There's been a lot of controversy over the NABJ interview of former president Trump on their convention stage. Most everyone agrees that the man showed his behind, starting the interview openly hostile and insulting to the three Black women on stage and failing to answer a single question, choosing instead to launch into racially charged rants and attacks on Harris's ethnicity, so his poor performance is not at issue. What's mostly debated is whether he should have been there in the first place. Some say that it was a unique opportunity for Black journalists to question him frankly and follow up aggressively in a way that we don't often see on network news. Certainly, the journalists involved did a spectacular job of that, and he exposed his incompetence and bigotry as a result. On the other hand, some say that the convention is supposed to be a protected space where Black journalists can discuss matters important to their in-group, without having to filter or water down their thoughts - without having to code-switch, in a way, which is another item to add to Team Trump's long list of TIL issues, right after "some people are mixed."
I can definitely see both sides, and I'm very comfortable with the idea that two opposing ideas can both have merit. The thing about the performance and the controversy that I love is that we're finally having a conversation that involves thinking about spaces where Trump might just not belong.
It feels like we've been talking about places where Kamala Harris belongs for months now, ever since the first inklings that she might someday run for president started tickling the Republican hive mind. Those discussions have ramped up to a frenzy since she's become the presumptive nominee, sort of tapping in to the fight like a WWE wrestler energizing the crowd. Republican legislators, and a few people I know personally, have called her a DEI hire, despite the fact that nobody hired her to most of the positions she's held throughout her career. The fact that she ran for them and got elected doesn't seem to enter the equation for them.
Rep. Tim Burchett called her a DEI hire and insisted that "...when you go down that route, you take mediocrity." I heard the same thing from other Republicans, from a coworker, a family member, and others, unfortunately. In their minds, places of power, skill, and authority are just places where Black folks, and especially Black women, belong. Just like Charlie Kirk freaking out like that old Twilight Zone episode when he sees a Black pilot, they can't imagine that a person could be both Black and qualified, over-qualified even, so they assume mediocrity.
But let's think about it. Is it mediocre to complete a Juris Doctor degree at 25 and then get hired as a prosecutor in the district attorney's office at 26? And then get elected District Attorney in 2003 and again in 2007? She ran for and won the Attorney General office in the largest state in the country, and then got reelected for another term. Was that mediocre? Or was her senate run the mediocre one, the one where she won in a landslide? The truth is, none of these credentials matter to some people. They see her as Black (or newly turned Black, it's very confusing), and that's the only credential that counts to them.
If you think I'm wrong, then look at who they support over her. Trump started his path to presidency as a failed businessman, in my opinion. Now, that's debatable, I know, but hard to prove since he won't show his tax records like other candidates. Then, what? Reality TV star? Movie and commercial cameo? Then president? The president who presided over the Covid disaster? And I'm supposed to believe that his path is somehow distinguished with merit and hers is "mediocre"? Look, it's okay to debate her policies, her opinions, and her senate votes. That's what we do when we prepare to vote. You can dislike her stance on whatever your most pressing issues are, but you can't discount her achievement and experience ... unless, there's really only one qualification that counts. Unless you're willing to admit that only a white man can go from one failed business after another to reality TV personality to literally the highest office in the country, without having his credentials questioned or being called mediocre.
In addition, it wasn't lost on me that in the same NABJ interview, Trump fumbled a question about Sonya Massey. Right now, there are two Black women whose stories dominate my Twitter feed, and she's the other one. She was murdered in her home by a police officer, in a way that seemed almost premeditated to me, and the most Trump could say about it when questioned was "It didn't look good to me" and "I didn't like it." To give some context, this was right after he admitted that he didn't know much about it and right before he pivoted back to the talking point about police officers needing respect and dignity. In fact, his whole attitude concerning the discussion of Massey's murder was nonchalant, disaffected even.
I have a theory.
People like him get very upset, enraged and offended even, at the idea of a Black woman in a position of power and authority, because, to them, that woman is a DEI hire, not worthy of that place by virtue of her race or ethnicity, despite what qualifications she might actually have. To them, she doesn't belong there. A Black woman victimized and murdered by police, however, doesn't raise an eyebrow, doesn't inspire a rant, because that is where they think she belongs. They will refuse to do any research or even listen to a long list of credentials for a Black Vice President, or even a Black pilot, immediately dismissing them as mediocre. But when a Black person, Sonya Massey in this case, is clearly the victim of not only civil rights violations but also murder, they're willing to scour the earth for any information that might let them believe that crouching on the floor of her kitchen is exactly where she belonged.
No comments:
Post a Comment