« McCarthy/McCain: The Lattimore Connection | Matthew Locke's Blog | Populism, Palin, and the Plumber »
Racism and the Right
Republicans cannot attack Senator Obama without running the risk
of racializing the debate, whether that helps them or not: such is their conundrum. In this they are partly the victims of circumstance. But they are also the victims of
their own success.
There's an interesting discussion taking place between Ross Douthat and Matt Yglesias (and Douthat again) about the role of race in this election. Is it true that normally acceptable political attacks (to the degree political attacks are acceptable) have been rendered anathema by Obama's race? If so, is that justified? In other words, is it too much to read race into so many of McCain's ads?
I think Matt is essentially right when he says:
It's no great revelation to say that political attacks can have more than one meaning; nor is it a great revelation to suggest that many Republican attacks, past and present, have had coded racist appeals. On the other hand, it is reasonable for Republicans to complain if attacks which weren't intended to be racist are being painted as such by the other side. It's entirely possible that Republicans, realizing the sensitivity of the issue of race in this election (and seeing what it did to Senator Clinton's campaign in the run-up to South Carolina), have been approaching the subject gingerly. It's possible that they are creating their ads in good faith -- well, at least as far as race is concerned -- and feel genuinely frustrated to see everything they do twisted back to the question of skin color.
I'm not saying that's probable, but it's possible. I honestly don't know. But Michael Goldfarb's refusal yesterday to utter Jeremiah Wright's name shows at least a recognition of the racial minefield the McCain campaign is now navigating.
What it comes down to is this: Regardless of who it advantages and what their intentions, Republicans cannot attack Senator Obama without running the risk of racializing the debate. This is their conundrum. And they are partly the victims of circumstance -- but also victims of their own success.
Humans haven't emerged as far from the jungles as we'd like to believe. Buried within each of us are our most ancient ancestors' animalistic fears. From the age of Pericles to the age of McCain political attacks, at least the good ones, have exploited those fears to compel people to action. But it's not just politicians who exploit people thus: it can be anybody, really, who wants to exert power over others. In this way racists across the history of America have manipulated otherwise rational people to believe (and sometimes do) terrible things.
To that extent today's Republicans are victims of coincidence. Their ads are 'racist' because they are of a kind with racist appeals. That is not, however, particularly remarkable. The above suggests that at root politicians and white supremacists share very similar goals -- influencing others to believe and do what they is perceived as right or necessary -- so it is not surprising that they sometimes draw from the same toolbox. That doesn't make the tools, and by extension the politicians that use them, racist or immoral. (Either might be racist or immoral for other reasons, of course.)
But the racist appeal of Republican attacks goes further than just coincidence.
Now, I'm no linguist, but I think it's fair to say that words aren't conjured out of thin air and imparted upon humanity in a pure and unchanging form. Words mean what we want them to mean, and that meaning, both denotation and connotation, will change over time. If meaning is, in one sense, a bundle of associations, then clever people can -- with much hard work over many years -- change the meanings of words by changing their associations.
Since at least the 1960s Republicans have done precisely that. They have understood that for many Americans racialist fears are a direct pathway to that dark unconscious which all effective political attacks strive to touch. And so Republicans have spent decades tying liberal candidates and liberal ideas to 'blackness'. They did it with welfare, they did it with crime. They tied 'Muslim' with 'terrorist'. Now they're blackening taxes. Says Eric Rauchway (by way of Crooked Timber):
As I've said, it is entirely possible -- again, I don't know -- that Schmidt et al. are trying to avoid racism in their attacks. Certainly almost everything they've said about Obama they would have said about a white candidate, and maybe more. But then Republicans have been 'blackening' white candidates for years. That's what I meant when I said above that Republicans are victims of their own success: They've managed to turn political attacks, even mundane policy attacks, into coded racial appeals. There are good reasons to believe that in this electoral cycle they don't always want that to be the case, but it's too late now. When Republicans say 'welfare', many people think 'black' -- and many others see that for what it is.
So I think it's hasty to rush to judgment, to blithely brand the McCain campaign racist. They may or may not be racist in intent. And the tactics they employ are not only racist. But racism is an indelible element of their attacks. To some degree this is due to the unhappy, but not necessarily immoral, congruence of boilerplate political attacks and racist fear-mongering. But to a great extent today's crop of Republicans are reaping the rotten fruits of their own party's harvest.
Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.
