RNC Chairman Michael Steele
Michael Steele must have known the job was meant for him. His campaign to become the first African-American Chairman of the Republican National Committee had come at the perfect moment. Obama had just won the presidency handedly and the Republican Party was reeling. Steele had led a successful campaign, full of feisty one-liners and television appearances. So far, the other candidates didn’t prove to be much competition. The final day of voting was between him and Katon Dawson, but Dawson wasn’t the right candidate. He was from the south, a place, and idea that the GOP didn’t want to be associated with anymore. Sure, he withdrew his country club membership when he found out it didn’t allow African-Americans, but he just wasn’t like Steele. The party desperately needed someone new with a new perspective. They needed a new face.
To most Democrats, Steele’s election to RNC chairman appeared to be a cynical choice; one based more in his appearance and public demeanor than in his political views. Cable television news networks, in particular Fox News, covered Steele’s acceptance speech with snappy sound bites followed by raucous applause. Even while he was elected to a position that is, historically, one of little public concern, the media quickly shone its spotlight on Steele who claimed to be the kick in the pants that the RNC needed. This was further illustrated by Steele’s “hip-hop” comment, where he proposed the party try to appeal to the “urban-suburban hip-hop” demographic. The attention Steele received by the media invites a “post-racial” reading.
Introduction to a post-racial reading of news media and politic
In this paper I will be focusing on post-racial rhetoric as it is seen in American politics and news media. These are notions that racism in the United States is a problem that can be solved, moreover, a problem that has been solved. The use of politicians, Michael Steele for instance, as proof that racism no longer exists in America, posits that we are living in a post-racial society filled with raceless subjects. However, this thinking forgets the history of slavery, discrimination, and violence used on minorities.
Post-racial discourse is not something of the 21st century. Rather it has a long history with roots in the white liberal reaction to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. In that moment, similar notions of a post-race society were expressed by government officials, in particular Lyndon Johnson and his speechwriter Patrick Moynihan. Both men reiterated the widespread liberal cant: “We gave you equality. What more do you want?” In his 1965 report The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, what would come to be known as “The Moynihan Report,” Moynihan places the economic status of African-Americans on their inability to raise their families as he states, “at the center of the tangle of pathology is the weakness of the family structure.” By blaming economic disparities of African-Americans on their weak family structures, instead of racism, Moynihan is engaging in post-racial rhetoric, and reinstating the stereotypes and inferiority of African-Americans. As Moynihan shows, while Jim Crow laws had lost a great deal of legitimacy in the Untied States, people explained economic disparities by citing cultural failings and “market dynamics” (Bonilla-Silva). This rhetoric proposes that we are living in an egalitarian society; any disparities in the current social structure are a result of the inferiority of minorities.
It also should be noted that the problem of race is often kept within the black-white binary. Using this binary assumes that racism only affects African-Americans, and that African-Americans are the only ones who have been affected by racism. This binary ignores the fact that all minorities who are identified as the “other” have experienced racism in one form or another. In the search for symbols or people that could represent the moment’s tolerance or post-racial nature, post-racial discourse clings to the black-white binary in order to represent the end of racism. Black subjects become representative of race, and their successes triumphs over racism.
Today, post-racial discourse has a noticeable presence in both political discourse and conservative news coverage. In this paper, I will look at why conservative news sources and political parties have begun engaging with post-racial discourse, and in what ways do we see this discourse being performed?
By examining the election and discourse of Michael Steele, the shows The Rush Limbaugh Show, Glenn Beck, and The O’Reilly Factor, and numerous race commentary blogs, it becomes evident that post-racial discourse is present in both American politics and the conservative news media. Ultimately, I argue that the Republican Party and several conservative news sources engaged in this discourse in order to maintain their sense of racial and societal superiority.
The Man of Steele or Kryptonite
When Michael Steele was elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee, conservative pundits embraced his success. While neglecting to view the position for what it is, somewhat unimportant and non-governmental, these Steele enthusiasts claimed that it was a great moment for American politics and proof of a post-racial society. However, while media coverage continued to express notions of the post-racial by pointing out the racial barrier that had been transcended, it also continued to pay particular attention to Steele’s racial identity. Very quickly conservative news sources began making assumptions about Steele based on his race, in particular, his political beliefs. While the conservative media was quick to judge Steele, it was also engaged and enamored with his style. Steele’s own “hip-hop” comments reflect this relationship and the value that was placed on his messaging. Finally, however, when this image proved to be a threat to the normative image of the conservative white male, Steele was quickly under fire and forced to play a smaller role. Examining the media’s coverage of Steele’s election, political beliefs, and oratory style, one sees that notions of the post-racial are present.
