Why I want Melissa Harris-Perry and Joan Walsh to settle their differences publicly

[wndycty]

Cross posted from: http://windycitywatch.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-i-want-melissa-harris-perry-and.html

Why I want Melissa Harris-Perry and Joan Walsh to settle their differences publicly

I don't want this to go away, I don't desire to see one declared "the winner" and the other declared "the loser," I want this to be a "teachable moment" and I am confident that both of them can show us how to engage constructively on the issue of race

By John V. Moore @johnvmoore

As some of you know by now two progressive columnists, Melissa Harris-Perry of the Nation and Joan Walsh of Salon are engaged in a feud over over the issue of race in liberal politics.

The dispute started after Harris-Perry wrote "Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama" in the Nation, the premise of the piece is that white liberals are

holding President Obama to a higher standard than they held former President Bill Clinton. She points out that while Clinton failed in his effort to pass health care reform, Obama gave us health care reform and while Clinton gave us Don't Ask Don't Tell, Obama repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Yet, she goes on to point out, when Clinton stood for re-election in 1996 he enjoyed strong support amongst white liberals, many of whom are now luke warm to the idea of supporting Obama re-election next year.

Walsh responded with a piece in Salon titled "Are white liberals abandoning the President?" in which she disputes Harris-Perry's argument that a double standard based on race contributes to the white liberal apathy towards Obama. In my opinion, while Walsh raises some valid points about the problems with comparing the two Presidents given the impact of the internet and other circumstances, I believe she is wrong to dismiss the role that race plays in white liberal reaction to Obama.

After getting a ton of negative feedback on her original piece, Harris-Perry followed up in the Nation with "The Epistemology of Race Talk," a response to many who criticized her original piece, including Walsh. Writing about Walsh's assertion that they were friends Harris-Perry stated:
"I was shocked and angered when Salon’s Joan Walsh used this strategy in her criticism of my piece. Although I disagree with her, I have no problem with Walsh’s decision to take on the claims in my piece. I consider it a sign of respect to publicly engage those with whom you disagree. I was taken aback that Walsh emphasized the extent of our friendship. Walsh and I have been professionally friendly. We’ve eaten a few meals. I invited her to speak at Princeton and I introduced her to my literary agent. We are not friends. Friendship is a deep and lasting relationship based on shared sacrifice and joys. We are not intimates in that way. Watching Walsh deploy our professional familiarity as a shield against claims of her own bias is very troubling. In fact, it is one of the very real barriers to true interracial friendship and intimacy."
As one can imagine, this resulted in a ton of responses on Twitter and throughout the progressive blogosphere. Many folks, myself included, sided with Harris-Perry, many others sided with Walsh. Walsh to her credit apologized to Harris-Perry via Twitter posting:
"@MHarrisPerry I certainly apologize for saying we were friends, Melissa. I did not deploy it as a shield, but to acknowledge my affection"
I was disappointed and offended by the response of radio host/blogger David Sirota who sought to exploit the dust-up and spent a significant amount of time baiting Harris-Perry via Twitter. In many ways he was the white liberal that she was writing about.

But lets take it back to Harris-Perry and Walsh and the opportunity their dispute presents. We need these two to sit down and discuss their differences in public. While I side with Harris-Perry and feel that many of us in the African American community are justified in seeing the racial component in some white liberal attitudes towards the President, I feel that Walsh is an ally, an imperfect one, whose voice needs to be heard as well. More importantly I feel these two need to talk to and listen to one another. Not for themselves but for all of us.

Please understand I call Walsh an imperfect ally because I am one myself. I know that I am ally to the LGBT community, I know I am ally to women and I know I am ally to the immigrant community, but I also know that despite my race, as a straight, male, American born citizen I enjoy certain privileges that my friends in those communities don't. As much as I feel connected to others I don't always understand their struggle or get the language right. I know that no matter how strong of an ally I believe I am I most likely imperfect and not as enlightened as I believe I am.

I think too many times as we discuss the issues that divide us along the lines of race/ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation and immigration we often end up making the problem worse when we as allies don't realize our imperfections. Additionally, all of us need to do a better job of not letting our allies imperfections get in the way of our understanding and appreciating their efforts to support our respective groups.

