Shhhhh -- hear that? OK, maybe you can't, but surely your pooch can. That's why she's looking at you with a perplexed expression, or what passes for one from canines. It's the sound of dog-whistle racism we've heard so much about since the outset of the Obama presidency -- nay, since Obama's 2008 campaign for president, especially after Hillary Clinton began to lose.
Liberals have repeatedly cited this purported phenomenon to compensate for the dwindling number of tangible examples of racism. (Cursed arc of history, always bending toward justice!).
Having heard this accusation heaved so often at conservatives, what a shock it was to discern apparent covert racism coming from an exemplar of the left, perpetually irritated ex-congressman Barney Frank.
In an "occasionally contentious, consistently fascinating conversation" in the April issue of Boston magazine, "Barack Obama and Jon Stewart were not spared the rod," wrote the magazine's Simon van Zuylen-Wood, employing an unfortunate metaphor. "Penis euphemisms and 1960s pop songs were discussed. Barney Frank was, well, Barney Frank."
And what did Frank say about Obama? A pair of remarks jump out --
BOSTON MAGAZINE (BM): You've said Obama's main weakness is the strength that Hillary possessed, which was working the halls of Congress.
FRANK: Understanding the nature of the opposition as a political process.
BM: Meaning he was too naive?
FRANK: Too self-confident about his ability to get people to come together with him. Like he could talk anybody into anything.
Such as Iran agreeing to curb its nuclear ambitions, to cite a glaring current example. A deeper dig at Obama wasn't far behind when discussion turned to possible GOP nominees in 2016 --
BM: You haven't mentioned Marco Rubio.
FRANK: I'm skeptical. Not for great reasons. You know, I think, you know I was in some ways surprised that Obama won. I think there is an alienness about him that is not -- that he's too foreign. I wish I didn't feel that way about the country.
Got that? Frank says he wishes Americans "didn't feel that way," more specifically, in the way he just expressed himself. But that wasn't Frank talking, mind you -- it was obviously Amerika.
Conservatives have been saying much the same about Obama for years, only to be relentlessly vilified as racists. They also sense an "alienness" about Obama -- based on his worldview, not skin hue. Like many on the left, Obama sees himself foremost as citizen of the world, then American. The same biography that makes Obama an intriguing character, arguably more so than his predecessor who was to the manor born, also renders him most unlikely of all who've been elected to the same office.
Frank proceeded to condemn The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, who'll never be accused of undue adherence to conservative precepts, for lacking ideological zeal --
BM: I thought it was bizarre that the (Boston) Globe endorsed (Republican Charlie) Baker, given the ideological divide between the two candidates. (Baker defeated Democrat Martha Coakley for Massachusetts governor in 2014).
FRANK: It doesn't surprise me at all. The Globe has this problem that a lot of middle-class, respectable liberals have, which is a fear of being seen as partisan. There is this worship of nonpartisanship. It's why I didn't join in the great praise for Jon Stewart, because I think Stewart was guilty of that. You watch Jon Stewart, there were never any good guys. Unlike Bill Maher, who I think much more intelligently differentiates, Stewart almost never referred to any politician except to show what a fool she was, or he was. And I actually think that's devastating to try to get people involved.
Even if Frank's premise is accurate that Stewart invariably mocks and rarely praises politicians, the vast majority of Stewart's targets are Republicans and conservatives -- not quite Stewart wishing a plague on both houses as Frank implies.
Frank was also predictably eel-like in evading any responsibility for resisting greater oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the economy went belly-up in '08 --
BM: I think you're frustrated that people -- mostly on the right, though some on the left -- continue to link you, in your advocacy for government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to the collapse of the housing market in 2007 --
FRANK: Yes, that was a great mistake we made, and of course ...
BM: What was the great mistake?
FRANK: Not taking that [argument against me] seriously, because we knew how silly it was.
Textbook rhetorical shell game from Frank -- if conservative criticism for his role in inflating the housing bubble was "silly," why was it a "great mistake" for him to not take the criticism seriously? The exchange between Frank and van Zuylen-Wood continues along these lines, ending with Frank's defensive query, "So how am I culpable here"?
Back in the 2010 midterm campaign, during a tea party-led wave when he faced his most serious challenge for re-election, Frank was decidedly more forthcoming about his mystifying myopia toward Fannie and Freddie. Now that he's out of Congress and will never run again, Frank hopes his brief lapse into candor will be forgotten and Republicans can return to their rightful place as sole architects of the economic collapse.
