‘Racist’ isn’t term to use lightly

President Obama’s choice to be the next Supreme Court justice had scarcely left the podium after being introduced to the media and the public before politicians and political pundits alike —- from Rush Limbaugh to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich —- had hauled out the heavy rhetorical ammunition to label her a racist.

Although the term “racist” has most often been used by liberals to cast aspersions on conservatives, I personally find its use by members at either end of the political spectrum in a debate of this magnitude —- especially over the qualifications of a Supreme Court justice —- to be either mean-spirited, meaningless or both.

The reason I believe it to be mean-spirited is because the meaning of the term “racism” with which I grew up —- from my old Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary —-was “assumption of inherent racial superiority or the purity and superiority of certain races, and consequent discrimination against other races.”

In short, racists were people like Eugene “Bull” Connor, George Wallace, members of the Ku Klux Klan and those who believed in segregation and other such policies designed to keep members of a certain race “in their place.”

To label a respected jurist such as Sonia Sotomayor with the same term used to describe the likes of the hard-core racists of the past strikes me as tremendously unfair.

On the other hand, those who casually toss around the racist label today could claim that the currently accepted definition is “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

By this definition —- believing that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race —- it may be true, as the song from the musical “Avenue Q” claims, that “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.”

And if this is the definition of racism that the politicians and pundits are using, does it really have much meaning? Isn’t everybody a racist to some degree?

It is understandable that a radio talk show host such as Limbaugh would choose a charged term such as “racist” to describe Judge Sotomayor, because he is, after all, primarily an entertainer looking for ratings. He understands that controversy, not quiet, contemplative reflection, motivates his audience, and he knows that calling someone a racist creates controversy.

But no one should confuse his performance with a serious attempt to make sure that Sotomayor receives a careful and thorough hearing.

On the other hand, it is disappointing that respected politicians, including a former speaker of the House, would choose such a loaded term as “racist” to describe President Obama’s choice for the court.

This accusation is as irresponsible as Barney Frank’s claim that Republican criticisms of the policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were racist because poor black people received many of the subprime mortgages. Come on, people, can’t we do better than that?

Is Sotomayor the best person that the president could have chosen to serve on the Supreme Court?

Possibly not, but it is unlikely that any of the other current members of the court were “the best person available” when they were chosen.

Is there another Latino jurist, or someone of another race or ethnic group that may be better qualified (whatever that means) to serve on the court?

Very likely there is, depending on what qualifications one wants, but the issue is really whether the president’s nominee is qualified, and that decision, I hope, will be based on more than her ethnicity or accusations that she is a racist —- whatever that means.

Lee Raudonis is a communications consultant and writer living in Big Canoe.