Since 2007, when President Obama first announced his candidacy for President this country has had many potential teachable moments regarding race and with the exception of his "A more perfect union" speech we as a nation have failed to have any meaningful dialogue on race or other issues that divide us. I realize there are some people who will never have constructive discussions on race, but I hope that these two, Harris-Perry and Walsh, who I would assume are allies, will take this opportunity.

What I want from this teachable moment is not Harris-Perry prevailing over Walsh, what I want is the two of them to model for us how people can sit down and have a constructive discussion over our differences. There are too many folks who are not allies who seek to divide us, we owe it to ourselves to not do their work for them.

[Turbineguy]

1. On Jerry Springer?

:popcorn:

[wndycty]

2. I would prefer on Rachel Maddow

:kick:

[Turbineguy]

3. Yes. Acually, so would I.

[emulatorloo]

6. Maybe Obama could host another beer summit.

[wndycty]

7. Wow. . .I see folks are not taking this too seriously

:kick:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. They think it's a fucking joke, but no one's laughing at their foolishness!

[wndycty]

11. I actually think both Melissa Harris Perry & Joan Walsh are in pain over this

:kick:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. And I also think that they both are rational women who will be able to iron out

their differences, hopefully in public. We can learn from their mistakes, and I for one, hope that it's not too late...

[wndycty]

15. What did you think of the point I made about imperfect allies. . .

. . .its something I want to explore more. I think its important.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. I really like Joan Walsh and I've liked her for many years, even though I vehemently

disagree with her, specifically on issues related to Obama (not all of them, but most of them).

This is not the first time that she has been in this predicament. She has been in this position before where she wrote about the sensitive issue of race and experienced a major backlash on Salon.com, as well as, her Twitter and Facebook accounts.

What I commend her for is not allowing that past incident to silence her this time. I think she is taking this opportunity to open up dialogue.

Dr. Harris Perry is a fellow political scientist who I have known and respected for many years. Not only is she an incredibly brilliant thinker and writer, she has always been way ahead of her peers in the political science discipline because she isn't afraid to challenge us to think outside of the box. I think she took a huge risk in writing the Nation piece, and she had to have known that she would experience some backlash, especially writing for a progressive publication as the Nation. She knew it and yet she took the risk.

Whether either woman is right or wrong shouldn't be the issue. The fact that they had the temerity to open up an honest conversation on the very sensitive--and sadly divisive--issue of race should receive kudos from all of us.

I hope we keep that dialogue going!!

[wndycty]

18. Good points

:kick:

[hlthe2b]

19. I would be....

I like and greatly respect them both. Admittedly, however, I still remain dismayed at MHP's misquoting of Joan Walsh's "friend" comment in order to attribute it to a race-based condescension and I expected a more academic and nuanced review of the issues. I find it fascinating that she seems to equate liberal viewpoints on race and bias to be scarcely different than those of the RW. I wonder if she realizes how very untrue (not to mention divisive) this is.

That said, I think it is within both women to dispassionately hear and consider the viewpoints of the other. By doing so, I think it would be helpful to us all.

[Karenina]

22. May I suggest that the misunderstandings of MHP's reaction

by the dominant community on this board spring from the lack of exposure to any intimate experience with how black people in America become "successful" and what must be endured. MHP had the temerity to question the purity of "white liberal womanhood" and is now reaping the whirlwind. :evilgrin: These same fissures opened during the attempts to integrate "feminism" in the '70s.

YOU do not know what MHP felt in Joan's presence on previous occasions nor what Joan transmitted. Condescension is something you FEEL. I'm sure you're familiar with it in your own life.

I was distressed by Joan's "oh but WE'RE FRIENDS" reference and again by her expressed "affection" for Melissa. Having been USED in that way many times, it's a dog whistle I hear LOUDLY AND CLEARLY.

Melissa has HAD to hear Joan ALL her life. Joan,(shutting up long enough to make sure she really understood what Melissa said) NOT SO MUCH the Melissas of this world...

