Kathleen Parker

Over at Too Sense, dnA takes on Kathleen Parker's incredibly divisive syndicated column published earlier this week. Here's a snippet from her screed:

WASHINGTON—"A full-blooded American." That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

Whether Fry was referring to McCain's military service or Obama's Kenyan father isn't clear, but he may have hit upon something essential in this presidential race. ...It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots. Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Fry's political sense. ...Full-blooded Americans get this. Those who hope to lead the nation better get it soon.

Despite her attempt to focus on what she calls a "patriot divide," Parker's column is really about as open an embrace of white nationalism as you'll see in the mainstream media. Sadly, as dnA writes, she's a nationally syndicated columnist:

The fact that Parkers is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group shows how utterly mainstream nativist white thought is--you would never see Louis Farrakhan with a nationally syndicated column. Yet here is Parker, lauding the virtues of "full-blooded" Americans. ...

Steve Benen has already discussed this and pointed out that Obama's grandfather served in World War II but I want to further challenge the very premise that there is such a thing as a "full blooded American". What she means by this of course, is "white Americans". She makes this plain in that last paragraph.

I think dnA is right on this point. Some might object to characterizing Parker's column as white nationalism because she explicitly says that race is not the issue. The problem is that she turns right around and says the divide is between people who are "full-blooded Americans" and those who are not. And in her world view, only whites qualify as full-blooded.

As the campaign continues, we're going to see more of Kathleen Parker's brand of tribalism. The thing to remember is that dnA is right: there is no such thing as a "full-blooded American." There's only one kind of American, and we are all citizens of a nation founded upon a Constitution and governed by laws.

Kathleen Parker's "Full-blooded Americans"

Kathleen Parker

Over at Too Sense, dnA takes on Kathleen Parker's incredibly divisive syndicated column published earlier this week. Here's a snippet from her screed:

WASHINGTON—"A full-blooded American." That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

Whether Fry was referring to McCain's military service or Obama's Kenyan father isn't clear, but he may have hit upon something essential in this presidential race. ...It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots. Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Fry's political sense. ...Full-blooded Americans get this. Those who hope to lead the nation better get it soon.

Despite her attempt to focus on what she calls a "patriot divide," Parker's column is really about as open an embrace of white nationalism as you'll see in the mainstream media. Sadly, as dnA writes, she's a nationally syndicated columnist:

The fact that Parkers is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group shows how utterly mainstream nativist white thought is--you would never see Louis Farrakhan with a nationally syndicated column. Yet here is Parker, lauding the virtues of "full-blooded" Americans. ...

Steve Benen has already discussed this and pointed out that Obama's grandfather served in World War II but I want to further challenge the very premise that there is such a thing as a "full blooded American". What she means by this of course, is "white Americans". She makes this plain in that last paragraph.

I think dnA is right on this point. Some might object to characterizing Parker's column as white nationalism because she explicitly says that race is not the issue. The problem is that she turns right around and says the divide is between people who are "full-blooded Americans" and those who are not. And in her world view, only whites qualify as full-blooded.

As the campaign continues, we're going to see more of Kathleen Parker's brand of tribalism. The thing to remember is that dnA is right: there is no such thing as a "full-blooded American." There's only one kind of American, and we are all citizens of a nation founded upon a Constitution and governed by laws.

 

Join The Jed Report Novel Interest List | Brief Synopsis & More Info