There's an interesting discussion taking place between Ross Douthat and Matt Yglesias (and Douthat again) about the role of race in this election. Is it true that normally acceptable political attacks (to the degree political attacks are acceptable) have been rendered anathema by Obama's race? If so, is that justified? In other words, is it too much to read race into so many of McCain's ads?
I think Matt is essentially right when he says:
Well, obviously you could read just about anything as a coded racist appeal. And I think a case could be made that you'd be right to.
It's no great revelation to say that political attacks can have more than one meaning; nor is it a great revelation to suggest that many Republican attacks, past and present, have had coded racist appeals. On the other hand, it is reasonable for Republicans to complain if attacks which weren't intended to be racist are being painted as such by the other side. It's entirely possible that Republicans, realizing the sensitivity of the issue of race in this election (and seeing what it did to Senator Clinton's campaign in the run-up to South Carolina), have been approaching the subject gingerly. It's possible that they are creating their ads in good faith -- well, at least as far as race is concerned -- and feel genuinely frustrated to see everything they do twisted back to the question of skin color.
I'm not saying that's probable, but it's possible. I honestly don't know. But Michael Goldfarb's refusal yesterday to utter Jeremiah Wright's name shows at least a recognition of the racial minefield the McCain campaign is now navigating.
What it comes down to is this: Regardless of who it advantages and what their intentions, Republicans cannot attack Senator Obama without running the risk of racializing the debate. This is their conundrum. And they are partly the victims of circumstance -- but also victims of their own success.
* * *
Humans haven't emerged as far from the jungles as we'd like to believe. Buried within each of us are our most ancient ancestors' animalistic fears. From the age of Pericles to the age of McCain political attacks, at least the good ones, have exploited those fears to compel people to action. But it's not just politicians who exploit people thus: it can be anybody, really, who wants to exert power over others. In this way racists across the history of America have manipulated otherwise rational people to believe (and sometimes do) terrible things.
To that extent today's Republicans are victims of coincidence. Their ads are 'racist' because they are of a kind with racist appeals. That is not, however, particularly remarkable. The above suggests that at root politicians and white supremacists share very similar goals -- influencing others to believe and do what they is perceived as right or necessary -- so it is not surprising that they sometimes draw from the same toolbox. That doesn't make the tools, and by extension the politicians that use them, racist or immoral. (Either might be racist or immoral for other reasons, of course.)
But the racist appeal of Republican attacks goes further than just coincidence.
Now, I'm no linguist, but I think it's fair to say that words aren't conjured out of thin air and imparted upon humanity in a pure and unchanging form. Words mean what we want them to mean, and that meaning, both denotation and connotation, will change over time. If meaning is, in one sense, a bundle of associations, then clever people can -- with much hard work over many years -- change the meanings of words by changing their associations.
Since at least the 1960s Republicans have done precisely that. They have understood that for many Americans racialist fears are a direct pathway to that dark unconscious which all effective political attacks strive to touch. And so Republicans have spent decades tying liberal candidates and liberal ideas to 'blackness'. They did it with welfare, they did it with crime. They tied 'Muslim' with 'terrorist'. Now they're blackening taxes. Says Eric Rauchway (by way of Crooked Timber):
Republican voters - richer voters - are less willing to see the federal government [use its authority to help African-Americans]; Democratic voters - poorer voters - are more willing to see the federal government acting that way among blacks. So you look exclusively at income inequality in the South and you say aha! - it's rational politics. If richer whites are more likely to vote Republican, it's because they don't want their taxes raised. They don't want their money taken away; they're strictly protecting their economic interest. That's an incomplete story. You have to say they don't want their money taken away because they are afraid that it will be given to black people.
As I've said, it is entirely possible -- again, I don't know -- that Schmidt et al. are trying to avoid racism in their attacks. Certainly almost everything they've said about Obama they would have said about a white candidate, and maybe more. But then Republicans have been 'blackening' white candidates for years. That's what I meant when I said above that Republicans are victims of their own success: They've managed to turn political attacks, even mundane policy attacks, into coded racial appeals. There are good reasons to believe that in this electoral cycle they don't always want that to be the case, but it's too late now. When Republicans say 'welfare', many people think 'black' -- and many others see that for what it is.
So I think it's hasty to rush to judgment, to blithely brand the McCain campaign racist. They may or may not be racist in intent. And the tactics they employ are not only racist. But racism is an indelible element of their attacks. To some degree this is due to the unhappy, but not necessarily immoral, congruence of boilerplate political attacks and racist fear-mongering. But to a great extent today's crop of Republicans are reaping the rotten fruits of their own party's harvest.
Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.
Advertisement
Matthew, brilliant writing and a fair-minded analysis.
I would like to add to your trenchant post with this. At this point in time the republican core constituency is a self-consciously alienated subculture of the greater mainstream. They believe they are the value carriers and the heritage carriers and sole remaining defenders of an America both greater, more simple, and more virtuous than the present complex melange they find themselves in.
Somewhere earlier I compared them to the political base that carried William Jennings Bryan to three attempts at the White House.
The McCain camp need not ever invoke racism overtly to appeal to this base's vision which is essentially of an America prior to the eruption of troublesome minorities and dissident european-americans. McCain's "Country First" banner carries a code message that is of course well understood by the republican core constituency. "Country" meaning both nation and also, and more importantly, the rural predominantly white culture that finds itself in beleaguered opposition to the multicultural and morally suspect melting pots of the cities. McCain need only praise the icons of the rural subculture (which has substantial contingents living in the cities also) and his auditors know what he is about...
November 1, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks once again for your kind words. And you're absolutely right; this is part of a city/country divide-and-conquer policy that has been at the heart of American politics for decades. Even centuries -- Arthur Schlesinger Sr. identified the urban/rural divide as being the most fundamental across the whole of American history.
There's obviously a great deal more that could be said, but I'm in a bit of a rush right now. So I'll depart with a comforting reminder that the GOP is on the wrong side of demography.
November 1, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Locke, great post.
I have difficulty with the idea of the rural-urban divide as I understand the geograhic distinctions to be the effects of economic insecurity (to a lesser extent) and educational inequality (to the greater extent) rather than the cause of particular attitudes and political behaviors. In other words, we must be careful not to confuse correlation with causation.
A county-by-county analysis of the 2000 presidential election data against the 2000 census data suggests (1) voting behavior in a small geographic unit (county) is best predicted by the relative level of education in that geographic unit; (2) the relative level of education those same small geographic units is an even better predictor of economic insecurity; and (3)the relative economic wealth (income levels, property values, and economic output levels) is greater in so-called blue (liberal) counties by a factor of nearly 5:1.
Admittedly, there are counties which are exceptions to the general rule; however, the exceptions are statistically insignificant whereas the exceptions to the more generalized rural vs urban construct are so numerous as to bring that construct into question.
A brief thought relative to the initial posting. For nearly 40 years, research has shown a strong correlation between low economic security/less education and anti-black racist attitudes. This is readily evident in the success of the GOP's "Southern Strategy," which is, on its face, undeniably racist. This is, also, the most probable explanation for the difficulties the African-American and Hispanic communities have had in developing political alliances despite their similar political interests. In other words, when two demograhic groups feel themselves in direct economic competition, differences are exaggerated and similarities diminished.
Enough said. Would be most interested in your thoughts.
November 1, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your thoughtful reply! You make many good points, and what you say about education, economic insecurity, and political behavior is no doubt true. Still, I think the distinction between cause and effect, or causation and correlation, in some cases ceases to be meaningful. We can propose, for example, that rural voters often remain in rural areas because their economic insecurity and low level of education restrict their mobility; at the same time, it is likely that their rural location contributes greatly to their economic and educational status. Of course, as you rightly say, there are many exceptions, and whether a voter lives in a small town or a big city might not be the most accurate predictor of how that person will vote. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily make the construct meaningless.
On the contrary, I would argue that sometimes what is real is less important than what is imagined. Rightly or wrongly, the urban/rural divide has been the turf on which many political battles have been fought. Of course not all voters will consciously self-identify as either urban or rural, but plenty will; the bundle of values and desires that implies can then have an effect on their political decision-making. Furthermore, as politicians come to view the electorate as fundamentally either 'rural' or 'urban' (or, in the case of the McCain campaign, 'real America' and 'everywhere else') their promises and policies will be shaped by those imagined constituencies.
I'm not suggesting that this is the only, or even the most important, factor influencing policy-making. But it should not be ignored. The less it corresponds with reality, as you suggest it does, the more vigilant we must be. The lionizing of rural America is not a good thing for our politics.