[hlthe2b]

23. I dare say the majority of DUers can relate...

Whether it be the large number of women who have dealt with blatant misogyny in their lives and careers, the GLBT community that have faced their own very unfortunate level of hate and bigotry, the Latinos and Asians, the physically or mentally challenged....

The broader issue is not unique to a single group. At some point one has to learn to differentiate between those who truly bring ill will and those who deserve some benefit of the doubt and that the lens of adverse experience can overly impact (and sometimes unfairly influence) how one views new situations. It is a hard lesson and one that I admit to failing many times, which is why I have considerable sympathy for MHP.

[Karenina]

31. I beg to disagree

"I dare say the majority of DUers can relate..."

It's interesting how empowered you feel to speak for "them."

What I'm challenging is your assumption of being somehow qualified to speak for "others," including Joan. Upon WHAT do you base the idea of having knowledge of who "deserves" the "benefit of the doubt?" New situations? Without giving any ear to the OLD SITUATIONS?

I do appreciate the condescension of your sympathy for MHP.

[hlthe2b]

33. Not at all, Karenina

I never claimed to speak specifically to the plight of these other groups. However, I point out there are commonalities that make it quite possible to relate. As a female professional in a field that was overwhelmingly dominated by men and who came from a childhood, not of privilege but of considerable financial insecurity, I think I can speak to some of the impacts that, while certainly not the same, have similarities in the biases that African Americans or GLBT or disabled individuals, or Latinos experience. There IS overlap in these experiences. That you would deny that suggests you are willing to sow more division, rather than finding the commonalities that could bring us together to address the problems we face. I hope that not to be the case. I look to MLK's example in this. I scarcely think I could find a better one.

I am going to ignore your "condescension" comment and simply say I am firmly convinced that you are above that. :shrug:

[Karenina]

41. I assuredly DO NOT DENY the commonalites. I CANNOT.

To SURVIVE, I HAVE TO RELATE. You DO NOT and clearly imagine you do. Indeed, there IS overlap in these experiences. The difference between us is that I could take you home to MY FAMILY and say " I just met hlthe2b and she came up on on our genealogy chart!" X cuz, X removed! Back there in the day! You would be welcomed with open arms. I sincerely doubt you could claim the same nor understand what it is to have your credibility and credentials challenged ON A DAILY BASIS. As for your projection and condescension about finding commonalities or the necessity thereof, we females ALL have to find our ways in male-dominated pursuits. That you deny the experiences and perceptions of your sisters-in-arms amidst accusations of "sowing more division" and appealing to a "higher" example whose essence you do not understand, says everything.

"I am going to ignore your "condescension" comment and simply say I am firmly convinced that you are above that. :shrug:"

Above WHAT? Have I previously been, in your eyes, one of the "good ones?" :evilgrin:

[hlthe2b]

43. I encourage you to take some time...

to go back through what you just wrote, in terms of your previous admonishment to me. Whether you can see it (or admit it) or not, you have just committed that that you accused me.

Projection and assumptions, indeed. Pot meet kettle. And, no, my family would have been exceedingly welcoming. That is how I was raised. That is how they were raised. Even my grandmother, who would never speak of her Irish roots because of her own father's shame at the bigotry and ethnicity-based violence his own family faced growing up. Your very wrong assumptions aside, they had all the more reason to RELATE to the plight of others. And, the compassion. They would likely (perhaps mistakenly?) think that you could relate to THEM as well.

[Karenina]

47. We're talking hypotheticals vs real life experience.

As much as you and I WISH it were so, I do not believe a majority of people anywhere on this planet get the "I know the pain, let me not inflict more" thing. Were it so, we'd be in a much more peaceful place than we are now. First difficulty, the pain inflicted is rarely acknowledged. (Oh come on now, THAT didn't hurt! See, everybody agrees with me).

What I would like you to consider before judging MHP so harshly is the pain inflicted by the "false familiarity" tactic. There are posts all over these threads speaking of it. Having experienced it so many times, once almost being physically attacked, MHP's visceral reaction suggests a bigger picture.

"At some point one has to learn to differentiate between those who truly bring ill will and those who deserve some benefit of the doubt and that the lens of adverse experience can overly impact (and sometimes unfairly influence) how one views new situations."

