1) this is as american as apple pie. sure, there's definitely a racial angle here in all likelihood (no one can know someone else's psychology, so i'm not going to attribute intent definitely, though like i said, it seems plausible that the racial ethnic thing is what they're getting at).

2) but in the process people need not to overreach. e.g., at the end of the video the reporter questioned the use of the term "look at the candidate." that's a common phrase or figure of speech. "look at the demographic" isn't.

3) so i think that there is some code going on in the clips. but not in all of them. there are probably going to be people who disagree, who will agree that "look at the candidate" is sending code. there will be people who claim there isn't any code. who is right? someone we run a controlled experiment with a reasonable degree of precision to test our hypotheses??? oh, oops, we can't do that.

4) therefore, on the net you have to pick & choose the net benefit (or lack of) to reading subtext into every assertion. "look at the candidate" != "macaca" IMO.

f**rs

Ok, well there's no need to look at every assertion at the video (for example, 'look at the candidate' unless said with some peculiar, sneering intonation, is a normal expression). The focus on demographics is indeed straight-forward code words-speak, and more than enough to see elements of a racially-tinged approach to R. campaign in the district. Anyway, he's an ex-marine; I think that background can counter this stuff pretty well, or at least one would presume.

Wow, white Republicans are racist? Who would have thought?

Wow, white Republicans are racist? Who would have thought?

exactly. look how the barack obama was treated in the dem primary; itz a republican thang yo.

Repugnicans!!!

5 · razib said

Wow, white Republicans are racist? Who would have thought?

exactly. look how the barack obama was treated in the dem primary; itz a republican thang yo.

Of course not. But in recent history (last four decades), they've more explicitly used it as a strategy. People like Clinton (both) adopt it as a tactic once the political climate has been altered - the same way that Obama hasn't exactly gone out of his way to embrace the Islam, yknow?

Should you draw a distinction on partisan lines? Not sure - depends whether there are meaningful institutional / cultural differences attached to the two parties. Seems easier to draw non-partisan criticism - which probably end in the same thing, basically.

Vote McKinney ;)

I agree with razib's comment in the first post; in isolation, some of these comments are not inherently racially tinged. However, there is an underlying commentary when you reinvoke "the demographic." It sounds like the MN Repub Party is trying to spin a class-based argument (moreso than ideology, although they do give lip service to that). Of course, such an argument is cut with issues of age, race, profession, etc., as well. The comment of a candidate being "not like us" is much more explicitly, and negatively, racial. It will be interesting to see if this meme continues to develop, and if so, in what ways it is more/less/neutral on the question of race and "belonging."

The prevalence of Scandinavian ancestry and cultural tradition among the locals would presage free and unselfconscious expression of racism in Minnesota, and make this kind of crude codification and the assumption that a kind of informal apartheid should "properly" be in place that much more likely. The reporter's objections are quite surprisingly forceful, though.

Oh, please.

From Nixon's "Southern Strategy," to Ronald Reagan's launching of his post-convention presidential campaign in the same Mississippi county where civil-rights workers were killed--while proclaiming his reverence for "State's rights," to intimidating California's Hispanic voters in the first Bush's 1988 presidential campaign, to the less subtle "macaca-moment," the Republican Party has had a long history of race-baiting. This is no accident. This is what they do.

So please stop thinking so hard, and trying to filled with high-minded equanimity, and be a karmic facilitator by showing Ashwin Madia some financial love so he has the resources to fight back and crush these people like the bugs they are--just as we sent the noose-on-the-ficus-tree-loving George Allen the right message when they messed with our boy.

Let's teach them that the homogeneous America they long for never existed and does not now.

Why do they hate America?

Subodh,

Such simplistic analysis might serve your political needs but does not do real justice to the actual Republican party.I am as disgusted as you with the Atwater and Rove style of politics. I think they are going to pay a high price in the current election cycle for this. There are several Repubican leaders (including the current occupant of the white house) who do not think this way. The only problem is their voice is not being heard and Bush is incedibly incompetent to get anything done. Reagan's racism is much more complex. Krugman and Brooks engaged in this debate and several other pundits jumped in. I don't have the links.