I also feel beholden to Dr. Schlesinger to relay one of his arguments (which seems especially relevant for politics): that urban life, by its very nature, encourages collective action in a way that life in the hinterland does not. This argument draws from history as well as sociology and anthropology. In smaller communities, where people know one another directly or not very indirectly, voluntary individual intervention is often the most expedient method of problem solving. Individual morality is regulated by social pressure; collective problems are solved more or less informally; churches and community groups (and, in England -- how I miss it! -- pubs) are the organizational center of community life. In cities, however, where diversity of opinion is greater and bonds of trust are weaker, responsible government action is often the best (or only) way to solve community problems. Thus something like pooper-scooper laws, important in big cities, seem silly and unnecessary in small towns. The upshot is that municipal government has a stronger impact on people's day-to-day lives than any level of government in the countryside. This alone may render government action more acceptable in the eyes of city dwellers.
For what it's worth, I can attest to this anecdotally. After all, I live in a community of six million. Before that a community of twelve million. And, for the first eighteen years of my life, a community of forty-two.
Not forty-two million, of course. And not forty-two thousand.
Just forty-two.
Yeah, seriously.
We had a fire station and a convenience store and a four-room schoolhouse (now long-since demolished). And a baseball field. And a graveyard. And that's it.
November 2, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we keep talking about racism until the election, maybe nobody will notice that Obama is a sociopathic con-man, abandoned by both mother and father, friendless except for tools of his ambition, and committed to nothing except self-promotion.
Let's talk about racism, and forget Obama went-along-to-get-elected by voting for every bill to fund the Iraqi Holocaust along with the collaborationist Congressional Democrats.
Let's talk about racism, and forget that Barack Obama supported NAFTA-Peru, even though he knew that 4,000,000 Peruvian workers were conducting a general strike against it.
Let's talk about racism, and forget that Barack Obama, the lawyer who never tried a case in court, Barack Obama, the law professor who never published a scholarly article, endorsed the most radical judicial initiative of the NRA, "the individual right to bear arms," which had been rejected by every Supreme Court for 200 years before the Scalia/Bush Court invented this bogus "right."
Let's talk about racism, and forget that Obama promised to filibuster the FISA bill when he was campaigning in Wisconsin with Russ Feingold, but when that miserable bill finally came up for a vote, Obama broke his promise because, as Glenn Greenwald said, "Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states."
Let's talk about racism, and forget that Barack Obama went-along-to-get-elected with the $700 billion give-away to banks that did (almost) nothing for home-owners in trouble and didn't even slow down the catastrophic unravelling of the financial system, because fighting for much better alternatives that would have restored a little control over the financial system to the public might have exposed Obama to criticism by McCain and cost Obama a few votes.
Let's talk about racism, and forget that Barack Obama is a sociopathic con-man with no commitment to anything except his own ambition.
November 1, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. It is hard to separate intent from effect sometimes. What I always remember is Reagan announcing his candidacy from Philadelphia, MS and using the term "states rights". Who in God's name would go to that tine town for such a hugh announcement if not to appeal to a specific demographic and historical basis? OTOH, making the Paris/Britney ad more about race seems a stretch...
But, you are right, IMO, that the GOP has painted itself into a corner. How do they think people of color view them as a party?
Not sure how Goldfarb's unwillingness to mention Wright's name implies a recognition of a racist interpretation. I thought it was McCain's wish for Rev. Wright to not be an "official" issue. I may be wrong...
November 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
#*%!@$% "tiny" town, "huge" announcement. Sorry.
November 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan's speech is a perfect example. As for Goldfarb, I'm afraid I might not have been clear on this point. Presumably McCain's campaign wishes to avoid making Wright an 'official' issue because they're aware it will be seen as a racist ploy and could spark the kind of media backlash the Clinton campaign suffered around the South Carolina primary in January. This doesn't really argue one way or the other as to intent -- it could suggest a good-faith (if purely tactical) effort by the McCain campaign to avoid using race to their advantage, or it could merely indicate a desire to use race in a more subtle (and less potentially disadvantageous) manner. Either way it implies that these issues are being considered by the McCain campaign. As usual, Republican 'color-blindness', so well lampooned by Stephen Colbert, is largely a sham.
November 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reply-I see your points re: Wright.
November 1, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now one of the icons of the NASCAR culture, Junior Johnson, endorses Barack Obama!!
They are splintering...
November 1, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a BIG deal in N.C.
A little backstory on Johnson: former moonshiner-turned-50 race winner, Daytona winner in '60, Champion team owner, now small businessman from Rhonda, N.C.
A true "good ol' boy" if ever there was one. A true NASCAR legend from the '50s and '60s and if this gets any play, its got to help Obama there with the older voters especially in Appalacia.
Read Thomas Wolfe's classic essay from 1965 entitled "The Last American Hero-Junior Johnson"
Good on ya, Junior!