Broadly speaking, I agree with the above. It's the application that grates a bit.

[emulatorloo]

28. Who are you to judge? I think DU's misrepresentation of MHP's article is appalling

and I think Joan Walsh was way too quick to be dismissive of Harris Perry's point of view.

[polichick]

8. That would be great - have you emailed Rachel with the idea?

[Lasher]

4. Pistols at ten paces.

OK, I'm a traditionalist.

[wndycty]

5. Sadly, that is what folks want. . .

...but it does not move us forward

:kick:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. I would like this, too! I think that just as Cornel West used to engage in public

discussions with Jewish American leaders and intellectuals, I think this will be healthy. I think it will invoke constructive debate. I think it will be provocative and encourage people to stop shouting and engaging in destructive knee-jerk accusations. I think it would be great!!

[Mr Deltoid]

12. The whole thing is stupid

Taking it public would just cost Obama even more votes, IMHO.

[wndycty]

13. The unresolved infighting in the progessive community will cost him more

:kick:

[Mr Deltoid]

16. Well, that won't happen until

Both sides are willing to have an HONEST conversation about it, and that just aint happening.

[pennylane100]

20. I think the the is being blown out of proportion

because of sexism, pure and simple. The fact that two women were involved somehow seems to make this more newsworthy.

Two highly respected public figures have a public disagreement. Perry Harris has no issue with Walsh's right to dispute some points in her article but does not like that Walsh then used their non friendship to protect herself from charges of bias. Walsh apologizes. To me that is not such a big deal. Writers,d have differences all the time. Both conducted themselves professionally, and apology was made, end of story.

David Sirota also criticized Melissa Perry Harris and then notched up the animosity when she would not interrupt her plans to meet with him immediately. To me, that is not quite the end of that part of the story and I would not mind watching the conversation if and when they do finally meet.

[Karenina]

25. David SUMMONS Melissa.

OFF WITH HER HEAD!!! :rofl: Sorry, been watching too many BBC series lately!!! "Lark Rise to Candleford" was all that and a bag 'o chips! :popcorn:

[hlthe2b]

26. I think MHP would have to recalibrate her argument. a bit..

and frankly put in a more due diligence in making that argument, if she were to debate the issue with Sirota. While I have been a very frequent critic of Sirota and undoubtedly side more often with MHP, he does bring a more factual basis for his current argument. I think it would be a very positive thing for MHP, in forming a more academic, less emotional, basis for her counter-argument. I think it would be an exceedingly useful meeting/discussion/debate and one that would be instructive to a very wide progressive audience.

[Prism]

21. I want Harris-Perry to rearticulate white privilege

I have the sense that, in using Bill Clinton, she missed a target that may in fact exist. I'd like her to take a little time, recalibrate, and then come back and explain how privilege informs expectations and ask questions about whether or not those expectations are realistic given today's racial politics.

She certainly has the ability, but I feel like she had a preformed conclusion in need of evidence, and didn't do due diligence in understanding the Clintonian dynamics of the 90s. It bit her in the butt.

But there's a conversation to be had here, and she is fully capable of having it.

[Supersedeas]

57. I think you are right on this...it will require some modification

[grasswire]

24. why have people unrecced this?

That's real mature, when he is simply calling for open dialogue and illumination.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Can we assume then that when Obama calls Grassley and

Coburn his 'good friends' that what he means is ' is a deep and lasting relationship based on shared sacrifice and joys.'? Not a professional relationship? Are they 'intimates in that way'? Or is the word a term of art with many levels of meaning? Just wondering about his 'friend Rick Warren' and his 'friend McClurkin'. Deep and lasting relationships based on shared sacrifice and joy? Intimates?
If there are rules about that word, can I assume that Obama is following the Perry standard when he calls Republicans his good friends?
Or is the definition moveable?

[wndycty]

29. When I see Donnie McClurkin or Rick Warren come up in a thread. . .

. . . that they have absolutely nothing to do with I know whomever posted about them has nothing to offer and has some issues to work through.

[CakeGrrl]

32. +1000

This happens with just about any topic - invariably some massive reach is used to invoke the "McClurkin/Warren" duo to bring it back to this poster's inability to see the President and pretty much everything he or his administration does through anything other than that filter.