Now to the other side does it too argument. What about Bill clinton, Hillary Clinton,Joe Biden and Obama (D-punjab) moments. There is enough data to conclude that lower income African American who are generally a solid democratic block are much more homophobic than the average lower income republican.

My advice: take on the "He's not one of us" comment with a "The republicans say i'm not one of them and perhaps I'm not, I'm one of thet The Few. The Proud. The Marines.”

The rest? Do what Obama would do. Ignore it. If it is intentional it's probably meant to bait him into playing the race card and thus look like shartonesque; the new southern strategy. Don't take the bait.

There is enough data to conclude that lower income African American who are generally a solid democratic block are much more homophobic than the average lower income republican.

And certainly more racist too.

There is enough data to conclude that lower income African American who are generally a solid democratic block are much more homophobic than the average lower income republican.

Homophobic??? What does that have to do with anything?

And Manju, you may be right that the best thing to do it is ignore it in general, as long as it doesn't become part of an advertising campaign.

Homophobic??? What does that have to do with anything?

You can be prejudiced about many things. Race is not the only criteria.

9 · Amrita said

The prevalence of Scandinavian ancestry and cultural tradition among the locals would presage free and unselfconscious expression of racism in Minnesota, and make this kind of crude codification and the assumption that a kind of informal apartheid should "properly" be in place that much more likely.

Amrita, I must strongly disagree with you. I live in Minnesota and, while there are many Scandinavians, it's doesn't "presage" any form of racism, subtle or "unselfconscious". Minnesota is home to some of the largest Somali, Vietnamese and Hmong refugee populations in the US, which is but one sign of the non-racist attitudes here. The Twin Cities area especially (but even Minnesota on a whole) is frequently ranked as one of the most educated and literate areas in the country. If anything, the liberal, tolerant Scandinavian population here has created a tradition of producing progressive politicians, from Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey to Walter Mondale, Paul Wellstone and Al Franken. Even the big-name Republicans here (Tim Pawlenty, Norm Coleman) are relatively moderate compared to their other Midwestern counterparts. Also Keep in mind that Madia's congressional district runs the gamut from poor to super-wealthy and is a diverse area with large Hispanic and Asian populations (including a large influx of recent Indian immigrants). The outgoing representative of Madia's district, Jim Ramstad (R) is arguably one of the most moderate, decent Republicans in Congress (and, as he has suggested, is one of the reasons why he's leaving politics). Extremism and subtle racism are not tolerated in Minnesota, especially not in the Twin Cities region. As further proof, this area also elected Keith Ellison, who is not only black, but also Muslim (the only Muslim in Congress). So the "Scandinavians are racist and therefore it's okay to be outwardly racist in Minnesota" notion is utterly absurd. In Madia's district, the Republicans have run out of strategies, which is why they're falling back on time-tested measures, imported from other states, which otherwise would be unacceptable in Minnesota. This makes sense as the Republican party is generally bankrupt nation-wide; Madia will win easily.

Republican's just appear racist and you cant get around it. KKK members were disappointed at how white the republican convention looked.

Although the biggest, well maybe second biggest, star in the party is Bobby Jindal so I dont know why republicans would try to play that card. I just think Republicans get awkward around colored people and dont know what to say and thus look racist as shit. I mean how hard is it to say "No I dont mean his race I mean his party"?

On second thought any person with a normal chromosome count would say that if they were not racist, so this is totally racist.

Is there an unedited transcript? The clip above is heavily edited.

Dear Republicans - never use the word or phrases 'demographic, profile, fits the profile, not one of us, and, the, for, at, I, you, or it' as these words or phrses, when used in the context of the history of the Republican party, are clearly racist. Thank you.

