Did the National Review want Sotomayor cover to be called racist?
National Review cover
The latest cover of the National Review has stirred debate over whether its editors intentionally wanted a racist depiction of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Liberal political blogger Matthew Yglesias has no doubt:
So National Review decided to run this very odd cover image of Judge Sonia Sotomayor: It seems that what happened was that, as conservatives are wont to do, they tried to do something that would be racist, but also arguably not racist. Hence, instead of depicting a Latina with a racist stereotyped image of a Latina, they depicted her with a racist stereotyped image of an Asian. It’s hard to know exactly what to make of that. But National Review editor Rich Lowry seems to have known exactly what to make of it since as this post makes clear he was anticipating people criticizing the imagery.
Here’s that referenced post by Lowry on nationalreview.com:
Caution: Accusation of racism ahead. A writer for Salon just contacted me about the new Sotomayor cover of NR. Can a piece in Salon calling the cover racist be far behind?
And a later post by Lowry:
Already accused! Turn out my correspondent from Salon is way behind the curve-TPM and Daily Kos have already accused us of racism. You gotta move fast when you’re competing with your fellow hair-trigger PC cops on the left! I take it the theory is that we don’t think Latinas can be wise so we had to make her look somewhat Asian. Or something like that. What these people don’t understand is the entire concept of caricature (or of a joke). Caricature always involves exaggerating someone’s distinctive features, which is all that our artist Roman Genn did with Sotomayor. Oh, well. Keep it humorless, guys, keep it humorless.
Here’s more of Yglesias’ view:
At any rate, then he (Lowry) waited around a bit, got the accusations of racism he was waiting for, and then got to engage in every white conservative’s favorite passtime of wallowing in self-pity and calling his accusers humorless.
Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior. “Racism” doesn’t, I think, capture it. But there’s this deranged fascination with walking up to the line and dancing around there in hopes of getting called on it. Then you get to become indignant. Because, again, the contemporary right’s main view on race is that actual racism against non-white people is only a tiny problem compared with the vast social crisis that allegedly exists around people being vigilant against racism.
Is the cover racist? It is fair to say National Review editors wanted the cover to prompt accusations of racism?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Steve Parker is the deputy managing editor for news, and oversees the Post-Dispatch's front page. STLtoday's online news editors are on his newsroom team. Parker has been at the paper since September 1980. 
Judge Sotomayor’s assertion that her particular gender and cultural background somehow makes her legal reasoning superior to others is one she’s expressed in different venues several times. It’s not necessarily racist, although that sentiment is one classic racists hold. I think her view would more properly be classifed as bigoted.
The National Review is cleverly asking the question by what form of enlightenment the judge came to her conclusion and ties that question to the currently popular fad in the legal academy of “empathy” over rule of law. That the first instinct of hyper-partisan twits like Yglesias to cry “racism!!!!11!” makes the other point that liberals almost always reflexively employ such tactics to deflect attention away from legitimate criticism. The NR has driven this point home beautifully.
GF et al -
I have already made this comment elsewhere, however, what the numerous white conservative MALE commentator fail to understand about Judge Sotomayor’s comments is that most WOMEN probably think their judgement on any given issue is superior to most men.
Get over yourselves, you are not that important.
‘Go_Fish’ expresses my own perspective on the issue - and does so masterfully.
Nothing need more be said…
I have to agree w/ RHarnack-
My wife always thinks she is right and superior. You can either argue or be happy.
Steve,
You answered your own question when you mentioned that your representative of opinion, Matthew Yglesias, is a “liberal blogger”. The lines are being drawn in the sand re Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. All who oppose her confirmation will be labeled rascist in the hope of cowing any Senator who might have a tough question re her judicial philosophy or past decisions.
We’ve already heard Senators Schumer and Reid proclaim that Republicans shouldn’t dare to offend Hispanics by standing against Sotomayor at her confirmation hearings. It’s patently obvious and hypocritical after Democrats stood against Miguel Estrada when he was nominated by President Bush, but it will probably be effective in muting GOP opposition. When Colin Powell can publicly endorse the Democratic candidate in the 2009 election and still call himself a Republican, and looney Arlen Specter feels free to go on national TV and boast of his principled stand as a “real” conservative, the Pachyderm Party is about as irrelevant as it gets.
I have a slightly different twist RHarnack. Men (conservative and liberal) often think that they have superior judgement, only to experience many of those “I told you so” moments when things fall apart. A woman’s point of view often provides a nice check and balance.
Mrs. Sotomayor certainly is entitled to her opinion, but if a male were to have publicly expressed like views, he would be tarred and feathered within minutes.
The word is now ‘racialist’. Don’t you listen to Newt? Or, is it ‘racialisticated’ or ‘racialistified.?
“what the numerous white conservative MALE commentator fail to understand about Judge Sotomayor’s comments is that most WOMEN probably think their judgement on any given issue is superior to most men.”
So you would have no problem supporting a white male nominee for the SC who said that because he was a white male, he could make better decisions than a latina female?
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum said: So you would have no problem supporting a white male nominee for the SC who said that because he was a white male, he could make better decisions than a latina female?
Only if he’s knows going in, that his male ovaries “Gonads” will be handed to him on a silver plate by the Racist press.
Sotomayor fractured her ankle. Guess she did that better than a white male.