[wndycty]

34. I will top your +1000 with a +1,000,000

:kick:

[Cherchez la Femme]

60. Applauding yourself?

Seriously?

LMAO

[wndycty]

61. I was actually applauding CakeGirl's post. . .

. . .or couldn't you understand that?

[Number23]

44. There's a general changing of the subject, period

Every discussion of racism on this web site gets co-opted by a small handful that have to change the topic. "Yes, yes racism is bad. But can we now discuss something that impacts ME??!" I have been noticing that for years.

I've decided that the next time a topic comes up about antisemitism, I'm going to barge in and talk about sexism because as a woman, this impacts me. And that's the most important thing, right?

The next time someone talks about anti-Arab/Middle Eastern prejudice, I'm going to interrupt to only discuss anti-black racism. Because as a black person, this impacts me. And that's the most important thing, right?? Wanna talk about the discrimination against the unemployed? It will simply have to wait until I talk about the bias against Southerners. Because as a Southerner, that directly impacts ME. And that's the most important thing? Right??

[Bluenorthwest]

36. That' a personal attack and also an evasion of the actual point

The subject is the use of the word 'friend'. Hariss-Perry says it has a very strict definition, which she seems to think everybody shares, so when that word is used, it always means a deeply bonded, emotionally intimate relationship. And yet the President, and many others, use the word 'friend' to describe relationships that I think are fairly clearly not intimate bonding over joy and sacrifice. So I am asking, is the word is an accepted term of art or is it, as Hariss-Perry contends, only to be used to connote the closest of social bonds? It seems it should be either one or the other. Not a sort of roulette wheel of meanings. Walsh said 'professional friendship' and described the same parameters that Hariss-Perry described, almost exactly which she called 'professionally friendly'. However, Hariss-Perry then states flatly that they are not friends. Walsh said professional friends, Hariss-Perry said 'professionally friendly' so the form of the word seems paramount, if one says friends not 'friendly' it means many, many things to Hariss-Perry. When Joan says it. But if Obama calls Coburn or Warren his 'good friend' would she have us conclude that they share that deep, joy and sacrifice thing?
We have to at least have a common language. If this Hariss-Perry definition of friend is THE definition, then many of us have been misusing it.

[wndycty]

38. Dude this thread is even about the dispute of the meaning of the word "friend"...

. . .its about them arriving at a constructive resolution. Why must you hijack this thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. ah, so you told me then

Several other people seem to understand what I am talking about. The dispute is in part about the use of the word 'friend'. That is obvious from your own OP.
It most certainly is a valid aspect of this dispute. This is part of the OP you posted. It contains a definition of the word 'friend' that does not fit with the common political use of the word. So if that's off topic, the OP is off topic.

[wndycty]

42. Again go somewhere else if you want to argue about the meaning of friend

:kick:

[DirkGently]

30. It was an unfair attack by Harris-Perry. Walsh said "professional friends."

Which was accurate. Harris-Perry chose to slot Walsh's honest, rather pedestrian comment into the "bigots who claim to have 'lots of ____(minority group) friends' " slot.

I like a lot of Harris-Perry's commentary. In this case, however, she went way out of her way to inject racial argument as a way to simply attack liberals who don't share her unwaverlingly high opinion of President Obama, and then she stretched truth and logic even further trying to defend her piece from the effective criticism it inspired.

No winners or losers. Just another sad attempt to throw darts at Obama's critics on the left, rather than engage them substantively.

[chill_wind]

45. I'd agree. I think it was pretty well designed

to be a conversation stopper. There was nothing casual about MPH's choice to go that direction and to give it that much space in her response. Maybe at some point each will find a way to regroup from this to return to a different kind of public interaction, but that has to be their respective choices, as well as how they might want to do that, if they did.

[Cali_Democrat]

55. I agree. She did say professional friends

I think it was just mean-spirited on MHP's part

[Supersedeas]

35. Who knows?

[JoePhilly]

37. Would love to see Rachel Maddow bring them both on for an hour ...

or even invite them to do something longer.