A historical moment for the right, and the right man
In it’s trademark use of the video clip, The Daily Show aired a portion of a Michael Steele interview.
Steele: “What I think it does do is send the appropriate message that right now, in this hour, the Republican Party gets it.”
Stewart: “You wanted black? Well…we got black!
It didn’t take very long for both liberal and conservative news sources to begin comparisons between Obama and Steele. On an episode of Special Report with Bret Baier, Steele’s election is framed in juxtaposition with Obama’s. Brett Baier begins by saying, “In less than two weeks after America got its first African-American President, the G.O.P has its first African-American chairman.” This juxtaposition, tries to equate the two elections as significant moments in American history where race barriers were overcome and social change was enacted.
Along with overlooking the disparities in rank and responsibility, the comparison of both elections supports a notion of a post-racial party and society. Academics and pundits alike have built up Obama’s election as “a far-reaching challenge to identity politics” (Hollinger) without fully examining the “results.” It’s not clear however, whether the ideas of racial equality and true democracy, expressed by Obama, are clear realities (McPhail). One is left wondering: how influential was Obama’s election?
In that same Bret Baier clip, correspondent Carl Cameron says, “Five and half hours of voting, and in the end the 168 members of the Republican National Committee made their choice, and made history…the new GOP boss, in the era of Obama…is Michael Steele…the party of Lincoln’s first African-American chairman.” This statement inscribes a historical significance to Steele’s election, placing it in direct relation to the Obama election and the Great Emancipator.” This statement falsely implies a degree of social change and significance. How historical is any RNC chairman election, as it is a relatively small position with no governmental power? Furthermore, what change does this signify for a party that has not one African-American Senator or Representative?
On the first Sunday after his election, Steele hit all the Sunday news shows. In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday he was asked to give his opinion on all the core issues of the G.O.P; immigration, abortion, and gay marriage. For each issue Steele reassured Wallace of his conservatism and towed the party line. When asked about his stance on gay marriage, Steele’s defense was “I’m a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been.” Wallace’s interview is exemplary of the immediate reaction of the conservative voter, unsure and wary of Steele. The reason his political beliefs come under particular scrutiny, is because of his race.
The scrutiny that Steele encountered was a result of the way in which black bodies are viewed by mass media. Given the way in which black subjects have been portrayed, throughout history, by the media (Entman, Giroux), it can be asserted that black subjects, particularly male, are seen as dangerous. These portrayals are a result of the history of racism in this country, which, to a great degree, has influenced the way in which black bodies have been viewed in reality as well. Black bodies are viewed as dangerous or suspect, and thus subjected to surveillance, racial profiling or job discrimination. In the process of “reading” what we see, we, as subjects of this racialized society, make judgments and assumptions. As Butler states, “The visual field is not neutral to the question of race, it is itself a racial formation, an episteme, hegemonic and forceful.”
Thus, Steele’s race causes viewers to make assumptions about his opinions, and to read him as left-leaning, radical, maybe even dangerous. Steele’s defense, that he is “Roman Catholic conservative” further provides insight into how he feels he is being read. By presenting his Catholicism, aligning himself with a religion whose representational organization opposes homosexuality, gay-marriage, abortion, and is run by white men, Steele is trying to convince the conservative audience to disregard their initial reading of him as “dangerous other.”
Two days before the Chris Wallace interview Steele appeared on Sean Hannity’s show, who rather bromantically, explained why he supported Steele, “I was supporting you for a lot of different reasons Michael, and not the least of which is you are a conservative.” Hannity’s comment illustrates how conservatives needed to be reassured that their assumptions concerning Steele’s politics, based on his race, were wrong.
While the false historical pretense given to Steele’s election was based on the idea that race is no longer an issue among Americans, the apparent mistrust of Steele calls into question the post-racial society that Steele and the conservative news media had portrayed. This notion of a party that was blind to their chairman’s race would fall under further scrutiny as Steele’s popularity and promotion would prove to be highly racialized.
