3,500 Comments Later, Racist Conservatives Apparently Don't Like Jamie Foxx and Django Very Much
It would appear that Jamie Foxx is not too popular among conservatives at the moment. As the star in Quentin Tarantino's upcoming speculative history film Django, where he plays a slave turned bounty hunter who gets to render justice out to the white people who wronged him and his family, Foxx is now an object of rage for white conservative victimologists, and those obsessed with "reverse racism."
While it should not be a surprise given the subject matter of the film, the intensity of the racially infused vitriol being directed at Jamie Foxx (and by extension the movie Django) following his appearance on Saturday Night Live this past weekend is nonetheless quite instructive.
There are now some 3,500 comments on the Right-wing site Newsbusters (whose story on Jamie Foxx's "racism" was promoted by the Drudge Report) where all manner of hateful utterances by white nationalists are effortlessly (and indistinguishably) co-mingled with those of "respectable" conservatives. The ease with which "respectable" conservatives can dialogue with overt bigots--and how their observations and tenor so easily overlap--is a frightening barometer for the current state of Right-wing political discourse in the Age of Obama.
The contemporary Republican Party has created a brand name for itself which is prefaced on white identity politics and white nativism. As such, they are the country's de facto White Party. While the White Right searches for a way to broaden its base, and to become more diverse in the face of the public's rejection of their policies in the 2012 election, the contemporary conservative movement is stuck in a state of limbo, a political conundrum and malaise, that they themselves created.
The Republican Party's current state of paralyzing Whiteness, and herrenvolk white identity politics, came into being over several decades.
The process began when the Republican Party incorporated the racist Dixiecrats into their electoral coalition. In that instance, the baggage of Jim and Jane Crow America became that of mainstream conservatism.
They then, with the rise of the Reagan Democrats and white hostility to the gains of the Civil Rights movement, were able to brand the Democrats as evil "liberals" who were more interested in helping the black and brown poor, and betraying America's "cultural values," than in serving the racial and class interests of "The Middle Class."
In a parallel move, the Right's spin doctors and consultants developed a language and set of cognitive cues for their base that included such phrases as "small government" and "welfare queens." With the infamous Southern Strategy racism and conservatism became one in the same. Here, and as seen in Romney's overtly racist campaign against President Obama, seemingly "race neutral" language was in fact a trigger for white racial resentment and hostility towards people of color by Republicans.
The Republican Party's strategy worked so well that a polarized electorate is divided up precisely by the power and appeal of such symbolism and language. In all, because of changing demographics, as well as failures of policy proposals which mated Ayn Rand libertarianism with white racism, the Republican Party has branded itself into a state of near obsolescence. The public knows exactly who and what the Tea Party GOP stands for; the majority of the American people want nothing to do with it.
Romney failed because his party's message of White identity politics was too clear. They were not dog whistles. As I wrote about here, his appeals to white racial resentment were more aptly described as "air raid sirens." Moreover, despite his denials about the role of racism in his campaign strategy, White Nationalists heard Romney's appeals to White identity politics crystal clear.