Not all disrespect is based in racism

American political debate is in danger on two fronts. On one, the level of civility and mutual respect has deteriorated to the point that congressional "town hall" meetings become shouting matches and a member of Congress calls out "you lie" during a presidential address. On the other, some commentators assert that any criticism of America's first African-American president is motivated by racism. Former President Jimmy Carter, who says his upbringing in Georgia has taught him to recognize racism when he sees it, is the latest to see racism behind critics of President Obama.

For defenders of this president, who carefully avoided racial politics in his presidential campaign, the racism card is an odd assertion. No one doubts that there are some lingering racists in this country who oppose Obama first and foremost because of his color. But that doesn't make all of his critics racist. Obama's risky positions on health care, missile defense, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, immigration, the federal deficit and other controversial matters will attract critics who disagree with him. To suggest that all of those criticisms are founded in racial discrimination belittles the genuine policy disagreements that roil American politics. Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" shout-out was uncouth, disrespectful, uncivil, undisciplined and embarrassing, but I've seen no reason to blame Wilson's lack of manners on racism, unless you believe that being from South Carolina or being a Republican is indisputable proof of racist beliefs.

"Racism" is a harsh epithet, almost the equal of "child molester," that shouldn't be weakened by overuse or misuse. To ascribe any policy differences with this president to racism diminishes the meaning and venality of the word.

Harsh criticism of presidents and their policies is not a new phenomenon. Critics of George W. Bush went beyond critiques of his disastrous policies and got personal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bush a "liar" and a "loser." Disrespectful? Yes. Venal? Yes. Racist? No. Bill Clinton also attracted a coterie of venal critics of his personal life and family. George H.W. Bush's critics portrayed him as a rich, smiling idiot. From the time he was California governor, Ronald Reagan faced harsh criticism who belittled him as a petty actor and then criticized his acting. Jimmy Carter was ridiculed for his "homely" children and his rural pastimes. Franklin Roosevelt called out his critics when, he said, they had even begun criticizing "my little dog Fala." None of these criticisms, as harsh and hateful as they were, were based in racism.

Obama, like his predecessors, will face harsh, unfair criticism. Critics will be unkind, disrespectful and uncivil, but we should be careful about blaming bad manners on racism.

Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, who might have been the first African-American president if he had wanted it, had this to say in a New York Times interview: “The issue there is not race, it’s civility. This is not to say that we are suddenly racially pure, but constantly talking about it and reducing everything to black versus white is not helpful to the cause of restoring civility to our public dialogue.”

An endorsement that might matter

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama over the weekend isn't entirely unexpected, but it could be one of the more significant developments of this last month of the presidential campaign. Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former national security advisor, former secretary of state, was one of the most broadly respected men in America. His autobiography was a bestseller.

Had he run for president in 2000, he might have won. His support was that broad, and the public's respect for him was that strong. But Powell did not have the "fire in the belly" — the willingness to trudge tirelessly for two years or more, begging for money and pleading for votes. So instead, he signed on as George W. Bush's secretary of state. The most famous moment of his tenure came when the Bush administration sent him to the United Nations to argue that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. Powell made the argument powerfully, and his credibility helped tip public opinion and world opinion on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Only later did Powell discover that he had been hung out to dry by the war hawks in the White House. When troops found no weapons of mass destruction and later when secret intelligence was revealed that showed that Iraq had long ago abandoned its WMD program, Powell looked like an unethical sycophant and felt like an ignorant fool. The Bushies had stolen from Powell his most precious possessions — his good name, his integrity, his honor.

If Powell has been oddly quiet since 2003, it's likely because he feels embarrassed that he let himself be used by the White House to justify its invasion of Iraq. Unlike dozens of other retired generals, Powell has not spoken up about Iraq strategies or tactics. He has not written another book. He has not been a talking head on all the cable news shows. He has kept his own counsel and has avoided the spotlight.

That reticence makes his endorsement all the more powerful. By endorsing Obama, Powell is making amends for allowing himself and his good name to be used by the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration. Obama is the anti-Bush and, thereby, the anti-McCain.

Endorsements, as I said repeatedly during my three decades of endorsing candidates in newspaper editorials, rarely persuade anyone. But Powell's endorsement might be worth more than most. Although his integrity took a beating five years ago, many Americans still have great respect for Powell. The independent voters who urged his presidential candidacy a decade ago might still be willing to listen to what the general has to say.