MC Steel
Michael Steele’s acceptance speech got big rounds of applause, not because of any party strategy or change in policy, but because he spoke with a style that had never been heard at the RNC before. “To my friends in the Northeast,” Steele remarked, “get ready baby, it’s time to turn it on.” In press conference following his speech, Steele challenged Obama “how d’ya like me now?” From the get-go, the Republican Party was struck by his “easy-going camera-ready sound bites.”
While conservatives and news shows praise Steele for breaking a racial barrier, using it as proof that race was a thing of the past; they simultaneously focus on Steele’s race as a selling point for the party. His rhetorical flourishes of slang have been applauded and in one strange case, mimicked. Steeles’s hip-hop comment however, would get the biggest rise out of conservative and liberal news sources alike.
In an interview with the Washington Times on February 19th, 2009, Steele stated that the Republican Party “want[s] to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings.” Later on, he commented that his new public relations strategy would be “off the hook.” These comments illustrate how Steele’s identity as an African-American is being marketed and used for political purposes. These sound bites and comments are being used as examples of Steele’s blackness. By using his race to sell the Republican Party, Steele reinstates, for the white Republican he speaks for, the stereotype of the black entertainer.
Steele’s goal, however far fetched it may be, is to incorporate more “young, Hispanic, black” voters into the party, and his method of attracting those voters is to play up his race, utilizing hip-hop. Unfortunately for Steele, it appears that he is trying to use the symbol of hip-hop, without properly understanding what it is. A guest on The Rachel Maddow Show, Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell of Princeton University elaborated on his flawed application “Michael Steele thinks that he can deploy [hip-hop] like some sort of Pavlovian response like when we hear it we just can’t help but to go buy that malt liquor or G.O.P candidate because we heard rap music. But that’s not what hip-hop is…and the most important part of hip-hop is that it asks people to be authentic…you’ve got to keep it real, and Michael Steele is definitely not keeping it real. ”
Steele’s use of hip-hop as a marketing strategy, certainly illustrates his misunderstanding of the culture. Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine how much a man who was just a few days away from being ordained into the Catholic could know about hip-hop. However, it became abundantly clear that he was out of touch with hip-hop music and culture when he went on The D.L. Hughley Show with co-guest Chuck D
Steele: “The reality in the black community that it has moved from a slave mentality to a self-empowerment mentality…what moved me into this [Republican] party…was the idea that this party focused on the individual …and what struck me about hip-hop, as a genre, as music, as whatever you want to call it, a culture, was the fact that you have guys like yourself who come out of the projects out off the streets, myself, I grew up on 8thst. in DC that’s a world from where I am now-
Chuck D: “I come from Roosevelt, Long Island that’s not the projects.”
By using the Republican tenet of “focus on the individual” Steele is engaging in post-racial rhetoric, reminiscent of the Moynihan report. The idea that individuals will succeed with less government intervention, presumes that racism is no longer an issue and thus, should not stop anyone with enough determination from succeeding. Institutionalized racism, racial profiling, and economic disparities are not the issue, rather it is the person of color who is addicted to drugs, or pregnant at the age of seventeen. Furthermore his remark about the black mentality moving from “a slave mentality to a self-empowerment mentality” is highly problematic. It implies that the economic disparities, disproportional incarceration population, and quality of education in African-American communities are caused by African-American’s laziness, criminality, and inferiority, manifested by their “slave mentality.”
Michael Steele presents a particularly telling example of the motivations behind using post-racial rhetoric. After looking at Steele’s election, media coverage, and provocative public relations campaign, the common usage for post-racial rhetoric is as a political tool. The false-historical significance that is applied to his election, the questioning of his political beliefs, and his hip-hop makeover are all methods used to either reassure voters or attract new ones. By packaging his race in a post-racial space, Steele’s race can be “enjoyed” by the G.O.P without it being considered racist. Steele’s successful election and efforts to attract more minority voters, which both made him perform his race, reinstated stereotypes about African-Americans. Steele did, however, challenge the racist discourse of one conservative white man, and had there been more people color in the G.O.P he might have had some support. Ultimately, Steele is alone in that regard, and the man he challenged, Rush Limbaugh, is not.
Post-racial rhetoric in the conservative media
In that same interview on The D.L. Hughley Show, Steele criticized Rush Limbaugh.
