UPDATED: MAY 2, 2007 

                                     “ON THE IMUS CONTROVERSY, PART 2” 

By the time you read this column, its subject matter will have been swept off the front pages (and the back pages too, I should think) by several other major stories.  One of them was the horror of the Virginia Tech massacre and the perhaps even worse horror, in terms of what the future holds for this country, of the spectacle of Newt Gingrich-and-clones telling us that the solution to the problem is for everyone to go around armed with concealed handguns.  Another is the Gonzales Mess, which is really just another installment of the much longer-running Bush/Rove/Cheney mess.  Another is that the Iraq “surge,” which many of us thought at the worst would not make things any better in Iraq, actually seems to be making things worse, while all the while Bush/Cheney continue the Big Lie (Hitler and Goebbels would be so proud), telling us that they are getting better. 

So why am I going on with the planned second installment of the Imus series?  First, because race and racism are the overarching definers of American political, social and economic history since the beginning of the Republic and before (see below).  They will not go away and unfortunately in the aftermath of the Imus Controversy and the response to it, both liberal and reactionary, things are not only not better, they are actually worse.  Second, because of course racism, Georgite lying, guns, and the total politicization of the Executive Branch under the Georgites are all interlinked, under the rubric: Georgite/Republican policy.  And so I continue, on Imus and the aftermath. 

For me, one of the two most unfortunate elements of that aftermath is that, as the Time cover story for April 23, 2007 said, the major liberal response was formed around the title of their lead story: “Who Can Say What?”  That puts the focus on what you say, not what you actually think or actually do.  Or in the broader sense, what our society allows to be said, rather than what our society’s ideology is and what is done, and not done, based on race.  Unfortunately, it was the Rev. Al Sharpton himself who formed the first focus, on the words that Imus said, and that he should be fired for saying them, not any of the broader issues, either in the media or with his generally liberal guests who tolerated him for so many years.  The other most unfortunate element of the aftermath was that that focus on words allowed both the holier-than-thou liberals and the Republican Reactionary Right to pile on, on the matter of the language of the mainly black rap culture, a minor matter compared to the broad questions of racism.  And so, what might have been done differently, one might ask? 

One of the original intentions of Media Matters, which first broke the story of Imus’ totally indefensible racist remarks, was to initiate a "national conversation on race and racism." Race and racism have driven the history of this country since the first slave was landed on these shores in 1620. They have caused/provided for, among other things: major fault lines in both our statement of national purpose, the Declaration of Independence, and our prescription for national government, the Constitution; our first Civil War; huge economic, social, and political inequalities in our society; the major political underpinnings for both political parties at different times in our history (since the invention of the Nixonian "Southern Strategy," it has been primarily the property of the Republicans). Yes, indeed that "national conversation" is desperately needed if we are to survive as a Constitutional Democracy. 

So what are the results of the Imus firing, at least the immediate ones? Did that "national conversation" get underway? Well, yes. But it did not, and at least has not yet, focused on anything like what was envisioned. It very quickly became, "you're the real racist," "well, he never apologized for that," "what about those black rappers," "the coach put them up to it," "just a bunch of sanctimonious, hypocritical white liberals jumping on board," "there you go again with your ‘political correctness'," "look who Clinton and Obama are taking their money from," "you are all racists." The real issues haven't been discussed, and the way things are going, they likely never will be, at least in the Imus context. 

And those real issues? Among them: the nature of racism; its different variants; how racism has been used to divide people with otherwise common interests ever since the first slaves were brought here, and distract them from the real struggles that could benefit them; how racism is used politically; what are the interconnections between racism, homophobia, and misogyny; how racism affects the distribution of basic resources in our society, from health care and education to disaster recovery assistance; how racism fuels the so-called "drug war;" how racism is so destructive for the operations of our criminal justice system. 

For sports fans like myself who listen to New York City’s sports-talk radio WFAN for the sports in addition to Imus, the timing of the incident was ironic.  Shortly after the outrage and outcry reached its peak was celebrated the 60th anniversary of the accession of the first African-American baseball player to the Major Leagues in modern times: Jackie Robinson.  How far we have come as a nation.  It was a great day when Jackie stepped out on the dirt and grass of the old Ebbets field in Brooklyn, NY, Branch Rickey’s chosen champion to break the color-bar in baseball.  But how far we have yet to go, especially when one of our two major political parties trades on the issue over and over again.  You don’t think so?  Well racism is not just about African-Americans, although that aimed at them is the worst of it.  It lies at the heart of the anti-illegal immigrant campaign.  It lies at the heart of the Islamophobia that the Georgites are trying so hard to create.  In terms of its demonization of the “other,” it is so closely linked, as I have said before, to the other three main Republican political-hate themes: homophobia, misogyny, and ”liberals are traitors.” 

Very early on in the week of the controversy, I heard Don Imus say that if he were to remain on the air, he would completely reform his program. The racist/homophobic/misogynistic humor would be gone. The show personnel both in front of and behind the camera would be diversified. And most importantly, the serious issues of racism and what we as a nation can do about it would be addressed. Would he have actually done all that? Well, we'll never know. But did we on the left and in the discriminated-against black, Hispanic, homosexual, and female communities who all demanded his firing possibly miss a major opportunity? 

Suppose after a suitable, without-pay cooling-down period, he had come back on the air, with, let us say, an advisory board/monitoring committee, with a liberal/progressive executive producer replacing the totally reprehensible Bernard McGuirk, with a well laid-out plan for achieving stated objectives? Imus was the only nationally syndicated radio talk show host on a major network who was seriously liberal on national politics: anti-war, anti-Bush, labeled Cheney a war criminal, said the reason for the disastrous outcome of the Katrina disaster was that the majority population of New Orleans was black. Despite his bad so-called "humor" (which I always found reprehensible, but I tolerated it because of the liberal tone of the serious political interviews/commentary), he was a political progressive, who just happened to appeal to a politically mixed audience. 

And that's the point. Yes, he obviously did appeal to a lot of people who listened to him to hear the racist/homophobic/misogynist so-called jokes and tolerated the politically liberal serious content, just like I and many others did, the other way ‘round. But he had the audience that anti-racists really want to reach: those working and middle-class whites who have been tricked for generations to ignore and avoid fighting for their real interests against their real corporate and political enemies. And he had the guests, such as Frank Rich and Jeff Greenfield, who, if properly prompted, and joined by serious scholars of racism such as Henry Louis Gates, could have seriously addressed these real, basic issues. What an opportunity. Anti-racists not preaching just to the choir. Maybe Imus never would have gotten there. Maybe an advisory board/monitoring committee/new production staff/serious plan for anti-racist action never would have worked. But alas, we will now never know. 

Author’s Note:  This column is based in part of “Dr. J.'s Commentary: Imus: Was a Golden Opportunity Missed Here?” which appeared on BuzzFlash on Mon, 04/16/2007, http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/058

________________