And so it begins…
Okay, in fairness, it probably began in earnest 60 years ago or so, although that organizational racism was more around the edges of the Republican Party, not the foundational base. However, such virulent racism did take a huge leap in the GOP when Nixon pushed out the Party of Lincoln and pushed his “Southern Strategy” in 1968 and did all he could -- very successfully -- to attract the most racist voters of the South. And it’s built to the point where not only is this racism the foundational base but pretty much permeates every nook of the party. That sort of thing happens when you have a white supremacist as your leader, doing all he could to attract white supremacist groups throughout the country. So, it’s not actually beginning. But the hair-burning of frantic Republicans on the awareness that a black woman is going to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and almost certainly be approved, has caused angst amid the brush fire of the party. Probably the most-pronounced case came on Wednesday from Ilya Shapiro, the brand new executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for the Constitution. (I should write, “the current executive director as I write this,” just to cover my back and be safe.) He sent out three tweets, apparently because his racism couldn’t be contained in just one. Or even two. In the first he wrote – “Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog and v smart. Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn’t fit into last intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?” Yes, the executive director of Georgetown’s Center for the Constitution actually used his outdoor voice to write that publicly. And for all the gushing racism in his words, for me the funniest part of a very unfunny tweet may be the first word, “Objectively.” I’m also not sure what “prog” is, but my guess is it’s short for progressive. Though given today’s GOP, it could mean almost anything derogatory. Which, to be fair, “progressive” is to most Republicans today. And because Mr. Shapiro still had more racism to ooze out, he sent a second tweet. “Because Biden said he’s [sic] only consider black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached. Fitting that the Court takes up affirmative action next term.” Ohhh, I get it. It’s fitting – because a black woman doesn’t actually deserve to be on the Supreme Court, since it’s only an Affirmation Action pick. Because, being black and a woman, in Ilya Shapiro World, she’s “lesser.” Though, yes, she will have an asterisk next to her name – it will be for “First black woman ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court in 246 years.” His third tweet (because, hey, why stop at just two, when you have so much to get off your chest?) included a poll where Shapiro asked his followers if President Biden is racist, sexist, both or neither for having committed to nominating a black female. It’s telling that in his poll, the only adjective options are “racist” and “sexist,” and not other words like “correct,” “proactive,” “humane,” “far-sighted,” or “normal.” It’s worth noting that prior to getting hired by Georgetown, Mr. Shapiro had been head of the very far-right Cato Institute. So, his opinions shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. And by “anyone,” I include officials at Georgetown University. Even if he didn’t have a full interview, which I assume he did – though at this point, who knows? After all, it’s a fair bet that one doesn’t become head of the Cato Institute by having a career that tolerated a thought that wasn’t rigidly inflexible and founded on the principle that even a hint of liberalism in a person’s genealogy was evil. And it should also be reiterated that Mr. Shapiro, who views a black woman to be lesser in her abilities by virtue of being a black woman, wasn’t just hired to teach at Georgetown, a law school with an excellent reputation, but to be executive director of the Center for the Constitution. The irony of that is almost too deep to mine – unless Mr. Shapiro is an “originalist” and insists on adhering to the Constitution’s initial words as written, that blacks only counted as three-fifths of a person. And that neither black people or womenfolk could vote. If there’s any great humor in this, it’s that Ilya Shapiro isn’t just a “brand new” executive director of the Center, as I wrote, but – since that term can be flexible – was hired a week ago! Man, talk about not getting off to a good start. The good news is that he may not have done much unpacking yet. In his favor, Shapiro apologized the next day, yesterday. Uncertain is if he had woken up with a hangover and cried out, “Oh, my God, what did I do??!!!” – or if there was a pounding on his office door by the entire Board of Regents. I suspect the truth falls more on the latter. He also deleted the tweets, calling them “inartful.” This gives new meaning to the word “inartful.” And to phrase “A total absence of accurate words to describe what was expressed.” His full apology, by the way, was a tweet that read, “I apologize. I meant no offense, but it was an inartful tweet. I have taken it down.” This also gives new meaning to the word “apologize.” Of course he meant offense, what else was he traying to say by “lesser black woman” and his “affirmative action” crack? And while it’s swell that it took it down, he doesn’t explain why he put it up in the first place. And what was “inartful” about it. And why he won’t ever do it again. Actually, he probably will do it again. After all, he’s done it before. Really! When Justice Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2009, Shapiro wrote in a CNN column, “In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit.” He argued that regardless of her achievements, she was only nominated because she was Hispanic. Apparently, he didn’t feel that that was “inartful” or that any offense was intended, either. Apparently, too, Georgetown University missed that column in their due diligence. (By the way, I’m still trying to figure out what he meant by it only being “inartful.” Because that’s just saying that he didn’t phrase very well what he was actually thinking. So, he was thinking this, that a black woman wasn’t qualified and she was only selected because she was black, he’s not apologizing for that – just that he didn’t phrase his racist thought properly.) And it can’t go unmentioned that (and this is very important) there isn’t even a nominee yet! Shapiro is arguing that someone isn’t qualified who isn’t even nominated. So, again, that can only mean his complaint is purely because this future nominee will be black. But, oh, no, please, no offense was intended. Georgetown Law School Dean William Treanor did a better job finding those missing words, and said in an email yesterday that -- “The tweets’ suggestion that the best Supreme Court nominee could not be a Black woman and their use of demeaning language are appalling. The tweets are at odds with everything we stand for at Georgetown Law and are damaging to the culture of equity and inclusion that Georgetown Law is building every day.” That’s finding the right words. And it’s blunt and proper. I just wish that Georgetown University figured out who Ilya Shapiro was before they hired him. And that’s the one other part of the story that takes it to another level. The “hired” part. Earlier, I mentioned how Ilya Shapiro was brand new to the job. And that by “brand new” I meant he’d only been hired a week ago. But here’s the kicker – though he was only just hired… he hasn’t yet started working at Georgetown! He’s not scheduled to begin until next Tuesday, February 1. My comment about him not having unpacked yet wasn’t just a quip. I have no idea what Georgetown will do. I only know that it seems like it would be incredibly hard to have someone as head of your Center for the Constitution who publicly wrote all this. Three tweets are not a typo. Not a mistake. You mean to write three tweets. No matter how “inartful” you call it, no matter that you deleted them, you said truly racist things. And have said them before. And only apologized in three short sentences – with your only explanation being that it was “inartful.” Not even wrong. How does Georgetown explain him being the head of their Center for the Constitution if they keep him? I’m not saying he must be fired. I’m just trying to figure out what they can say to justify why he isn’t. And that’s today’s Republican Party. Ilya Shapiro. Yes, it’s only one person, and not fair to define a political party in that single person. But the issue in defining a party isn’t just what that one person said, or that it’s what many others in the party say or think. It’s that we have seen no outrage for what he said by officials and leadership of the Republican Party. They’re silent about. Because that’s today’s Republican Party.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|