Goff’s friend. Tthe law purposefully fails to distinguish between people based on their experiences. A broken law for whatever reason is a broken law nonetheless. Herein lies the problem with crappy, half-assed reform.

Goff’s concept Having Earned A Privilege may be improper, but it has a long history. Adam Smith worried about unearned ambition a long time ago in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. The poor mother who continues to have babies is less desirable than the man who is more successful. Open a Horatio Alger, Jr., novel—any of them—and the most apparent lesson is that the smarter and more physically attractive a poor person is, the more likely they are to be patronized by society’s most privileged people. In addition, men are more desirable than women.

In her editorial, she almost dares us to call her out for her explicit bigotry. Dig the clip MSNBC, or Goff, chose to show of the mother of three. It’s disgraceful. She gleefully praises her friend, showing a nice head shot of him smiling. He’s almost defiantly heroic and smiles in spite of his travail. She uses the worst possible footage of the unknown mother of three, though, to gain another kind of emotional response entirely. She can barely hold the one child in her fat arms never mind care for three. It’s a nasty set-up. “Who would you want?” Goff asks. The Pulitzer Prize winner who Goff’s mother loves or the unattractive mother who continues to have children that eat up all our resources.

And need I remind you of Goff’s sly hint at the racist “anchor baby” claim? She implies it without mentioning it, but she’s using it nonetheless. It’s bigoted. It’s bullshit. It should make you mad.

If you want to say citizens must prove they value the privilege of being an American before they deserve to become an American, you are a bigot. Not one of us born in the US need prove anything. We get our privileges unearned. It’s an unreasonable demand that should be vociferously rebuked. Moreover, Goff believes she knows who belongs and who doesn’t. Where did she get this power? Her mother? Fuck you, Keli, and fuck your mother.

Here’s Keli Goff’s profile at Loop21.net. I think everyone should drop her a note about her bullshit and tell her to pull her head out of her ass. We don’t need to cater to conservative, racist tropes in discourse about immigrants to gain ground and promote reform. The mother of three has as much stake in her citizenship as the Pulitzer Prize winner does, whether or not Keli Goff likes it. I need not like a person to welcome them into my home. I do it because it’s right.

Goff titled her segment “In Defense of Illegal Immigrants”. She’s not defending anything other than her petty notions about who does and doesn’t belong. She’s a hater.



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Cornel West & The Neoliberal Response to Race

(cross-posted on dagSeoul's Tumblr)

I just finished listening to Sam Seder's interview with Eddie Glaude, chair of the Center for African-American Studies and the William S. Tod Professor of Religion and African-American Studies at Princeton University. They spoke specifically about Cornel West's provocative criticism of President Obama in his recent interview with Chris Hedges. I think Seder and Glaude handle the controversy the way I've been thinking about it and succinctly discuss the issues I'd write about here. In fact, it's what I was planning to write about today.

I've been steaming mad ever since Ed Schultz tried to scold West after which he brought on Melissa Harris-Perry to list Obama's achievements as President and say that because 85% of black Americans support Obama maybe we should shut up and trust their judgement.

Some of you will understand the neoliberalism when you see it.  If not, you should spend an afternoon reading the ample literature on neoliberalism and race. Articles are very easy to find via a google search, though you have to watch out for weird right wing crap that litters the search.  Harris-Perry's response and call to support Obama is an entirely uncritical, unwarranted, populist, knee-jerk, pointless, and powerless response to power. (I'm really mad at her. Can you tell?) The US has catered to neoliberal discourse about race (ie, reverse racism) for many years now, maybe most vociferously since the early 90s. According to Harris-Perry, I gather we're suppose to continue to cater to that shallow understanding and manipulation of racialized politics. In her words, only black people can understand and sympathize Obama.

William Faulkner has a line that I think explains much of the racist culture in the US about mules and the way whites and blacks handle them. I can't find which novel it's in.  He developed the conceit in many stories and novels, though, so maybe you'll recognize it if you're familiar with his work. The image is based in the white gaze and involves white folks wondering why black folks are so talented at handling mules. The scene I'm thinking of involves white folks wondering why black folks talk to mules--they're struck that black men and mules can hold meaningful conversations. Only black folks can truly understand a mule. It's one of many moments of casual, Southern bigotry in his works that so accurately betray how racism is integral to the power structure in society. It's what we like to call crystal clear.

Harris-Perry's assertion to Schultz--maybe we should trust black people and their understanding and support of Obama--is the same sort of stupid bigotry. Not that Harris-Perry is a bigot. She casually uses the white power structure to illustrate Cornel West as the Obama workhorse who stubbornly stepped out of line with his criticism of the POTUS. West should know better because he's black. Schultz's scold is patronizing: don't you know what you're doing to Obama? Harris-Perry is used as his warrant.

I don't expect anything different from Ed Schultz. He's an ass. And he consistently implements neoliberal tropes in his populist rhetoric. I expect more from Harris-Perry. I think she took advantage of a situation where she was asked by Ed to offer a solid counterpoint to West's provocative opinions. Instead of discussing the subtlety of West's argument contra Obama, she took advantage of the stupid white framework of Ed Schultz's show and conflated West's personal opinion of Obama's snub (which exists) and his precise, accurate, powerful rebuke of Obama's failure to help poor and powerless brothers and sisters.

I don't think it's worthwhile to shame her because she knows what she did. I think it's important to point out that neoliberal responses to race permitted her response. A smart host would have asked her why she wasn't willing to take West's personal statements and political statements as two separate things. Why wasn't she willing to accept that the Obama administration has consistently taken the progressive left to task for not falling in line behind him, to support without criticisms his policies.  Moreover, why should we ignore that Obama has rejected his progressive agenda?

Harris-Perry's response is good for ratings because it wallows in good old American bigotry. If you want a nuanced discussion that is both honest and well-intended, check out Sam Seder's discussion with Eddie Glaude. You won't be let down. I promise. If I wasn't already a member of his show, this episode would have made me become one.

Materials:
1. Neoliberalism and race. Research it; read about it. It's relevant. Basically, the problem with claims of reverse racism; how white power turns (versifies) discussions of itself on you (the person--any person--speaking to white power,) back to you, and then blames you for it.

2. My William Faulkner reference. On his use of the mule in his fiction. You have to have read Faulkners novels to get a good sense of my point, but I think I clearly made my point.

3. Ed Schultz and Melissa Harris-Perry. Ed Schultz is a moron. I think the longer his show continues, he becomes more clearly moronic. I imagine he has viewers because he follows Rachel Maddow. (Not that Maddow hasn't descended into performance over substance, but that Schultz is all blowhard.) First, he has the audacity to bring on West to scold him as if he's some uppity black man. That was demeaning, patronizing and, for me, almost impossible to watch. I don't know why West tolerated it. Schultz wasn't listening to a thing he said. (Schultz never listens to anybody.) Second, he used Harris-Perry as the black person who'd justify his white, neoliberal logic. Harris-Perry has an editorial out there that you can read, or you can watch her discussion with Schultz. It's awful stuff, in my opinion. I offer my critique of her opinion above.


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

4. Sam Seder and Eddie Glaude discuss the controversy on The Majority Report. Please support The Majority Report. It's a great show in search of membership. We need to support good left wing media. Seder's program is independent and looking to stay that way.