So the "Scandinavians are racist and therefore it's okay to be outwardly racist in Minnesota" notion is utterly absurd. In Madia's district, the Republicans have run out of strategies, which is why they're falling back on time-tested measures, imported from other states, which otherwise would be unacceptable in Minnesota. This makes sense as the Republican party is generally bankrupt nation-wide; Madia will win easily.

I didn't say that stuff you put in quotes, CondeKedar, you did, but I do think it's fair to assume that Erik and his people were talking to-- indeed pitching-- his base. And we're talking about someone called Erik with a K Paulson, not Eugene McCarthy or Hubert Humphrey or Walter Mondale or Paul Wellstone or Al Franken. Not every white Minnesotan is Scandinavian, and I have no doubt that some who are Scandinavian are also liberals, for lack of a better term. Obviously, many a state and its people must tread the winding path of increased diversity, thanks to Bobby Kennedy, and so things are changing everywhere as they must, but equally obviously, Erik and his supporters are announcing, without bothering with any particular attempt at subtlety or graded shades of meaning, that they feel that he enjoys, or should enjoy, some prior or exclusive claim to the place and to the loyalties of a sizeable sector of its populace.

So, which other states are these that harbor the time-tested measures you speak of?

There is enough data to conclude that lower income African American who are generally a solid democratic block are much more homophobic than the average lower income republican.

this is false. you bring your opinion, i bring data.

If anything, the liberal, tolerant Scandinavian population here has created a tradition of producing progressive politicians, from Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey to Walter Mondale, Paul Wellstone and Al Franken.

re: eugene mccarthy, he was generally an anti-war liberal. but he also had some anti-immigration positions later on:
McCarthy was a long time member of the Board of Advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.[2] Along with Ted Kennedy, he was one of the original co-sponsors of the Immigration Act of 1965. He later regretted this, noting that "unrecognized by virtually all of the bill's supporters, were provisions which would eventually lead to unprecedented growth in numbers and the transfer of policy control from the elected representatives of the American people to individuals wishing to bring relatives to this country."[3]

to a great extent he was a left-right chimera, and many old right people like bill kauffman admire him.

some of these comments about scandinavians and minnesota are nice. they show that repulsive and primitive caricaturing knows no bar of ideology or ethnicity. of course perhaps i'm wrong, after all, south asians are known to be the most open folk in the world to differences and totally abhor conformity?

yes, there is something shady going on with ashwin madia. from that it does not naturally mean that we should cast aspersions on the character of the people of minnesota, especially when they are known (excuse the stereotype) for their niceness, and have a history of disproportionately taking refugees from foreign countries (and no, those those foreign countries are not scandinavian). and yes, some of those nice people who agreed to sponsor and relocate refugees are even republicans.

"...provisions which would eventually lead to unprecedented growth in numbers and the transfer of policy control from the elected representatives of the American people to individuals wishing to bring relatives to this country."

Now that's subtle, while also being perfectly clear about being discriminatory and set hard against the post-1965 influx of non-white types, esp. in dismissing them as a possible source of future elected representatives. Lord knows his forbears brought their own huddled masses of relatives along happily enough, what with their yearning to be free and all that.

Very big of you Razib- but what's this post about, otherwise?

13 · Manju said

My advice: take on the "He's not one of us" comment with a "The republicans say i'm not one of them and perhaps I'm not, I'm one of thet The Few. The Proud. The Marines.”
The rest? Do what Obama would do. Ignore it. If it is intentional it's probably meant to bait him into playing the race card and thus look like shartonesque; the new southern strategy. Don't take the bait.

and this is the beauty of race relations in civil rights america. one side can boldly indulge in coded race baiting, and the other side has to just take it for fear of being seen as an angry minority.

Now that's subtle, while also being perfectly clear about being discriminatory and set hard against the post-1965 influx of non-white types, esp. in dismissing them as a possible source of future elected representatives. Lord knows his forbears brought their own huddled masses of relatives along happily enough, what with their yearning to be free and all the

1) kennedy said the same thing when the '65 act passed. they really didn't have any idea.

