The Taxonomy

Mithras‘ generally funny “taxonomy of conservative blogs” has generated a great deal of commentary (30 trackbacks and still going strong), much of it centered on his comments about Michelle Malkin. With respect to the final sentence, to be honest I think Ampersand and David Bernstein have a point; the phrasing is pretty offensive. I also agree with Jeralyn Merritt that his point is substantively wrong. I mean, Robert Novak (to pick one of many possible examples) is one of the most ubiquitous presences in the media, and Malkin is certainly smarter and writes with more content than he does. The skill set required to become a well-compensated pundit doesn’t exactly constitute a high bar.

With respect to the “racism” charge, though, Mithras is perfectly justified. Let’s be clear: the racism of the WWII internment that Malkin wrote a book apologizing for is not subject to interpretation; it’s a fact. It was nakedly, directly, unquestionably racist. American citizens were systematically deprived of their property, without compensation, and relocated to overcrowded and unsanitary facilities far from home, based solely on their race, without a shred of individualized suspicion. Citizens of German and Italian descent were not subject to the same orders. There was not a single proven act of sabotage. And these policies were continuous with the restrictions placed of the property and citizenship of Japanese Americans in the preceding decades. But don’t take my word for it, let’s look at the justification offered by Commanding General John “A Jap’s a Jap” DeWitt:

I don’t want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty. The west coast contains too many vital installations essential to the defense of the country to allow any Japanese on this coast. . . . The danger of the Japanese was, and is now — if they are permitted to come back — espionage and sabotage. It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty. . . . But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map. Sabotage and espionage will make problems as long as he is allowed in this area. . . .

The question about whether the internment was a racist policy is not open; it is no more plausible to claim that this policy wasn’t racist than to claim Jim Crow wasn’t racist. At best, you can argue that the racist policies were justified for security reasons (although in my view this is virtually impossible.) So, on this issue I have no sympathy for Malkin–her choices, she can live with them. You don’t want to be called a racist, don’t write a book rationalizing an openly racist policy of the past in order to justify racist policies as a response to contemporary security threats. Criticism of Mithras (although not some of his commenters) on this issue is wholly unjustified.

…UPDATE: iocaste argues quite persuasively that I misinterpreted Mithras. I certainly agree with iocaste and Thad that as an empirical point Malkin being an attractive person of color helped her career; in general, we can also note that conventional attractiveness matters more for women than men. (Obviously, one can’t blame the pundits themselves for this.) That said, there is a line here–I don’t think people are nearly as likely to question the credentials of a Novak or Hannity as a Malkin or Ingraham. (And the connections argument is kind of tautological; how do you get them in the first place?) Thomas, who iocaste brings up, is a good example. It is true that he would not have been appointed to the Supreme Court at the time he was if he wasn’t an African American. It is also true, however, that although his jurisprudence is more principled and distinctive than Scalia’s, he gets a far rougher ride from liberal academics, and is often derided (quite incorrectly) as being Scalia’s sock puppet. Progressives sometimes seem to internalize this “affirmative action hire” argument, and I think it’s something to be wary of. It’s important to be clear about the distinction between Malkin’s attractiveness helping her career (which is true) and her being somehow less qualified than most other conservative pundits (which is clearly wrong.) If Mithras only meant to make the first point, I was wrong in my initial post.