John Edwards on Don Imus

Our nation is at a crossroads. We either start moving forward again or we descend into the politics of self-justification, mediocrity and smallness. I can't emphasize enough looking at the first three words of the US Contitution: We, the People... Some of our founding fathers, though certainly not all, understood the full implications of those words from the first moment they appeared. We continue to debate the full meaning of our constitution but some issues have been settled: we are all Americans. Part of our debate on the constitution is the recognition by all sides that we have to be honest about what we're talking about. But even at this late date, more than two hundred years later, there are any number of people who forget that we are, after all, a diverse democracy.

Radio host, Don Imus, crossed the line with his racist comments, though his initial excuse and the excuse of others was that it was just a joke. Something that shouldn't be lost in the discussion is that Imus has been a repeat offender. Long before the latest incident, columnist Clarence Page, at one time, even got Imus to raise his hand and promise an end to racially insensitive language. MSNBC has a post on what John Edwards has to say on the Don Imus controversy:

According to advance excerpts of his speech tonight at Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention, John Edwards takes the issues of Don Imus and racial intolerance head on. "I find it astonishing that there was even a debate over whether Don Imus' comments crossed the line. And I know I don't have to tell anybody here: Don Imus' comments didn't just cross the line. They defined the line that divides this country like the blade of a knife. There can be no debate over how much bigotry is too much bigotry. Any bigotry is too much."

He goes on to say, per the excerpts: "It's a shame we have to wait for the Don Imus' of the world to provoke a national conversation through bigotry - but we should jump at the chance to have this conversation, not just to look at whatever bigotry lies in our own hearts, but to finally engage on a problem that isn't going anywhere unless we do something about it."

We only rarely see leadership like this from President Bush and I can't recall a single case where Vice President Cheney has shown 'sensitivity' on civil rights issues. Leadership is calling a thing what it is: in this case, the language of racism on the public air waves. Imus is not the only one who does it and, frankly, there have been other radio hosts who have been slyer in the use of their language but with an intent more divisive and racist.

I noticed on the MSNBC site the first two comments reacting to Edwards. I know nothing about the commenters but the comments are common examples found on many message boards on the internet. Here's the first: "Tsk Tsk...is Johnny just upset that the I-Man didn't endorse him for president?"

Why would Edwards want the endorsement of someone who feels free to use racist language on the public airwaves? Racism is not a trivial subject and the snarkiness of the post suggests a lack of seriousness and interest on the part of the commenter. It contributes nothing to a real dialogue that needs to take place in our country.

Here's the second comment: "Nobody wants to talk about it because someone may have to explain why a white male is the only race or gender that can currently be considered a bigot, everyone else seems to have the right to say whatever they want." This is a common right wing mythology that has been surfacing more and more frequently in recent years. Generally, no group is free of bigotry and to claim others are bigoted does not excuse one's own bigotry. I might add that making excuses for one's own group has become a common dodge for far too many people across various groups.

I like the way that John Edwards talks about responsibility. When someone like George W. Bush talks about responsibility, it has a way of meaning that it's every man for himself. When Edwards talks about responsibility, it means that we're all in this together and that we have obligations to one another; it does not mean one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for other groups. I hope John Edwards continue the dialogue and that people start thinking more honestly about what they're saying and how they relate to other people no matter who they are.