Playing the Race Card
Promoted by Brendan
Brandt Ayers has an interesting column in the Anniston Star in which he compares today's allegations of racial politics to those of 20, 30 and 40 years ago. His conclusion is that if you think the Clinton vs. Obama campaign has gotten in the gutter on race issues you need to crack some history books.
Ayers is the publisher of the Star, which is a rare voice of progressivism in Alabama and has been for many years. He has seen it all on the political front in Alabama for many. many years. He knows racism when he sees it.
In his most recent column he takes aim at the NYT's Maureen Dowd and her hysterical rants against the Clintons.
With respect due to her entertaining style and Pulitzer Prize (which I haven't won), I can say, "Child, you haven't seen the race card played until you've been a liberal journalist in George Wallace's Alabama."
I know something about the race card, like: "He's a integratin', skallawaggin', pool-mixin', bald-faced liar," or "He wants to bus little school chillun all over town," and "I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say: Segregation today, Segregation tomorrow ... Segregation forever!"
Ayers was around when George Wallace ruled Alabama. Those were the days when you didn't need a "dogwhistle" to get a racist message to the electorate. You just stood up and tossed the N word around like a baseball at spring training.
And those were the days when you got absolutely nowhere by trying to be a progressive.
Most people don't realize, for instance, that when Wallace first ran for governor in 1958 he was endorsed by the NAACP. His opponent, John Patterson, was backed by the Klan. Wallace, who had spoken out against the Klan, got beat. But he famously vowed never to be beat again.
After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race?... I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."
Wallace made sure of that. He became the hardline segregationist who won in 1962. By 1963 he was standing in the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama. Years after he was shot and wounded in Maryland, he recanted his racist past in a speech at a black church. The black community in Alabama forgave him and helped him win his last term as governor in 1983. He even made good on his word by appointing a record number of blacks to state government positions.
Wallace wasn't so much an ideological racist as he was a power-hungry opportunist. It suited his ambition to become a racist so that's what he did. If Wallace had been born in East Germany instead of Alabama he would have become a communist.
A much more recent example of playing the Race Card is Lee Atwater and the infamous Willie Horton ads of 1988 that sank Michael Dukakis.
Ayers quotes Atwater on how playing the race card had evolved from the time Wallace did it to how it had to be done in 1988.
He was asked about Ronald Reagan appealing to the racist Wallace voter by saying that he would do away with legal services and cut back on appropriations for food stamps.
Atwater answered, "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now (that) you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites …
"You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'"
Atwater has to be more subtle than Wallace, so he dredges Willie Horton up from the slime -- a scary-looking black man set loose on the streets by that wishy-washy Massachusetts liberal Dukakis.
Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Atwater, predicted that, "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name." According to one political writer, Horton never went by the name "Willie"; Atwater called him that "hoping to get more racial mileage."
Horton was the ace in the deck of race cards. And it worked to perfection.
Of course, Atwater shortly afterwards developed a brain tumor. It was said by some back then that the tumor must have been pressing against his conscience because he spent his remaining days apologizing to Dukakis and others for what he did.
My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring -- acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.
As vile as the Willie Horton ads were, as vile as Wallace's stand in the schoolhouse door was, both men deserve credit for seeking forgiveness from those they harmed. Doesn't excuse their actions, but it shows that redemption is possible for even the worst among us.
It's hard to imagine anyone getting away with such a blatantly racist ad today, which is probably why the "dogwhistle" concept arose -- code words that don't sound racist on their face but send a racist message to supporters.
Dogwhistling shouldn't be any more acceptable than standing in the schoolhouse door. But if in the span of just 40 years racial politics can be reduced from a defiant public spectacle to an ad with a black criminal to a silent whistle, then perhaps we can eliminate it all together.
(Crossposted at DKos )
- quaoar's diary
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
Misogynist!
Your use of the word "hysterical
" to describe Maureen Dowd proves you to be an obvious sexist! ;)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I like your conclusion
Dogwhistling shouldn't be any more acceptable than standing in the schoolhouse door. But if in the span of just 40 years racial politics can be reduced from a defiant public spectacle to an ad with a black criminal to a silent whistle, then perhaps we can eliminate it all together.
Probably too optimistic to think we can eliminate racial politics but at least we can continue to make progress towards that end.
