A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

Scuffle over Trump's 'racist' tweet reflects shifting views among parties

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., (from left) Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., respond to remarks by President Donald Trump after his call for the four Democratic congresswomen to go back to their "broken" countries, during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, July 15, 2019. All are American citizens and three of the four were born in the U.S.

Dear reader:

It is against the rules of the House of Representatives to call the president of the United States a racist.

Or rather, it’s a violation of a “precedential ruling of the chair,” based on guidelines laid out by Thomas Jefferson, which have evolved over time to read that “personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the president is not permitted.”

Why We Wrote This

To the left, calling out racism is a step toward eradicating the problem. To the right, the term is being flung around recklessly.

This led to a fracas on the floor of the House yesterday, after Speaker Nancy Pelosi put forward a resolution to condemn President Donald Trump’s “racist” tweets about a group of female Democratic lawmakers of color, in which the president told them to “go back” to their own countries, despite the fact that all but one are native-born Americans.

Republicans objected that Speaker Pelosi was violating the “rules of order and decency,” as Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy put it, calling it “a sad day for this House.” Democrats responded that they had a “moral obligation” to condemn “hate, racism, and bigotry.” The Speaker’s remarks were ultimately taken down, but the resolution went on to pass, with every Democrat voting in favor and every Republican but four voting against.

To many on the left, the tendency often seen in the media and other institutions to shy away from direct charges of racism only allows racism to fester.

“There persists a wrongheaded and entrenched wisdom among politicians and elite journalists that to call something racist is to violate etiquette,” writes Doreen St. Felix in The New Yorker. “This logic rests on the illusion that racism is mythically rare, that ‘racist’ is a dangerous slur rather than a common condition.”

During Mr. Trump’s presidency, the needle has moved notably on this front, as many mainstream news organizations like the Associated Press this week labeled his tweets “racist” rather than simply noting that his opponents viewed them that way.

To many on the right, however, race is another area where the left has gone completely overboard. “I’m a racist. You’re a racist. Donald Trump’s a racist. Nancy Pelosi was a racist until she attacked Trump for racism,” writes Trump supporter Roger L. Simon in PJ Media. Such condemnation, he adds, “only makes people hate each other. It creates racism rather than solves it.”

One thing both sides agreed on yesterday: The partisan back-and-forth effectively overshadowed all other congressional business. “This whole day, we haven’t gotten anything [done] for the American public,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told reporters. “And at the center of this is just one man. All this is based on one man’s words.”

Let us know what you're thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.