I'm not an admirer of Rush Limbaugh. I think he's the right-wing equivalent of Michael Moore. But what's all the hubbub about? I don't know much about Donovan McNabb, but from what I hear his performance has been stellar on TV and lackluster overall. So I suppose it's reasonable to suggest that he might have been over-rated. Maybe it's his Scottish name? (Or would that be the MacNabb side of the family?)
But seriously, Rush just expressed the opinion that the fellow's performance had been over-rated because people were inclined to a little social self-righteouusness. Is it really that far-fetched? Personally I think if there was ever a time for that sentiment regarding quarterbacks it has probably passed. When I was an undergrad at SMU in 1964 the quarterback of the Mustangs was a young black man named Jerry Livingston. It wasn't a HUGE deal then, so I'm inclined to think it's even less of an issue now. Sport is sport. But there's nothing in Rush's remarks that suggest his comment was racially motivated, for heaven sake. It's just an attitude that is probably a little out of touch. What's interesting is why the whole thing has become such a cause, and frankly I don't think it has much to do with either football or race.
I should think thit such a social theory might have been better applied to Halle Berry's Oscar for Monster's Ball, but it was also a damn good performance. So, maybe sentiment gave Halle a slight edge, but that's just human nature. We like to feel good about ourselves when honoring others. It's not witchcraft. Now Michael Moore's Oscar is another matter. He produced and directed an unfunny comedy that was crammed full of deliberate distortions and outright lies motivated by pure ideological hatred, that didn't even come close to qualifying as a documentary. Not even in the ballpark! Now that was political correctness at its very worst. So, if the Motion Picture Academy could do something that warped it surely isn't beyond the pale to suggest that the sports broadcasters might be biased toward an award that happens to make them feel a little self righteous. It's just human nature.
The thing is, there really isn't anything particularly ideological about being black any more. Have you noticed? There may have been, one day. But I think what might be behind all the furor about Rush's speculation is the lurking suspicion that race really isn't an ideological issue. Some folks are a little touchy about the fact that they no longer own that whole set of social issues. And to a certain extent Rush's statement is a kind of mirror image of the attitude among much of the left that race was their thang. Sort of like Rush thinks pure objectivity is his thang. And what everyone is too embarassed to look at is the suspicion that neither conservatives nor liberals have any special claim to non-prejudice. And the same sort of shift might gradually be happening with homesexuality. Does the left really own tolerance?
Pare all those false claims to moral superiority away, and what's left is a deeply ugly ideological division, that's more like a wound or disfigurement. And we're just covering it with the fig leaf of race. Not because it helps, but because it's familiar. We know what attitude we're supposed to have about race. But I think people aren't so sure any more what attitude they're supposed to have about rich people, jobs, unemployment, and taxes. And even though the divisions over war aren't as evenly matched, they do seem to track the old economic factions pretty well. Michael Moore, after all, can't really do a movie about the fact that he thinks rich people are selfish and greedy.. Not directly anyway. The bad guys have to be either racial bigots or war mongering cutthroats. And if the shoe doesn't quite fit, you make it fit. It's either that, or put your naked unprotected beliefs out there to be weighed and tested.
Posted by Demosophist at October 3, 2003 12:18 AM | TrackBack