My own opinion on the whole racism/race-baiting discussion vis-a-vis the Clintons, for whatever it's worth: I don't see any evidence that they are personally racist, and I don't think anything they said was intended to be either racist or "dogwhistle" code aimed at racists. However, I do think plenty of what they or her campaign has said has been sleazy -- the concern trolling about Obama's past drug use, the dismissal of his SC victory, this recent crap about plagiarism, etc.
I don't think Obama or his campaign have levied spurious accusations of racism, either -- the whole MLK/LBJ ruckus was kicked up by the NYT and other media, for example. They've also said some things I would characterize as sleazy (e.g., "claws come out", some of the rhetoric surrounding health care), although IMHO not to the degree as has HRC et al.
Back in the day I remember discussing the "Call me" ad the RNC aired against Ford on Redstate, where they were angry that some liberals saw it as racist. There was much back-and-forth about dogwhistles, which I mostly avoided because I thought the take-home point was that the ad was sleazy (which Corker agreed with) and to me that was reason enough to be upset that it aired. The ad might very well have been deliberate playing to negative stereotypes, Lord knows the GOP was pulling out all the stops that year, but it seemed like getting into a debate about that would surrender the high ground of just criticizing the ad for being sleazy.
The sort of stuff we're seeing so far in the primary is pattycake compared to what the general will be like, anyway -- if it's Hillary, we'll get everything from Vince Foster conspiracy theories to innuendo about her personal life, while if it's Obama we'll get the whole secret Muslim conspiracy to take over the White House and probably some definite dogwhistling too. I actually don't expect much if any of it to come from McCain, but there are too many independent groups with an interest in the outcome for some underhanded stuff not to take place.
Anyway, thanks for the perspective and hopefully we as Democrats can continue to set the standard for avoiding even the appearance of racial politics. It's a great year for the party to have two strong candidates with a demonstrated record of helping Americans and good plans for the future, who also happen to be a woman and an African American.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
T here are plenty of demagogues, both white and black alike,
especially today, who play the race card. Frankly, I think that Al Sharpton's also another good example.
also, a bit off-topic; one reason that I left MLW, is because an unidenfified poster over there had the audacity to essentially call me a racist when I made it clear that I different with her on some stuff. But that's how people are sometimes.
The attacks against Obama
will come from 527s. McCain will pretend to know nothing about them.
They will paint him as the Second Coming of George McGovern. They will slam Michelle Obama's statement about being proud of America for the first time in her adult life.
But mostly they will paint Obama as a product of the Chicago machine and throw up ads with pictures of him and Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or some rapper or any other scary black guys they can find to try to associate him with the black people most despised by white America.
qui tacet consentire
Do you think
that a lot of the younger folks that are wildly enthusiastic about Obama even know who George McGovern, or Al Sharpton are?
The people that these ads appeal to would not likely vote Democratic in a hundred million years anyway.
It is the economy, stupid.
Older Democrats
are one of the demographics he has a problem picking up as it is, and I would think some of them might be susceptible to such negative advertising.
I have the feeling we'll find out soon enough.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The part about Chicago
strikes me as a legitimate worry, although obviously not the rest of it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Chicago ... Chicogo machine ... hmmm ...
Isn't that the place that is famous for having dead people vote?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yep
But I don't think Obama is going to need any help in Illinois in the general =P
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I don't know, quaoar.
I bet Michelle Obama and her husband and their advisors will put up a good fight, and not allow themselves to be "swiftboated" like Kerry and other Democratic Presidential candidates.
Very much agreed
You probably didn't need Maureen Dowd back in 1988 to be able to figure out that the Willie Horton ad was designed to play into white people's fears and biases regarding black people.
Then you fast forward to the Clinton campaign of the past year, and all of these incidents where we are supposed to buy into the fact that some "race card" has been played, and you see all the outrage on the blogs and the concern trolling by the corporate media pundits, and if you were waking up from a 20-year cryogenic slumber, you'd be thinking that the Clintons must have let loose with something equivalent to the Willie Horton ad-- some transparent play to get the white racist vote at the expense of blacks.
But there has been nothing even remotely equivalent to Willie Horton. If anything, many of the instances have shown the Clinton campaign's frustration at not getting MORE of the black vote. Bill Clinton, in particular, has expressed frustration in this vein on several occasions. You can argue the tact or the wisdom of these remarks, but you can't argue (not to me anyway) that expressing frustration at not getting the black vote bears any resemblance to Willie Horton-style race card plays, because it's really just the opposite.