2) mccarthy's family presumably didn't immigrate during a time when relatives of current citizens had privileged position via chain migration. that's what he's alluding to.

Very big of you Razib- but what's this post about, otherwise?

republican party officials in minnesota. you do know that not every minnesotan is a republican party official, or is that math just too subtle for you?

This is strange! It seems the white republicans want both ways and their way! I am still hoping Madia will defeat this racist-propped candidate. I think the repuke spokesperson would have been little more careful had the candidate been an African American versus a second generation Deshi. I suspect, for a second generation Chinese or Japanese American, the attack would have been more explicit. Bobby Jindal's key to win was his "Christianity". Again, I feel he was in a good location - a southern State where his credentials look good compared to most white folks and he is a repuke. In upper midwest, the whites do not want to be dominated by the browns. Does it not imply that unless you are white, you do not fit to live in this neighborhood?

22 · Amrita said

I didn't say that stuff you put in quotes, CondeKedar, you did, but I do think it's fair to assume that Erik and his people were talking to-- indeed pitching-- his base. And we're talking about someone called Erik with a K Paulson, not Eugene McCarthy or Hubert Humphrey or Walter Mondale or Paul Wellstone or Al Franken. Not every white Minnesotan is Scandinavian, and I have no doubt that some who are Scandinavian are also liberals, for lack of a better term. Obviously, many a state and its people must tread the winding path of increased diversity, thanks to Bobby Kennedy, and so things are changing everywhere as they must, but equally obviously, Erik and his supporters are announcing, without bothering with any particular attempt at subtlety or graded shades of meaning, that they feel that he enjoys, or should enjoy, some prior or exclusive claim to the place and to the loyalties of a sizeable sector of its populace.

So, which other states are these that harbor the time-tested measures you speak of?

Amrita, as far as time-tested measures the Republicans use, I would say the two most time-tested measures are: 1) claiming that your Democratic opponent will raise taxes and 2) claiming that your Democratic opponent supports [insert soft measure on criminals here]. As we all know, these sort of ads have successfully undone many a Democrat, especially in states like North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Illinois (to answer your question). Michael Dukakis, though not from any of these states, comes to mind as a high profile victim to such ads (Willie Horton anyone?). As I live in Minnesota, I've seen plenty of "Madia will raise taxes" ads, though nothing on crime just yet. Fortunately for Minnesota (again, owing to the liberal and tolerant nature of the Scandinavian population here), the state abolished the death penalty in 1911, long before most of Europe, including Norway and Sweden, where the bulk of Minnesotan Scandinavians' ancestors are from. So I don't think Republicans can get Madia on any high-emotion issue like that. The state might be mostly white, and heavily Scandinavian (and Irish and German), but it is deeply liberal and progressive and hasn't voted Republican in federal elections since 1972. Again, this is the ONLY state with a Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison. According to Census studies, many of the people who voted for Ellison in 2006 have since moved to Madia's district, which borders Ellison's and encompasses many Minneapolis suburbs. As far as the racist strategic ads go, I will say it again: that sort of thing doesn't work in Minnesota and is not customary---quite frankly, it's beneath the Minnesota Republican party and I don't know who's in charge of these ads, but he/she/it can't be from Minnesota, otherwise they'd know better than to use such filth and assume it will work. I understand your point that whites, Republicans (and probably Democrats, too) use bigoted tactics, and that Erik Paulsen (or his campaign team) seem to be trying to tap some deep-rooted racist vein, but that is NOT a go-to measure for Republicans in Minnesota. That's all I'm trying to say. Jim Ramstad, who is retiring, is not racist and never ran such ads in his career to win his district; he knew his constituents were diverse and reflected the views of his district---Ramstad was moderate and was derided as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Madia is the natural successor to him for a district that wants change and is increasingly Hispanic and Asian and working-class.