Hughley: “We don’t need incendiary rhetoric like Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party”
Steele: “No he’s not, I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party…Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, his whole thing is entertainment, yes it’s incendiary, yes it’s ugly.
Michael Steele’s criticism of the popular talk radio host would lead to a host of news reports that inevitably led Steele to issue an apology shortly thereafter. However impotent, Steele’s criticism is not too far off. In this next section, I will argue that the three biggest conservative news pundits, Limbaugh, Beck, and O’Reilly, engage in post-racial rhetoric to reinforce their notions of white male supremacy in a “raceless” society. Furthermore, in addition to reinforcing their superiority, these three media personalities look to increase their audiences by using biased “objectivity, fear mongering and triumphalist rhetoric.
Why you cannot trust the American press
Before examining the post-racial in news media I would like to first explore the notions of objective news or journalism. Part of the reason why post-racial rhetoric is present in the news media is because it has a presence in this cultural moment. News is always subject to the “broader societal context in which it takes place.”(Wall) While the journalism industry has, for centuries, valued the “objective” viewpoint, going as far as to create it’s own set of ethics and code, such a viewpoint, devoid of bias, is realistically implausible. News is inevitably driven only by what it can sell, and what society deems to be the “truth”
The O’Reilly Factor is a news program that regularly goes after the “Far-Left Smear Machine.” The New York Times, NBC (all of it’s networks), and the ACLU are just a few of the organizations that O’Reilly charges with being untruthful or operating with left-wing agenda. Yet it’s clear that O’Reilly’s show’s non-biased coverage is questionable at best. For his coverage of a recent Obama speech, O’Reilly assembled a “balanced” panel that consisted of five conservative pundits and liberal punching bag, Alan Colmes. One academic study, looking at propaganda in news media, found that O’Reilly repeatedly used the study’s “seven propaganda devices.” Furthermore, it found that O’Reilly actually used the propaganda devices more frequently than Father Coughlin; the fierce priest gave a weekly radio broadcast, which blamed Jews for the economic depression (Conway).
In a recent episode, O’Reilly started with a segment called “Why You Cannot Trust the American Press.” He states, “Newspapers are dying because of the net and ideological craziness and TV news is generally more interested in making money than taking the risks necessary to deliver important information to you.” What struck me by his statement was that he seemed to be talking about himself. O’Reilly certainly portrayed, what might be called “ideological craziness” when he argued that criminal actions committed by the Bush administration should be excused because “mistakes are made in every war.” Are segments like “Patriot or Pinhead: Denise Richards,” “Body Blues: Are American moms obsessed with perfecting their bodies?” or “Rise of the Machines: Back-from-dead robot almost kills a man”covering important information? What O’Reilly doesn’t seem to notice, is that he too is part of the American press and guilty of all the faults that he charges it.
While O’Reilly addresses this problem, he doesn’t believe it applies to him. His show is exemplary of the conservative news media, whose biggest icons are white men who appeal to a largely white audience
Post-racial Fear
Post 9/11, news, politics, and media have been filled with terrorists, monsters, and evildoers. However, with these depictions came a fear or Muslims that manifested itself with racial discrimination. As Puar writes “What we are seeing in post-9/11 state legislative, technological, and societal surveillance and policing is the whole sanctioning of present but unofficially sanctioned racial discrimination against Sikhs…and Muslims” (Puar). This, along with the interpolation of violence on black bodies (Butler), posits that programs that deal with fear, profit off of fear, are inevitably perpetuating the image of who should be feared. This form of post-racial rhetoric, that which justifies racial discrimination as safety precautions, can be seen in fear mongering news shows, particularly Glenn Beck.
Beck engages in a number of fear mongering tactics, but what might be considered his most obvious form was in a February 23 episode in a segment called “War Room.” The segment played “out some of the worst case-scenarios” in order “to show you how to prepare for the worst while everyone else is sitting back and hoping for the best.” While he introduced the segment, images of Palestinian protesters burning American and Israeli flags, US soldiers in Afghanistan, and Hamas soldiers holding missile launchers, flashed behind Beck. The segment continued with Beck explaining a possible scenario in which “all US banks have been nationalized” and “the real estate market has collapsed.” His “experts” explain how “New York City looks like Mexico City.”
Immediately, with the framing of the segment, we see problematic imagery. The use of the video clips, without sound or story, completely de-contextualizes them. The clips thus portray Arabs as violent terrorists. In addition, the Mexico City comment made by Gerald Celente is also based in a fear of the racial other. This time, however instead of the “other” being the terrorist, it is the illegal immigrant. Mexico City is a large city, not one filled entirely by thieves and criminals yet, it is nonetheless used because it envisions an American city overrun by Mexicans, and engages with the “immigrant invasion” narrative.
This fear of the immigrant has also been recently revisited with numerous clips concerning the H1N1 virus, including one called “Domino Effect: Could Swine Flu Destroy Mexico’s Economy” where Beck’s guest David Buckner states “The second issue is… —people coming over the border…They walk into a hospital. They need it. And what happens? We run the risk of passing that along. We run the risk of now them staying here, we run the risk of the domino.”
By engaging with the fear of immigrants and terrorists The Glenn Beck Program looks to gain a greater audience. These segments often posit Beck as a man with answers, who is looking out for the viewer by giving you tips how to “be prepared” for when the country dissolves into socialism or gets overrun by H1N1 infected immigrants. The program makes a profit of off fear, but specifically, the fear of minorities that has been imbedded into our minds by the cultural history of this country.
Limbaugh and Steel
As was stated before, conservatives in the country were trying to piece together their party after a landslide victory by Obama. Rush Limbaugh’s show grew vastly in popularity, and Limbaugh himself was considered to be the voice of the common republican, reassuring his audience that he is fighting for the “American Dream” which is currently under attack.
Thus, when Steele criticized Steele, he was criticizing a much bigger force than he may have realized. Soon after Steele’s statements the conservative media came to Limbaugh rescue, viewing the chairman’s statements as counterproductive and a sign of his weakness. While discussing Steele’s comments and his style of public speaking, Glenn Beck said, “I don’t care – stand up for some values.”
This notion of Steele’s weakness was also present in Limbaugh’s immediate response, a lengthy monologue given on his talk radio show. “Where are your guts?” the popular radio host extolled. By criticizing Steele’s strength, and “guts” a detail which inscribes a physical deficiency on Steele, Limbaugh is marking his superior masculinity.
This is made more evident by his following statement, “They chicken out when I happen to articulate exactly what their agenda really is. They don’t have the guts to admit it, and I do.” Limbaugh suggests that he is the actual representation of the Republican Party, that Steele is an weak inauthentic member, who “took the bait” of the “liberal media.” Limbaugh continues to emasculate Steele by asking the chairman “to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star,” His demand that Steele go “behind the scenes” again positions himself as the figure of authority. It implies that while he can be a “media star” Steele is incapable of existing in the focus of the media.
This criticism of Steele must be read in terms of the history of racism. By marking him as a less masculine “other” Limbaugh illustrates his discomfort with the new image of the RNC. Steele is separated and isolated from the party because of his image, and is ultimately asked by Limbaugh to get out of sight.
In the aftermath of Limbaugh’s statement, which was taken quite seriously by the Republican Party, Steele quickly apologized. It seems that conservatives were fine with Steele’s savvy speeches and spunky one-liners, as long as he did not challenge the Republican Party’s image, that of conservative white masculinity.
Nowhere was this image more deftly expressed and exhibited than at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington D.C. The three-day conference culminated with Limbaugh giving the keynote address had a strong basis in post-racial rhetoric.
watch around 5min mark and 7:45 mark
He begins by describing how conservatives view the country, “When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people… we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims.” The color-blind vision of America believes that race is no longer present and that people are no longer subject to judgment based on their race. This perception goes in contradiction to many of Limbaugh’s radio shows, which voice strong opinions about minorities. For instance, Limbaugh recently voiced concerns over the potential appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme, stating that she is “Puerto Rican, this is going to make the Mexicans and Cubans angry.”
Similar to the “slave mentality” statement made by Steele, Limbaugh blames the economic disparities in this country on the impoverished people themselves. “We don’t want to tell anybody how to live. That’s up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we’ll try to stop it, but it’s a waste.” This statement definitely overlooks the numerous ways in which the social structure, government, and racial hierarchy of this country has told people how to live.
watch at 8min
The depth of Limbaugh’s historical amnesia is illustrated by his musings. “How did the United States of America become the world’s lone super power, the world’s economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen?” The history of American imperialism, slavery, and genocide is completely forgotten in order to protect the idealized vision of the United States. As Behdad writes this “structure of disavowal characterizes a system of racialization that enables a kind of cultural exceptionalism.”
