April 8, 2014: Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
When Eric Holder became attorney general in 2009, he declared
that when it comes to discussing race, we have become “a nation of
cowards.”
Now there’s plenty of discussion of race, some of it swirling around Holder himself.
In recent days, conservative critics have accused Holder of playing
the race card to deflect criticism—while his liberal allies believe some
of that criticism is racially motivated. It reflects a classic cultural
divide in this country and in the media establishment.
Just days ago, I was questioning whether New York Magazine went too
far in proclaiming that everything about the Obama presidency was
somehow colored by race. The argument this time is over who’s
responsible.
What set off the racial fireworks was a Hill confrontation between
the nation’s first black attorney general and Rep. Louie Gohmert, who
cited the House holding him in contempt two years ago over the Fast and
Furious gun-running scandal.
“I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general
but it is important that we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said.
“You don't want to go there, buddy,” Holder shot back.
Holder was steamed, and in a speech the next day to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, it showed.
Decrying “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity,”
Holder said: “If you don`t believe that, you look at the way -- forget
about me, forget about me. You look at the way the attorney general of
the United States was treated yesterday by a house committee. Have
nothing to do with me. What attorney general has ever had to deal with
that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that
kind of treatment?”
Holder never mentioned race. He didn’t have to. Since the AG and his
boss are black, and he was speaking to a largely African-American
audience, it’s surely not a wild inference to say that he was implying
the attacks are racially motivated.
Factually speaking, Congress gave other attorneys general—Alberto
Gonzalez, John Ashcroft, Janet Reno—a very hard time. John Mitchell went
to jail. Ed Meese was investigated three times by special prosecutors.
But Holder seems convinced that he has been singled out.
There is something about Eric Holder that gets under the skin of his
detractors, who point to the IRS investigation, Benghazi and a litany of
other cases. This lit the fuse.
“He should have been fired a long time ago,” Fox’s Bill O’Reilly
said. “And I don't know what -- I don't care what color he is. Do you
think that the House committee called him in and say, ‘Let's get the
black guy today’? Is that what they did? Does anybody believe that?”
Karl Rove, a top Bush lieutenant, called Holder’s remarks “very unattractive whining and self-pity.”
But the view from the left part of the spectrum is very different.
Sharpton, on his MSNBC show, agreed with the AG’s assessment, saying
that “a strategic reason that they`re going after Holder is he`s on the
line dealing with voting rights, which a lot of them want to, in my
opinion, suppress the vote. I think that this is the man what is holding
his finger in the dike, protecting the rights of voters and that`s why I
think a lot of the venom is going against him.”
President Obama, in his own address to the Sharpton gathering, blamed
Republicans as “people who try to deny our rights” through bogus claims
of voter fraud.
Charlie Rangel also chimed in: “If there’s anyone that believes the
color of the president is not an issue, they’re not realistic.”
Are at least some people who can’t stand Obama and Holder influenced
by the color of their skin? That’s hard to deny. But there are plenty of
folks who are just unhappy with their policies and the way they do
their jobs. Turning every round into a litmus test—“He played the race
card!” “No, they’re prejudiced against him!”—isn’t terribly helpful.