Wiggle Your Big Toe...

Wiggle Your Big Toe...

Wiggle Your Big Toe...

1) kennedy said the same thing when the '65 act passed. they really didn't have any idea.

2) mccarthy's family presumably didn't immigrate during a time when relatives of current citizens had privileged position via chain migration. that's what he's alluding to.

Very big of you Razib- but what's this post about, otherwise?

republican party officials in minnesota. you do know that not every minnesotan is a republican party official, or is that math just too subtle for you?

Razib, that's not math, although your argument that it is math or perhaps logic is admirably creative, if not so subtle. I already said that I recognize that not all Minnesotans are Scandinavian or illiberal, and your argument that "they" didn't know what "they" were saying because Bobby Kennedy said the same thing doesn't hold water. Plus, what is the likelihood that Bobby Kennedy didn't know what he was saying? The point you may be trying to make is more fully explored in this article in the NYTimes. I doubt that there were ever any immigration quotas or restrictions in place that made it difficult for McCarthy's great grandfather's sisters and his cousins and his aunts to go live wherever they damn well pleased whenever they liked. Do tell if you know of any.

CondeKedar, thoughtful post-- I'm not challenging your assessment of Minnesotan attitudes towards matters and issues like capital punishment that you identify as overall measures of progressive thinking. I am saying that Scandinavian-style racism (yes, I know it's Swedish and Norwegian, not Finns and Danes), is up front, carefree and identity based, and can be expressed in a very frank and forthright manner, instead of being stated circuitously, and that is what is so surprising in the press conference video above-- which is not an ad --- especially surprising to those who are accustomed to the more sly presentations of racist thought that are used by people like McCarthy.

Bobby Jindal's key to win was his "Christianity". Again, I feel he was in a good location - a southern State where his credentials look good compared to most white folks and he is a repuke. In upper midwest, the whites do not want to be dominated by the browns.

Minnesota voters send first Muslim to Capitol Hill. that muslim happens to be a black american.

here's an assertion: upper midwest whites are a lot less race conscious than brown americans. maybe i'm full of crap, and i'm wrong. i don't know. but some of the comments in this thread just rub me the wrong way. the whole glass houses thing. i admit that ashwin madia is probably being subjected to racially motivated attacks; and i agree that some people will vote against him cuz he's a colored man. but from that one psychoanalyzes the people of minnesota??? yeah, minnesotans are not racial angels. but they should be judged by the standards of humans, not angels.

I already said that I recognize that not all Minnesotans are Scandinavian or illiberal, and your argument that "they" didn't know what "they" were saying because Bobby Kennedy said the same thing doesn't hold water. Plus, what is the likelihood that Bobby Kennedy didn't know what he was saying?

ted kennedy. he was the co-sponsor. he explicitly said that the act wouldn't change the country's racial balance (if you want to look it up).

I doubt that there were ever any immigration quotas or restrictions in place that made it difficult for McCarthy's great grandfather's sisters and his cousins and his aunts to go live wherever they damn well pleased whenever they liked. Do tell if you know of any.

yes, there were restrictions. that's why that had places like ellis island. those with disease or perceived mental illness were turned back. prior to 1776 particular states were very careful to screen who arrived; e.g., the new england colonies tended to refuse to allow those who were illiterate or poor to settle (see albion's seed david hackett fisher).

but the point isn't open borders. the point is that there were open borders (aside from disease and mental illness) before 1924. after 1965 there was a strong premium on having relatives. that's why the "diversity lottery" showed up, to redress the shortfalls that occurred because family based chain migration is highly sensitive to "initial conditions." mccarthy, from what i have read of him, wasn't in favor of closed borders. rather, he wanted fewer immigrants and shifted toward a canadian model, where skills and education are at a premium. the american model does have skills and education based slots, but privileges relatives in the sponsorship process. this tends to skew toward immigrants and their families. there's an argument to be made for this (which george w. bush has made), but mccarthy's position is a legitimate one too.