Then you look at the complete record-- for instance how the poverty rate for black families was nearly cut in half during the Bill Clinton years
-- but none of that matters! Oh no! The only thing that matters is that somebody's finely tuned racial hearing has picked up a "dog-whistle"! If one person is offended, we all must be offended!
Hogwash :-(
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
The reality
is that more than one person, picked up on the dog whistle thing. And most of em were black and from So Carolina.
The worst imho was the guy from BET TV, who thought he was so clever, a surrogate for Hillary.
That Hillary defended his statement, was the beginning of the end of black support for the Clintons.
No question the Clintons did a lot for poverty, and we can say thank you for that.
The problem was the quickness that the dog whistle was used by the Clinton's for raw political gain and how squarely it contradicted their record.
It is the economy, stupid.
Realllllly!
LOL! So let me get this straight-- the dog whistle that was supposed to cue all the white people to line up behind Hillary was issued by the founder and longtime head of BET! Now that's a good one! Because if someone was inclined to vote against Barack Obama because he's black, they'd be SOOOOO likely to be swayed by the head of BET!
Seriously, MissL-- do you really think that an empire builder like Bob Johnson allows himself to be used as a mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton's campaign, that they hand this powerful billionare a script and that he reads off it? Or is it more likely that he was speaking his own mind? Jeaz, if I held every stupid thing I've heard or read from an Obama supporter against Obama, there'd be no way I could vote for him!
How about saying thank you by cutting them a little slack?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
A very interesting statistic, skymutt ...
But if one looks closely at those very same stats the biggest drop in the poverty rates you reference occurred between 1996 and 1997. Hmmm, what could have happened in 1996
to trigger that drop? Gee, who was it that pushed that through again? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Welfare reform may have had a marginal positive effect
However, to credit that law for "the biggest drop in poverty rates" is a claim that is easily refuted by looking at the stats. Half of the drop in poverty rates amongst blacks occured before that law took effect in mid '97:
I see a fairly steady decline in poverty rates amongst blacks here, and no big dropoff which could be attributed to the welfare law.
The decline in poverty rates amongst blacks (and a complete cross-section of America) can be attributed in large part to the sound, moderate economic policies of Clinton, policies which at times involved legislation which was passed into law by reaching across the aisle.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I stand (sort of) corrected ...
For whatever reason I was looking at the second table, not the first. Looking at the percentages in this case it kind of meaningless because the number of families keeps increasing so even with a static number of poor families the percentage will continue to drop. I know that Bill Clinton has to scrape to find anything meaningful out of his "presidency", but if he has to rely on a mathematical trick to look good ... well that says a lot. :)
Here are the two tables we were looking at with the absolute numbers included. I have computed the corresponding delta for each year and for 1996 and 2000 overall. As you can see, in both tables the number of families in absolute terms dropped by roughly 2X after welfare reform as compared to before.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Clinton mathematical tricks?
Are those anything like GoRight mathematical tricks?
Like the trick where you take credit for the whole 2.5 percentage point drop in 1997 when the welfare reform law didn't go into effect until July?
Even if I give you credit for two thirds of the drop in 1997, that's still 6.0 percentage points of drop before welfare reform, and 6.0 percentage points of drop after the reform.
By your logic, if a car passes by me at 25 miles per hour, and I give it a slap on the trunk as it goes by, and it's still going 25 miles per hour after it's gone by me, I should conclude that it's my slap on the trunk that is causing the car to continue to go 25 miles per hour, not the fact that it was already had momentum when it passed by me.
Bottom line, I don't see much of an effect ifrom the welfare reform on black poverty rates from the data-- it just looks like a fairly consistent drop over the whole stretch of 8 years. I might be able to give you a percentage point or so out of the whole 12 point drop if I were being generous.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
As I said, the percentages are meaningless ...
since the denominator keeps changing. These are percentages of what????? Answer: the total number of families each year, which varies from year to year so they are not really apples to apples percentages.
