Fear of a Black Golfer

 

The Dog-Whistlerer

 

 

Of late, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has taken to adopting the pose of one who has become disillusioned with his own political party. It has proved an ill-fitting choice of roles for one unschooled in mummery, as it seems to be beyond Brooks's ability to refrain from inserting rightwing talking points amidst all the newfound "A-pox-on-both-your-houses-now-where's-my-check?" media-centrism.

Additionally, it can't help him much that he often drops out of character completely, such as his "Not-Smarter-Than a Fifth Grader" performance after the abysmal April 16th primary debate hosted on ABC,  likewise two weeks ago when Brooks compared his candidate favorably with Abraham Lincoln and claimed that John Mccain would be the first man in the history of the world immune to being corrupted by power.

Such intermittent success with faux centrism appears to have incentivized a search for a new rhetorical device, and now Brooks seems to have found one.

In a recent column he traded in the motley and belled cap of disgusted-middle-of-the-road political observer for a shiny new dog-whistle, with which he must have put in long hours of practice, for in his latest effort, Brooks takes it up and plays with all the alacrity of a natural born flageolettist.

The Frozen Gaze By DAVID BROOKS Rocco Mediate’s head swiveled about as he walked up the fairway of the sudden-death hole of the U.S. Open on Monday. Somebody would catch his attention, and his eyes would dart over and he’d wave or make a crack. Tiger Woods’s gaze, on the other hand, remained fixed on the ground, a few feet ahead of his steps. He was, as always, locked in, focused and self-contained.

 

Appropos of nothing, "sudden-death hole" would make a great name for a band.

As for Brooks, I think I'm safe in presuming that he's writing about more than Tiger Woods here. Mostly because Brooks is an apologist and a propagandist for the Republican Party, and not a sportswriter, thus, he rarely writes about Tiger Woods, or golf, or any other sport. But also for the reason that Brooks, if he were merely writing about the nation's pre-eminent golfer on a newspaper's opinion page, most likely wouldn't load up the piece with as many strange turns of phrase as he has done. For in the next eight paragraphs of his column, Brooks describes Tiger Woods as:

having risen above human status possessing a "frozen gaze" having a uniquely "wide chasm between the look in his eye and the surrounding environment" a "creature" of unknown origin having the "ability to enter a cocoon" speaking in "a string of carefully modulated banalities" "calculating" "a control freak" being able to mute the chatter that "normal people" have in their heads being similar to "that liquid metal cyborg in Terminator2™

 

From a sports fan's point of view, this may not send up any red flags, after all, comparing an athlete to a machine has a long history in sports commentary. But if seen in a political light, through a conservative perspective, say, those same phrases could evoke very different emotional responses.

Then, just to be a dick scare the recalcitrant members of the GOP a bit more, Brooks compares Tiger Woods to 20th century political and spiritual leader Mohandas Gandhi, which simile can surely connote more than one meaning. Most liberals reading the column may see Gandhi as a heroic figure, someone to emulate. Whereas most conservatives I have spoken with about the man regard Gandhi as a fanatic who went around getting the brown skinned people all riled up, and that's never a good thing.

Brooks also reminds us that Woods is a spokesperson for a major American auto-maker, and is empedestaled by corporate wanna-be golf-pros all over this cleat-shorn, jaunty cap and do-not-adjust-your-set plaid pants-wearing country of ours, and this is where his new dog-whistling technique really starts putting out those resonant harmonics;

Where sportsfans who skim Brooks's column could think; "Tiger Woods: Almost inhuman player of zen-like calm, check", and liberals doing the same might come away saying "Brooks says Obama is impressive like Tiger Woods", conservatives see the underlying message very differently.

Just as, a few weeks ago, he warned religious conservatives that they were under attack from a new and amorphously defined threat to their religious doctrine, now Brooks is telling republicans that people like Tiger Woods -and yes, by extension Sen. Obama- represent a scary new kind of black person. Well, not a person, really, more of a strange and different, ruthless, stone-visaged, abnormal Gandhi-like creature.

Which, you must admit, is an odd way to describe a professional golfer, if one is merely admiring his skill at the game.

In the last line of his column, Brooks lets the mask slip again.

You can like this model or not. Either way, the legend grows.

 

That's not a conceptual model to which Brooks refers. He's addressing conservatives, and telling them that the game-faced, zen-like, light-skinned Tigerminators, so beloved of the golfing class, are coming for their back nine, and their voters, and that there's nothing they can do about it.

You can blow that dog-whistle until you're red blue in the face Bobo. I don't think it'll do you much good. On to the next gimmick.

Comments

[chicago dyke]

it's both ironic, and useful, that at this time tiger is dropping off the mediaverse to go have surgery. without him, you won't be able to write this column so often, and that takes a weapon away from the conservatards. seriously, i expected a great deal, and continue to expect, a lot of surrogate obama-bashing transferred to other light skinned 'black' celebs. they'll go beyond the pale (heh) no matter what, i full expect the racism to just get louder and bolder at november approaches. but- Tiger the Great Black Cock Who Destroyed The Masters' Tradition with Fried Chicken is no longer something they'll be able to use. or rather, when they do, it'll be obvios to even sports fans 'why' such an article is written, and they won't like the infusion of politics into their golf.

anyway: all media is part of the same project. it's interesting after reading...that other post i just read about why people in the media can be wrong about so many things and still get paid and have jobs and fame. the system of info distribution is planned, effective, and "vertical" integrated. it's on purpose that it is this way, because it works.

[chicago dyke]

feh, spelling.

[¡El Gato Negro!]

they'll go beyond the pale (heh) no matter what

¡Caray! I wish I'd used that.

As for why our execrable pundittia says so many stupid things ad keeps on getting paid, I am partial to commenter Capt. Phealey's take on the media, wherein, instead of the accepted wisdom that the advertisers are selling stupid products to the media's audience, the media is actually selling stupid audiences to advertisers.