Hold on. I don't deny the racial undertones of the "not one of us" comment. And I don't want to see that rhetoric used in Paulsen ad-campaigns. FWIW, I have yet to see them used that way.

But the same kind of rhetoric has been used in the Senate campaign by supporters of both Coleman and Franken.

MN Republicans are lashing out at the fact Madia's campaign donations are coming from out of state. This support has less to do with Desi solidarity than the fact that he's veteran. We saw national Democrats pour money into the '06 Tim Walz campaign for the same reason.

This is still a silly line of attack because

1-There is no district residency requirement for congressional candidates.

2-It only reminds voters of the reason why Madia hasn't lived in the district.

There is enough data to conclude that lower income African American who are generally a solid democratic block are much more homophobic than the average lower income republican.

this is false. you bring your opinion, i bring data.

Yes, my opinion is based on the very few conversations I had with blacks and whites about this topic.

But my larger point still is correct. Politics is a dirty game and race/religion have been used by both parties when they see an advantage in doing so.

Bobby and Teddy both. Please to check the collection of quotes and see what they're about. Safe bet there are some people you know socially who are into this kind of worrying. Did you like the article I linked above?

Illiteracy, (dire)poverty and ("serious")mental illness excepted, it was all good for a very long time so long as you were not only white but of Northern European stock (not that this eliminated mental illness or poverty here)...I imagine McCarthy's ancestors arrived well before 1924... Al Franken's impending win is a very big change in that context. But hey, Razib, lotteries aside, strict regulations about which of your relatives to bring only come up when immigration is already restricted along racial lines, on the assumption that those relatives can and will bear offspring. Too bad for racial conservatives that laws have to apply across the board. One factor that was not taken into consideration in 1965 was the impact of abortion rights and a series of women's movements on the growth of white populations. But while racial/national immigration quotas are obviously designed with the explicit intention of preserving racial hegemony within the "protected" borders, educationally based quotas can also limit the pool of immigrants in ways that can be measured in terms of race. What actually happened in Canada? Gotta go...

Minnesotans are very nice people. We desis should look so good if we hold a mirror to ourselves. Whatever mild racism they have is nothing compared to the rigid prejudices so many of us hold. I have a close DBD friend...he lived in NYC for 6 years, didn't get anywhere with the "diverse", "cosmopolitan", "liberal" women here. He moved to Minneapolis 3 years ago and has been a big hit*. I don't want to put it more crudely than that but I think you all know what I'm talking about. And not just the women...he's made friends with a lot of guys too. Very different social fabric there. He never wants to leave.

*And Minnesotan women have got to be seen to be believed.

Speaking of that friend...he used to be quite fobbish (for lack of a bettet term) when he first came here...so jokingly I would often tell him 'welcome to America' during various conversations. When I went to visit him in Minneapolis, I was so amazed at how different it was from NYC area, and the first thing he said to me was 'welcome to America'...and he was right.

i agree that some people will vote against him cuz he's a colored man. but from that one psychoanalyzes the people of minnesota??? yeah, minnesotans are not racial angels. but they should be judged by the standards of humans, not angels.

Couldn't agree with this statement more. I think that, quite often, folks on the coasts make these kinds of assumptions about the South and the Midwest "fly-over" states as a means of turning a blind eye to the endemic nature of racism in their own states. There's a false mythology afoot in this country that proclaims that because people who live in larger cities tend to vote Democratic, racism is somehow less of an issue there. Any analysis - whatever one comes up with - of this particular example needs to be put into the context of the entire country and not just the conveniently distant corner of Minnesota.

The discussion that this post sparked is very interesting, however, I noticed that other than one comment (MD, I think) most are ignoring that this clip is heavily edited and reeks of subjectivity. Whereas this general discussion seems relevant in a general context, I don't think the clip in the post is enough information to really ascertain whether "race bating" is an issue in this particular election or not.