You have to be careful how you use percentages. For example, let's say I invest $100 in a mutual fund and then the market drops and I loose 50%. That means I have $50 left. Now, how much of an increase do I need to get back to where I started? 100%. So using your logic I should be at 100% (Original Investment) - 50% (Loss) + 100% (Gain) = 150% (Net Change) of my original investment, right? But where's my extra $50? Oh yea, mutual fund fees. :(
My approach uses the number of families below the poverty line each year which IS apples to apples comparable in the fashion we are doing. I assume you do understand this point, right? :)
You're also playing games with the start of the impact. When the law actually went into effect, at least in this case, doesn't actually matter. What matters is when it became law and hence people would know what was coming so they could change their behavior. For example, if you were on the welfare rolls in August, 1996 and became aware of the lifetime limit on benefits as well as the fact that the law doesn't take effect (i.e. your lifetime timer doesn't start) until July, 1997 are you going to sit around and wait until July 1997 to start looking for work when you know that any time on the rolls after that date actually counts against your lifetime maximum? Heck no. You're gonna try to be off the rolls before July, 1997 so that you can keep your lifetime maximum in the bank, so to speak, in case you fall back on hard times again. Why would you waste it?
So as far as I can tell the entire 1997 drop (and beyond) is covered by the law having been signed and you are simply trying to use more shenanigans to claim credit for what you shouldn't. Is welfare reform responsible for 100% of the drop? No, but it sure did accelerate the whole thing in terms of actual numbers of families off the rolls.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
incorrect.
Povety rates are not meaningless. Since any measure that involves population will involve a shifting denominator as the population grows, percentages are THE apples to apples comparison.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Bah.
My analysis focuses on the actual number of impoverished families. If my number goes up you know there are more impoverished families. If my number goes down you know there are fewer impoverished families.
Using percentages, as you do, there is no such correlation. It is perfectly conceivable for your percentage to drop while the actual number of impoverished families continues to increase leaving us with a situation where you try to claim you have helped the poor even though their numbers continue to increase. Some metric you have there.
And you complain about MY using slight of hand? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ridiculous
By that logic, a plague which wipes out 10% of the population (distributed evenly among income levels), would help the poor. It results in fewer poor people, right?
By that logic, the poverty problem is orders of magnitude worse now than it was in the 1600s.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Fair enough, but that's not the point now is it.
The point is the metric being used should indicate progress in a meaningful way.
If I say last year we had 100 poor families and this year we have 50 poor families, I can definitely say that there are fewer families living in poverty (whatever the cause).
With percentages if I say last year we had 100% poor families and this year we have 50% poor families does that say anything about the number of families living in poverty? No. For example, last year I might have had a total of 100 families all of whom were poor and this year I might have 400 families 200 of whom are poor. This matches the percentages, obviously, but can you say that your poverty problem is better (i.e. there are less people living in poverty) with a straight face? I couldn't.
In absolute terms, it is. There are many more people starving today than there were in the 1600s. I consider the current number of starving people in the world to be worse when compared to the number starving in the 1600s. Do you disagree?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yeesh
I'm honestly a bit astounded that you could even think this way. Seriously. In your two hypothetical populations of 100% poor families or 50% poor families, can you say with a straight face that the population that is 100% poor has less of a poverty problem?
Does Rwanda have less of a poverty problem than the United States, because they have a smaller number of families living in poverty?
Your method doesn't even measure the problem in a meaningful way. How can it possibly measure progress?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So you are arguing that ...
200 starving families is better than 100 starving families?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No
I am arguing that poverty is a worse problem in a society that has a higher percentage of poor families. You seem to disagree with that. I think you must be crazy.
Let me try an analogy without the emotionalism of poverty involved. If you were running for public office, is it better to receive 100 votes or 200 votes? Can't you see by this analogy that the actual numbers are meaningless? If you receive 100 votes, but only 150 votes were cast, you won. If you received 200 votes out of 1000 cast, you lost. Doesn't matter at all that 200 is a larger number than 100.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
If people were votes, you might have a point.
But when we are talking about human suffering, do you care about the number of suffering people or the percentage of suffering people? I contend you should care about the number of suffering people because, well, they're people.
Even so, the title of your post, "No", in response to my query conveys your true feelings and makes my point.
And in the end, I am really only trying to give skymutt a hard time for the fun of it. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The only number that matters is
one.
If the person that is bearing the brunt of the human suffering is a someone you love and care for.
Then perhaps these silly little games for the fun of giving someone a hard time take on less of an entertainment value.
It is the economy, stupid.