>
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 9:28 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
> > Patricia Rose on Ron Paul's racism, paraphrase:
> >
> > Paul doesn't have to say heinous, obviously racist things any more to
> blow a dog whistle to his white supporters. He jsut has to say things like,
> "our freedom has eroded in the last 100 years." The only people for whom
> that even seems to make sense are white upper middle,
> professional-managerial class men. Freedom has expanded for white women,
> men and women of color, LGBTQ people, those who aren't Christians, etc. in
> the past 100 years.
> >
> > This is a very good example of the way structural oppression operates in
> the rhetoric of presidential candidates. As the press (and others) freak
> out over bigoted statements in Paul's newsletter, the more insidious
> racializing aspects of his rhetoric goes unnoticed.
>
> I'm no fan of Ron Paul, and I mostly agree with this, but to be fair to
> him, he's also talking about surveillance and mass incarceration (including
> the War on Drugs), whose targets are mostly not "white upper middle,
> professional-managerial class men."
>
> Doug
>
> You may be right about what Paul's talking about, Doug, but given the
wider aggrieved rhetoric of Republicans, many self-styled independents and
a raft of Democrats it seems far more likely that Paul is _heard_ in
Shag's/Patricia Rose's register than in the one towards which you've nodded.
A