9 · Amrita said

The prevalence of Scandinavian ancestry and cultural tradition among the locals would presage free and unselfconscious expression of racism in Minnesota, and make this kind of crude codification and the assumption that a kind of informal apartheid should "properly" be in place that much more likely. The reporter's objections are quite surprisingly forceful, though.

You're ignoring everything we know about this election, race, and where Minnesota has fit in to American politics in recent timmes in order to make this argument based on suppositions about ethnicity and "culture." See, for example, the David Sirota argument about how Obama won in Democratic primaries where there were small numbers or large numbers of Black people, but not in a range in between.

There are different ways of construing the data, but the idea that Minnesota is inordinately racist compared to, say, Wisconsin, seems less compelling than the argument that Subodh very eloquently made and which is, imo, hard to contest on a national basis. You can look at specifics of Minnesota for other explanations, but the ancestry-culture one seems pretty flawed (and as pointed out in another comment frustratingly essentialist).

36 · Nara said

Yes, my opinion is based on the very few conversations I had with blacks and whites about this topic.

But my larger point still is correct. Politics is a dirty game and race/religion have been used by both parties when they see an advantage in doing so.

What a tendentious argument. Here are some parallel arguments: scientists and creationists both use words and ideas - we can't attempt any characterizations about who is more accurate; the U.S. government and the Australian government have both sent troops to Iraq and are therefore equally responsible for the war; human beings and horses have both used math and therefore they have the same relationship to math.

The first step in recovery is to admit you have a problem. If you want to support Republicans, that's fine - there are many reasons to do so from personal benefit to you (probably on class) to ideological preference to being interested in theocracy- but you can't do it right now without acknowledging that racism, homophobia, sexism, Christian supremacy have been more frequently and more overtly used by this party than by the Democratic Party over the last 40 years. It's also very easy to understand why, because it's people pursuing a pro-rich agenda and ideology who have to mobilize large numbers of people for electoral purposes - and if you can't do it on economic populism or through force or by cheating then how are you going to do it? You have to figure out a way.

You can look at the details of this specific example in detail and try to understand what's going on here, and maybe the party ID is not really important - or maybe it's not a factor at all - but then you actually have to do a pretty detailed search into what's going on. Staying at the level of broad generalizations that attempt to draw equivalencies on the basis of flawed understandings of history and current events is not enough to do justice to this.

Please to note the word "local" in the two sentences you quoted, Dr. Amonymous, that I remarked on the lack of inhibition and that the second sentence you quoted notes a challenge from the press to the identity politics the first man in the video, Minnesota GOP chair Ron Carey, is obviously engaging in. He is acting and speaking visibly without a second thought or any circumspection about what he is proposing. Also, this is about a particular district, the composition of its population, the nature of representation and something that happened or is still happening there with respect to those three factors and perhaps other elements-- all of which the Minnesota GOP apparently feels they may have some success in exploiting or may be able to use to appeal to their base.

Dr. Amonymous, in the rush to defend all of Minnesota and to be high-minded, are you avoiding examining what happened here?

Amardeep, could you please tell us more about what bothered you about this video?

Subodh Chandra:

Oh, please.

Is it true that Ashwin Madia is hiding his Hindu faith? Did he tell the local Minnesota media that "he is not that into" Hinduism while telling an Indian-American audience that he is "active" in a local temple? He also skirted the religion question when asked on Sepia Mutiny. If so, it seems his victory, rather than being a moment of pride, would be a slap in the face to those of us who are not ashamed of our religious heritage. I know that you didn't sell out. In fact, you very openly declared your Hindu identity in your campaign. By obfuscating the issue, Madia is doing South Asian Hindus a disservice - and I for one would not donate to his campaign until his stance is clarified. Let's hope he's not Jindal Lite.

I apologize for the delayed response; I haven't checked back in a while. Busy pounding it out for Brother Barack in Ohio.

