Consider the lives of White males.  If we use the media as a framework for their definition and portrayal, then White males are the greatest things since sliced bread.  They are promoted as heroic, they are allowed to age on television, they are the gatekeepers, they are the analysts, and they are the “experts.”  According to a 2000-2001 Children Now report, in terms of defining white male status on television:

The Children Now report also indicates that:

In essence, white males are taught from birth via the media and in everyday life by family, friends, and society that they are supposed to be leaders, they are expected to be leaders, and that they are the most valued people on the planet because it is the natural order of things.  For white men, failure is not an option, and if they do fail, it is easier for them to get bailed out (an example of this would be that non-white men usually serve longer sentences than white men that commit the same crimes) or have their failures explained away (drugs, physical, imbalances, stress=Rush Limbaugh), or forgiven, or even reach celebrity status (explore the life of John Gotti).  In short, white men have the right to what I like to call “the divine right to rule” because they have centralized power in all institutions, which allow them to make the rules.  White males are not taught that they are “in da club,” they are the club with all the trappings the club has to provide.  Membership has its privileges, from the lowest member to the highest. 

An article by James McPherson (2003) in Perspectives Online, the newsmagazine of the American Historical Association, nicely summarizes white male privileges and expectations:

Let’s go beyond television and perception and highlight the truth.  The National Organization for Women (NOW) points out that

This brings us to George W. “Chicken Boo” Bush.  Conservatives like him (whom, by their very nature, seek to maintain the status quo), are on a daily mission to counteract the arguments for, say, affirmative action, love to invoke Martin Luther King, Jr. and twist his vision of a society where the content of one’s character would be sufficient to exist and thrive in society.  However, Bush and others of his ilk conveniently ignore King’s argument for affirmative action and other remedies to address structural racism, which King calls “compensatory consideration.”  In one of his greatest books, Why We Can’t Wait, King defines the argument and need for something like affirmative action:

Let us fast forward from King and go to the present and “Chicken Boo” Bush.  Why do I call him that?  Well, the origins of his moniker come from a Steven Spielberg cartoon series called Animaniacs.  One of the skits within this hilarious series involved a character named Chicken Boo.  Chicken Boo was this 6-foot chicken that played a variety of heroic or popular roles: a politician (well, maybe that’s not heroic), a rock star, an actor, and so on.  In each cartoon skit, throngs of people mindlessly fawn over each incarnation of Chicken Boo and marvel and cheer at him when, all the while, Chicken Boo says absolutely nothing.  However, the most comical and provocative aspects of this cartoon always involve one person that tries to point out to the adoring Chicken Boo crowd that “He’s a chicken!” Again and again, this one person in the crowd screams, “But, he’s a chicken!”  The crowd only realizes that Chicken Boo is a chicken when he loses the garb of the rock star or other character and runs away, only to come back as a new character in another episode.

George Bush is the real-life version of Chicken Boo for a number of reasons: he is not a cowboy (he just plays one on television), he is not an intellectual (he has merely been exposed to the tools – Yale and Harvard – that could nurture his intellect), and so on.  He does not even read newspapers – he believes they are too elitist! Like Chicken Boo, Bush says things that amount to nothing or have little definition.  Nevertheless, his empty phrases and slogans are easily embraced by white America, especially white males.  White males like the slogans because they ease their racist consciences and prejudices, emit an air of progressivism with just a touch of arrogance.  Let us examine the true meaning of some of his phrases and slogans:

“Compassionate Conservatism” actually means “racism with a smile.”

“Affirmative Access” essentially translates to “non-white people will be allowed to continue to walk through the front doors of public, and some private domains.”  A second translation could be “Bush and other conservatives will continue to affirmatively kick non-white asses economically, politically (in part by buying off black ministers by dangling federal funds in their faces), legally (the nomination of Thomas Pickering and other conservative jurists – in blackface and brownface, as well – to federal courts), and educationally.”

“No Child Left Behind” – a policy that ultimately leaves all non-white children behind educationally in terms of limiting funds to public schools, which could be used to strengthen infrastructures, promote safety (in case non-white children get notions of building bombs in their garages like their white counterparts), hire more principals, teachers and support staff.  However, in defense of the president, he does support education on a limited basis.  You see, vouchers can be used to allow poor non-white students entrance into private, usually Christian religious schools.  (Hmm, talk about religious tolerance!  What happens to the poor students that practice Judaism or Islam?) Wow!