The GOP is trying to use race to gain support.

What the left needs to have is a more unified view of what race and "the race card" means.

And OPEN discussion about race is the LAST thing the GOP wants. If those on the left discuss and close up our views around the edges, the GOP's playing field on race shrinks even further.

[wndycty]

39. Especially an open discussion that could lead to some serious healing. . .

. . .these two women could start an important dialogue.

[JoePhilly]

48. Exactly ...

Agree ... and i think, among other things, that by doing so, they could CRUSH the GOP framing, in which, right wing whites have become the oppressed minority, black people caused the housing collapse ... and the argument that Obama hates the "white culture", or that he, and michelle, eric holder, colin powell, van jones, sotomayer, etc ... are the "real racists".

The GOP, has been very effective of using race by avoiding the N-word, as if that is the ONLY way racism manifests. And then screaming foul any time it comes up.

And the way they have worked the race discussion, with media help, is to advance the idea that racism has ended, and that any reference to its continued existence, in which the N-word was not used, must be false.

And while some would assume that there are no liberal racists ... as long as there are gay Republicans, I'm going to assume that there are still some racist Democrats / liberals. Call me crazy.

Not sure it matters, but since this is a discussion on race, I think perspective matters ... I'm a white guy in my 40s.

[wndycty]

50. Also, by having that discussion it might show others how its done. . .

:kick:

[JoePhilly]

52. +1 nt

[Supersedeas]

49. If they get together to discuss the merits of the allegation that white liberal support for the

President has dropped due to specifically to racism, is healing likely to fall out of that?

Joan will have her own factual support for her position, especially in light of the comparison that Harris Perry drew with the white liberal support for Clinton. Joan did a good job of laying out the factual basis for her position.

Harris Perry will have her own perspective on the influence that race plays in the drop in support for the President.

I am not sure where the healing takes place, unless one hopes that Joan drops her factual analysis and admits that she and other white liberals are racists.

Of course, some white liberal may be racists. There are no doubt some white liberals, who are racists toward other blacks, but who nonetheless love and support the President. There are no doubt some white liberals, who are racists and who have voiced criticism of the President, but who nonetheless changed their position for substantive policy reasons. And then, there is always the possibility that some white liberals are not racist at all--dare I say it.

But, the point of dispute between Walsh and Perry is a factual one regarding causation for the drop in support. Did racism cause white liberals (in general and in mass) to hold the President to a higher standand resulting in a loss of support for the Commander in Chief?

BTW, do you think that Harris Perry had 'healing' on her mind when she launched the "I am not your friend" jab at Walsh? I can appreciate the call for dialogue and discussion that might lead to racial healing, but I do not believe the context presents the best opportunity for that.

[wndycty]

51. Would you prefer they continue to antagonize one another?

Its funny you take offense to Harris-Perry calling out Walsh, but isn't she allowed to defend herself?

Who cares who threw the first punch, lets resolve this and resolve this in a constructive manner. Can you tell me what is wrong with having a constructive conversation about race?

[Supersedeas]

53. No, I do not prefer antagonism. But my concern is that a public setting could inflame the nature

of their dispute, since (for the moment) they have a fundamental disagreement about the causal facts.

If they are required to address these issues (plus their personal ones) in public, in front of the bright lights of the cameras, then there is the potential that things could become more explosive.

My narrow point is that maybe (maybe) they should to handle their dispute privately, where they simply agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wcvarones]

54. Plus...

... those nasty libertarians are having a field day with it:

http://www.wcvarones.com/2011/09/hot-liberal-girl-on-girl-action-melissa.html

[Vattel]

56. Harris-Perry's argument is so weak

that I can't see much good coming out of discussing it further. She needs to take a basic course in critical thinking. She doesn't establish her premise that among white liberals there is a double standard in relative assessments of Clinton and Obama, and then she takes a huge leap from that premise to the conclusion that racism is the source of that alleged double standard and hence responsible for a good portion of the drop in white liberal support for Obama. Armchair sociology at its worst.

[OneGrassRoot]

58. I can't recommend this enough. Thank you. n/t

[wndycty]

59. Thank you very much!

:kick: