This is overthinking it writ large.
To me, the much simpler explanation is (and this isn’t my original idea)
Calling someone a racist is a sweeping automatic claim on an ephemeral moral high ground. All at once, the accuser assumes the moral high ground, throws a dirtbomb that is in many senses inescapable because nobody wants to be known as a “racist”-—whereas you or I could have a scholarly, polite discussion not threatening eventual violence about whether you are, say, a Keynesian and I am an Austrian-school guy.
If the accuser is not a racist and you are, you (the accused) have all this freaking work to do to dig yourself out of this conversational hole, just to get to zero, while at the same time you have no convenient way to prove your non-racist nature. The claim by the accuser is largely irrefutable. But because they claim the high ground first, it immediately throws the accused at some level on the defensive. In other words, it is a tactic, a gambit. It is not the statement of a well-considered thought process. It is a “fake-to-the left” tactic that may or may not be genuinely felt by the accuser; it’s derailment and distraction tactic.
Even if there is no moral high ground claim being made, even if the assertion that you are racist has no bearing in discernable logic, the mere assertion is enough to claim a greater degree of sensitivity and thus sophistication on the part of the accuser. Meaning, even if you are completely innocent in your racism; maybe you made a clumsy statement or turned a phrase awkwardly; you’re not even sensitive enough to detect and prevent yourself from having made such a gaffe; thus you have much to learn from this person who’s calling you a racist so you should shut up and maybe you’ll learn something, you idiot.
It thus obviates the need for serious thought on the part of the accuser and that is a comfort. It is a drug that always works. Their thinking is done, the articulation of your protestations are in front of you and your next task is your defense...before you even get to make whatever your original point was. By the time you wander through the racist-defense maze, the attention span is gone three times over and your original point can never be made.
It’s a “shut your freaking mouth” tactic.
I think that your observations here are absolutely correct. But I think the article is attempting to explain why and how accusing others of racism, as opposed to some other trumped up charge, has assumed such a central place in liberal/democratic party politics.
It reminded me of how some have explained it in terms of the dialectic. My recollection of events over the past 70+ years is yes.. it works that way. Especially from the late 1950s vis-a-vis race.
Many a time liberals screaming Racists! 24/7 had the conservatives slinking away looking back over their shoulders protesting, "We're not racists.. OK we'll yield [on this or that point]."
So point by point we got.. two Americas which will not change "until a crisis shall have been reached and passed."
/johnny
Shut up, he explained.
Excellent post. let me say as a former liberal you’ve nailed it. As to being called a ‘’racist’’, I like the late William F. Buckley’s answer to that one: “I’m not a racist. are you?’’.