There are moments in American politics when the argument about tone finally collapses under the weight of content. When the US President circulates imagery that reduces the first Black president and first lady to apes we are no longer in the realm of tasteless provocation or “owning the libs.” We are standing squarely in a tradition as old and as poisonous as American racism itself. The comparison of Black people to animals is not a slip of the tongue or an edgy joke; it is a historical weapon. To pretend otherwise is to participate in the lie that this country has already metabolized its past.
The instinctive response from many Democrats has been familiar and wearying, condemn, sigh and return to the mantra that moral elevation will eventually shame the offender into irrelevance. “When they go low, we go high” has the ring of wisdom but it has also hardened into a reflex that mistakes restraint for righteousness and silence for strategy. High ground, after all, is only useful if it allows you to see clearly and act decisively. Too often it has functioned as a scenic overlook from which Democrats watch norms burn.
What makes imagery like this uniquely disqualifying is not simply that it offends. It is that it deliberately activates a centuries-old visual language designed to dehumanize. This is the grammar of lynching postcards and minstrel caricatures, of pseudo-science and schoolbook smears. It is not accidental. It is not ambiguous. It is not “just politics.” It is a signal sent with the confidence that it will be heard clearly by those who have always understood it.
For a country that insists on describing itself as post-racial, these moments are clarifying. They reveal how thin the membrane is between civility and cruelty, and how easily a large segment of the electorate will excuse the latter if it arrives wrapped in grievance and grievance dressed up as humor. The real scandal is not that such material exists on the internet, filth always does, but that it can be amplified by someone who has occupied the most powerful office on earth and then absorbed into the daily churn of outrage as if it were just another bad tweet.
Democrats face a choice they have been postponing for nearly a decade. They can continue to behave as though decorum is a substitute for confrontation or they can decide that some lines are not to be gently tut-tutted but forcefully named. Naming matters. To say “this is racist” without apology or throat-clearing is not hysterical; it is accurate. To say “this disqualifies you from moral leadership” is not partisan; it is civic.
Standing for one’s beliefs does not require mimicking the cruelty on display. It requires something more difficult: refusing to launder it through euphemism. There is a difference between going low and going direct. The former corrodes; the latter clarifies. Democrats have a history worth invoking here, not as nostalgia but as obligation. This is the party that eventually aligned itself with civil rights not because it was politically convenient but because pressure, protest and moral insistence made neutrality impossible.
The fear, of course, is backlash of alienating voters who bristle at “identity politics” while somehow remaining untroubled by overt racial insult. But the lesson of the last several years is that shrinking language does not broaden coalitions. It narrows souls. Voters do not need politicians to whisper obvious truths; they need them to say, plainly, that certain acts place you outside the bounds of democratic decency.
The Obamas are not merely private citizens being mocked; they are symbols of a fragile, unfinished promise. An attack on them in this form is an attack on the idea that America could expand its definition of who belongs at the center of its story. Responding with firmness is not about defending two individuals. It is about defending the line itself, the one that separates political disagreement from racial degradation.
Perhaps this is the moment to retire the comforting fantasy that grace alone will save us. Grace without backbone becomes indulgence. The country does not need Democrats to be cruel; it needs them to be clear. The line has been crossed. Pretending otherwise is not going high. It is looking away.
No comments:
Post a Comment