“You’re Either For Us Or Against Us” – this statement has a number of meanings: a false sense of machismo where manhood is linked to the size of your missiles, that the United States is led by a lone cowboy ready to take on the world, and that the president likes to hide behind the flag and feign patriotism to deflect criticism and dissent. (President Bush has had help in limiting dissent from a timid or ultra-nationalist corporate media [like Fox “Fair and Balanced” News] and a ridiculous amount of attention to the trials of two black men – Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson.)  The statement is also a warning to black and brown people: you’d better be quiet; we know that you don’t trust the government and that most of you don’t agree with this “war” but, you’d better be quiet, anyway.

“Shock and Awe” – the code phrase for the military action against Iraq.  This is, perhaps, Bush’s most interesting phrase because it could illicit a number of responses: 1) cause people to believe that our troops are fighting to “liberate” Iraq (I thought God was the only being that could liberate man, but I digress), and 2) encourage us to celebrate our own “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) via the elimination of Iraq’s alleged WMDs.  Actually, the correct translation for this military action is “Shocked and Aww, Shit” because our troops are being picked off daily; Bush and Congress are committing $87 billion to the rebuilding of Iraq, monies that will be taken from needed social programs; and racial profiling has been expanded to include those of Middle Eastern descent or with Middle Eastern-sounding (Islamic) last names.  But fear not, black and brown people, there are enough resources to make sure that we are continually followed and harassed!

This brings us to why white males (and some white females) love George Bush: he is the defender of whiteness and white nationalism (although white females are junior partners in the white nationalist agenda).  Bush presents himself as the president who is preserving and enhancing the things that matter most to white people: weakening affirmative action (although the real reasons why white people have lost their jobs include economic globalization, downsizing, corporate mismanagement and, sometimes, outright lies in reporting corporate profits and losses), and scapegoating black and brown people, which prevents them from getting jobs and keeping their children from going to the choice colleges.  He protects the white middle class and those with white middle class aspirations (the term “middle class” is also a psychological construct – I mean, what white person really wants to define themselves as poor?) and provides them with more opportunities and a better climate to achieve “The American Dream.”

What is “whiteness?”  It represents what is “normal” – that white people work harder, are smarter, more attractive, and have the right to define anything and everything, including what is “good” and “bad.”  In short, it is “The God Complex.”  Writing in the December 30 edition of Diversity News, Stanford University associate professor Anthony Lising Antonio highlights the complexities and pervasiveness of whiteness:

So, in the final analysis, we must explore Bush’s core constituencies.  In short, Bush appeals to all forms of white maleness: the “NASCAR Dads”; those that drive Dodge trucks with HEMI engines, which, as suggested by its television commercials, only white men can handle (black or Latino males or women are not allowed to drive those vehicles because to do so suggests equality – and we can’t have that, can we!); those that watch Spike TV (the station that defends and promotes white male dominion over women, heroism, and beer); and young white males that watch The X Games because they need to see sports where white males are dominant.  (Note: watch out black NBA players – white, European, fundamentally sound players are being imported at greater and greater rates so, stop worrying about dunking and making sports highlights – learn how to pass the ball and play defense!)

How do African-Americans address George Bush’s stranglehold on white males?  We must tell the world that “He’s a chicken!”  We must let white males know that the reason why they have lost their jobs is due to his failed economic policies, globalization, corporate downsizing, and corporate media disinformation on the strength of the economy.  (What is a “jobless recovery?”)  We must show them that affirmative action and diversity allows more people better chances at entering the economic mainstream.  (This will be extremely hard because this strikes at the core of their hallucinations that they are superior and that they got ahead because they work harder and are smarter without accounting for nepotism, greater access to information, and informal networks.)  We must help white males analyze the false link between the capture of Saddam Hussein and our safety.  (How safe do you feel if you don’t have a job?)  We must reiterate that our destinies are inextricably linked; if nonwhites and white female incomes and images improve, we all benefit.  And, finally, we must pose to white males this extremely important and profound question: “Can’t we all just get along?”

Reynard Blake, Jr. is a freelance writer, and President of Community Development Associates, an East Lansing, Michigan-based nonprofit and faith-based organization consulting firm.  He has written and co-authored articles in the book, Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods, the Journal of Urban Youth Culture, and the Michigan Family Review.  He is presently writing a book on Hip-Hop, Black Leadership, and the Black Church: Implications for Positive Youth Development.  He is also a researcher at the Disproportionate Minority Confinement/Minority Over-Representation Project, housed at Michigan State University.