November 1, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as I heard the right wing attacks on 'spreading the wealth' combined with loud outcries against 'socialism', my first thought was here we go again with 'welfare queens' by any other name.
Since the 'spread the wealth' GOP meme began with Joe the Plumber and it was Joe who told Katie Couric that Obama has a "a tap dance...almost as good as Sammy Davis, Jr," it would be hard to argue that Joe isn't a racist. Certainly the McCain campaign would recognize such an obvious racial intent when they heard it. So I find their subsequent embrace of Joe the Plumber as knowingly racist but undercover, and as a way to keep McCain's promise not to use Rev. Wright against Obama. Who needs the Reverend with Joe the Plumber around?
By the way, I was reading through your fantastic new blog and saw the post on the API, African Press International. API is based in Norway but I would bet that most right wingers have not caught on to that odd geographical relationship. Their email addy is africanpress@getmail.no. And apparently a Norwegian snowstorm Thursday was enough to knock out access to their email.
November 1, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read some where in the last couple of months that contrary to CW many of the rich vote Democrat, NOT republican. I wish I could remember where I read that - I'd go back and link it. Maybe it's the upper middle class rich that are republican and just the ultra rich that vote Democrat.
November 1, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue: It's nearly midnight and I'm halfway through my third bourbon & coke -- it is Saturday night! So, I'm not going digging into the 8 GB of data I have stored on my external hard-drive. However, my memory is still fully functioning.
First, it is not about Democratic versus Republican. Depending upon the historical period, it varies depending upon where either party is at the time. In fact, it is not even about liberal vs conservative. Second, it is probably dangerous to judge folks purely by their wealth. FDR, a very wealthy man (especially when you include his inheritance rights), was the most progressive president of the 20th century. Dubya, a very wealth man (when you include his inheritance rights), was the most ass-backward president of the first decade of the 21st century. Some folks with money actually have a principled, moral fiber about them: think FDR. Some folks, with money, actually have no principles nor moral fiber nor even a minimal intelligence: think Dubya and John McCain.
The flip side of the coin are the poor white KKK, religious right crowd vs the many African-Americans who also struggle to survive.
The difference is that the KKK/religious right crowd wrongly believes they should be given preferred treatment because their skin is white and their religion is hate-based. Struggling African-Americans correctly understand their struggles are based on the institutional limitations imposed on them based on skin color.
Fortunately and unfortunately, we have economically successful African-Americans like Colin Powell, a well-educated and intelligent African-American, who understands he has been especially lucky, and a Clarence Thomas who has spent his entire life denying he is black, denying his intellectual inferiority, and in the process denying there is racism in America.
Finally, you have the strange creature of Condi Rice who knows there is racism in America and who unfortunately, choose the wrong side of history 20 years ago when she unknowingly went to bed with the GHWB crowd as its token African-American. Hence, it is no surprise that Condi has been and remains the only sane, intelligent, and often confused voice within the Dubya administration. This being said, one must believe that GHWB wished he'd used a condom or that Barbara Bush would have had a headache the night GWB was conceived.
I'm an old man. I remember the days when a Republican/conservative could be described as honorable and intelligent. That does not mean I agreed with them. But, it does not mean they were trying to take the country to hell, a.s.a.p. Everything changed in 1968 when Nixon decided he needed the ignorant, delusional, bigot vote to win. He won, with those votes. Reagan took the strategy to a new level using code words.
20 years ago, Barry Goldwater warned what the religious fundamentalists would do this country. William F. Buckely, Jr., did the same subsequently. In the old days, the Republican line was about economics. But, RMN changed that. Now, we have a GOP VP nominee who thinks the earth is less than 6,000 years old contrary to all the physical evidence to the contrary. Now, we have a GOP VP nominee acting like a prostitue on the campaign stump who cannot identify a single newspaper she reads. Of course, the sad fact is Palin doesn't read newspapers. This is characteristic of the modern GOP: no facts, all phantasy. Now, we have a GOP presidential candidate who has achieved nothing in his life except explointing his cooperation with the Vietcong. Most troubling, neither McCain nor Palin have shown any ability to tell the difference between fact and fiction. However, it is important to note that the GOP has been fact-free ever since Ronald Reagan came onto the national political scene.
The proof is in the pudding: counties that vote liberal have a 5:1 greater economic growth rate than counties that vote conservative. Hence, it is no suprise the American economy has only prospered during Democratic administrations over the past 100 years.
November 2, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink