Matthew Yglesias sees racism in the new National Review cover, and his dittohead commenters agree to a man.
First, the cover:
The big quote about her is referring to herself as a “wise Latina”…Buddhist monks are seen as an image of wisdom…the portrayal seems accurate as far as these political cartoons go. Is the cover mocking? Sure, I’d expect no less from conservatives who disagree with her, but I just don’t see racism here. Just as the right was silly to see racism in Sotomayor’s comments, failing to take her comments in good faith, so Yglesias displays a similar lack of discretion. I mean, if they had made an owl (wise) caricature of Sotomayor, wouldn’t the left find some way to say that is racist too?
June 6, 2009 at 3:45 am |
“Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior. “Racism” doesn’t, I think, capture it. But there’s this deranged fascination with walking up to the line and dancing around there in hopes of getting called on it. Then you get to become indignant.”
-Matthew Yglesias
So this is from the post you linked to.
June 6, 2009 at 7:22 am |
He draws a distinction without a difference as far as I’m concerned.