This type of post-racial rhetoric and historical amnesia illustrates the notions of white supremacy and minority stereotypes inherent in Limbaugh’s discourse. Limbaugh’s language, which places his ideals as those of the country’s principles, also marks those who disagree with him as unpatriotic. With this form of messaging, Limbaugh is utilizing post-racial rhetoric in order to increase his audience. Appealing to a conservative base by perpetuating notions of American exceptionalism, white/conservative victimization, and America as a post-racial society, Limbaugh has developed a large following that grants him more respect than it does to the chairman of its party and many of it’s politicians.
A promising medium?: The post-racial blogosphere
Television networks and radio stations are fundamentally interested in financial gain, and as a result are driven to produce content that is judged to be most profitable. As has been shown in the previous sections, post-racial rhetoric can be profitable. While Steele’s election illustrated the way in which post-racial rhetoric allows people to enjoy race and racial stereotypes without feeling guilty about it, O’Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh show how it also creates a space for white victimization and white supremacy. Furthermore, as was illustrated by Steele, challenging commonly held notions about race, or social structures is not profitable.
The blogosphere then, offers a space where financial gain has to play significant role, and even in the case where it does, blogs are generally not operated by larger bureaucracies, but rather by the blogger themselves. The relative ease and freedom that one has with a blog also allows the blogosphere to be a wealth of different opinions and ideas. Therefore, it has the potential to be a medium for discourses that confront post-racial discourse, white hegemony, and racism. However, even with this great potential, the blogosphere is not free from race, nor is it without post-racial rhetoric.
As we have come out of the 90’s, where the internet was a still a new and somewhat clunky place, into an age where we have become more interfaced with the web, inevitably we begin to develop identities online. Nakamura has describes our “new formulations of machine-linked identity” as “cybertypes.” In this sense post-racial discourse is apparent. Some might argue that our identities on the web are not subject to race because our identities on the web are non-beings. However, fundamentally, there are bodies on and offline, which affect the web.
Cyberspace is not a space completely separate from race. Bodies are still commodified and colonized in a number of ways. “Identity tourism,” which Nakamura examines, for instance is the practice by which where people in chat rooms adopt a personality that is not their own, effectively making race into an “amusing prostheses (Nakamura 14). Nakamura also notes that the internet “can be seen as part of the complex of multimedia globalization,” especially as cyberspace remains a particularly Western space.
Thus, as cyberspace represents a new space, but made up of the same order, notions of race and the post-racial exist online. Blogs, however, still do present a useful place to challenge racism. There are a number of blogs that are devoted to confronting preconceived notions of racism, and the post-racial. Furthermore, these blogs have developed a following. In mid March, SXSW invited bloggers from Angry Asian Man, Ill Doctrine, NCLR, Cross Left, and Racialicious, to sit on a panel entitled “Can Social Media End Racism?” While the blogosphere does allow for a new plethora of opinions to be voiced, it doesn’t necessarily change what people will be open to those ideas. People still need to be educated, need to get organized, and need to find solidarity. In this sense, the work that blogs need to do on the web is similar to the work that needs to be done off the web.
Conclusion
As is illustrated by Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh, the media plays an interesting role in politics, and vice versa. Media is a reflection of society, what it entitles to be the truth is whatever society believes at that moment.
The most destructive part of post-racial rhetoric in the media is the threat it poses to social movements for change. This notion of a raceless society refuses to acknowledge what disparities still exist. When mediated on a national level, the disparities become less visible and taken to be a reality. It places another “barrier” that must be broken again, which will warrant more post-racial and triumphalist discourse, making each step harder as more broken barriers are cited as progress.
Post-racial rhetoric is a popular and thus, powerful tool for those whose interests lie within the status quo. It functions as way of oppressing those who challenge the white-hegemony by appearing to be moving towards social change when in actuality, it is static. The rhetoric provides a shield to hide from personal reassessments, radical thinking, and the potential for sacrifice. It is a defense that cannot be overcome by one politician or journalist, but must be challenged by societal movements, and then reinforced by those figureheads. Until then, what is a burden for some and a security others will be carried by all.