First, Ashwin Madia is a Jain, not a Hindu.

Second, the closest thing I found to what you are talking about was this article. Comparing Madia and his opponent, the columnist wrote, "There are other contrasts. Paulsen, in some ways, is a classic Minnesota pol: He's white, a family man, a Lutheran and he has a traditional political resume. Madia is Indian-American, a bachelor, his parents are Hindu (he's less religious than they are) and he's making his first run for elective office."

I don't find anything objectionable about that paraphrasing or characterization, if that's close to what Ashwin said. What if it's true? Are you as religious as your parents?

While I agree that it is troubling to see those who deny their heritage just to fit in, or wear two completely different faces depending on the political needs of the moment, I don't think it is fair to expect a candidate to wear his or her religion on his sleeve, particularly if that just isn't who he or she is. I don't think it is fair based on the comment I identified to suggest that Ashwin is somehow "ashamed" of his heritage.

I would suspect that the foremost thing on Ashwin Madia's prospective constituents' minds right now is how they are going to survive economically given what is happening to our economy. They are more interested in what Ashwin Madia can do for them than what religion he is. Ashwin himself has a responsibility to be both true to himself and his heritage while at the same time not needlessly distracting from the issues most important to his constituents. Because as we've all seen, people can be easily distracted, and manipulated, to not be focused on their own self-interest. Those doing the manipulating generally do not have ordinary folks' interests at heart.

What I sought to do in my campaign was point out commonalities and bring people together (both on matters of policy and occasionally faith), not to highlight differences. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots when you've never had to enter a room of people who look a lot different from you, some with scowls on their faces and their arms crossed, and have to reach into yourself, find that reservoir of common experience and humanity, and find the words to connect and persuade them, "I can help you if you give me a chance; we can work together..." I've done it. It's not easy, but when it works, when you see the scowls turn to smiles and the arms unfold, and the hands extend in friendship, it's a beautiful thing. It's a moment underscored in all faiths, including Hinduism and Buddhism, "We are all one. We are connected."

I hope this helps you overcome your reservations and perhaps have a bit more empathy for the challenge Ashwin is undertaking.

Finally, I want to express my profound disappointment at most of the comments above. As much as I enjoy the interesting posts on this site, I sometimes feel that the commentators would rather engage in pseudo-intellectual debate then to go to the heart of the matter and find solutions, or act in a communitarian spirit. I imagine them as passengers on the Titanic denying the water rushing in around them "Well, is it really the H2O's fault that we are at threat of drowning? Or are there other causes of drowning too, so water isn't the only thing to blame?" Some of the commentators on this site, I think, would have to be personally beaten while someone screams racial epithets at them before they act. (Even then, they would start debating, "Well, maybe this doesn't really hurt, physically or emotionally.")

I don't have any kind of working theory for this level of denial other than to think it's a coping mechanism. After all, a person who visits this site wouldn't come here unless he or she had a decent sense of identity and wants to have a communal spirit founded in large part on ethnic pride. Yet, when people are challenged to understand that there are patterns of political and social thought in this country that simply do not embrace the ideal of America that we do, all of a sudden, people put on this faux show of equanimity almost as a coping or denial mechanism.

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Implicit in that statement is that we have to stand up to injustice. If you are not capable of rallying to Ashwin's side when the injustice that these people are seeking to inflict upon him is so evident (or for that matter, to Barack Obama's side, when Sarah Palin says he's "palling around with terrorists" causing "One Palin supporter" to "shout... a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and [tell] him, "Sit down, boy," when McCain/Palin supporters shout about Barack Obama at rallies, "Kill him," and when their supporters in Ohio at their rally start openly calling Barack a terrorist (see this video)--well, I just don't know how to help you help yourself.

Help yourself. Help the generations that follow. Please go see Comment 10 above, and as the saying goes, "Do the needful." Fight for the America we were promised.

And here is another way of being a karmic facilitator.