• commentary
  • TUESDAY AUGUST 5 2008 6:00 AM

Quality Race Baiting

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Southern Strategy, McCain, Bush, Reagan, Kevin Phillips, Obama

The Republicans are masters of using race to stir up white anger and fear to win elections. They play the race card, as it is referred to by hacks, and are more subtle and effective with it each year. “Playing the race card” is just a palatable way of describing their racist bullshit. I don’t know how long the GOP has been doing this, my memory only goes back to Reagan, who was a master at riling up the master race.

In 1980, Reagan gave a campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, during which he said,


I believe in states' rights.


It was obvious to anyone with a brain that Reagan was signaling white racists that he was on their side. After all, he was speaking the city where three civil rights workers were killed in 1964 and any retard knows what "states rights" means in the South.

If you don’t buy that connection, then don’t forget Reagan’s many quotes about a “welfare queen driving a Cadillac,” or his claiming that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South,” or his help keeping Bob Jones University from losing its tax exempt status because of a ban on interracial dating, or his opposition to a holiday for Martin Luther King. Reagan was not just a terrible president, but he was also a straight-up racist asshole.


On July 31st, just days before Reagan went to Neshoba County, the New York Times reported that the Ku Klux Klan had endorsed Reagan. In its newspaper, the Klan said that the Republican platform “reads as if it were written by a Klansman.” Reagan rejected the endorsement, but only after a Carter cabinet official brought it up in a campaign speech.


This was the plan, called the Southern Strategy, encouraged by Richard Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips.


From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are.


That’s the plan they have followed, ever since. Bush used the famous Willy Horton ad against Michael Dukakis quite effectively.



Oh, my God! A black man!

But the country has changed. That kind of overt bullshit would not go over well in many places now. I’m not saying it wouldn’t still go over great in many states, because it would. But the number of people it would turn off across the nation would not make the ad effective today. And there’s the new problem: The Democratic candidate is a black guy. That means the Republicans have to walk a very fine racist line. And they are doing it very well, so far.

The John McCain tactic seems to be to create ads most whites won’t consider racist, but blacks will.



That’s obviously a racist ad. It’s subtle, but if you don’t think showing two young white women in an ad with a black man, and tossing the word “FOREIGN” up on screen with the black guy’s face isn’t racist, then you are a fucking moron. Unfortunately, when blacks become upset and claim it is racist, McCain can scream innocence and say he’s a victim of “the race card.” Poor rich, white guy. Sadly, Obama fell right into the trap.


They're going to try to say that I'm a risky guy, they're going to try to say, 'Well, you know, he's got a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they're going to send out nasty emails.


That’s a pretty innocuous statement, but just commenting on the ad put him in a negative light, according to polls.


Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.


The reason for that is simple; there are more white people than black people. This is about how people relate and most of us don't relate to racism, subtle or otherwise.


In a dispute about race, the McCain campaign knows it will end up with the larger half. For the most part, most white people's experience with race isn't one of racial discrimination. They can only relate to racial discrimination in the abstract. What white people can relate to is the fear of being unjustly accused of racism. This is the larger half. This is why allegations of racism often provoke more outrage than actual racism, because most of the country can relate to one (the accusation of racism) easier than the other (actual racism). For this reason, in a political conflict over race, the McCain campaign has the advantage, because saying the race card has been played is actually the ultimate race card.


Considering McCain is a doddering old fool, who has taken the least popular stance on nearly every position, his only chance to win is by using race. The Republican machine knows exactly what it is doing and they are doing it well. The race is tightening. Obama has stupidly moved away from his base, while Republicans are drawing theirs together. Democrats should be very thankful that McCain is a senile old man.



The debates could be devastating. Don’t forget, Reagan and Carter were tied in the polls going into the final debate, just one week before the election. You can be certain McCain will look horrible in the debates, but the damage may already be done with “the race card.” And Republicans, when you bunch that ballot for McCain this year, know you are supporting racism. Know that you are a vile, filthy person who supports the worst in mankind.

FearTheReaper is a comic, writer and actor. You can read more of his nonsense at his blog, Stop All Monsters.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

AUG 08, 2008 05:16 AM

motorfirebox said:
but that's crazy. anything can be interpreted as being racist. again: how is it not racist and divisive to say that pictures of black people can't be shown at the same time as pictures of white people? how is it not completely insane to say that you can't show pictures of black people in conjunction with certain otherwise innocuous words? how is it not more damaging to race relations to force everyone to walk on eggshells whenever the topic of race comes even remotely close to being broached?



Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would think that showing images of a black man and two white women in a negative context could have any racial undertones. I mean, it's not like miscegenation has ever been considered a bad thing in America or anything.

Ff

Ff

I'm lost
August 2006

AUG 08, 2008 05:50 AM

MisterLinguist said:

CheshireCat said:

motorfirebox said:

SockPuppet said:
But if FTR is right, the McCain campaign believes that enough people are (tacitly or unconsciously) racist enough to be influenced. Their definition of "enough" isn't the point, except that it appears to justify spending the money.


if it was intentional on the part of the McCain campaign, then yes, i agree that it was racist. but even if it was intentional, i still don't see it as being harmful enough to warrant even the barest acknowledgment, much less a direct response. lashing back at the McCain campaign for this perceived racism--whether the racism was real/intentional or not--does more damage to the Obama campaign than simply ignoring it and being 'the bigger man'.

SockPuppet said:
Either way, it's not wise (IMO) for the campaign to be producing ads which could be interpreted as racist, unless the candidate either doesn't care, or is actively trying for tacitly-racist voters.


but that's crazy. anything can be interpreted as being racist. again: how is it not racist and divisive to say that pictures of black people can't be shown at the same time as pictures of white people? how is it not completely insane to say that you can't show pictures of black people in conjunction with certain otherwise innocuous words? how is it not more damaging to race relations to force everyone to walk on eggshells whenever the topic of race comes even remotely close to being broached?



I agree with you,anything can be interpreted as racist.



I like ice cream. That means I'm a racist.



That depends. Is it chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Or god forbid

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Neopolitaneeek

Ff

Ff

I'm lost
August 2006

AUG 08, 2008 06:01 AM

Uncognitive said:

motorfirebox said:
but that's crazy. anything can be interpreted as being racist. again: how is it not racist and divisive to say that pictures of black people can't be shown at the same time as pictures of white people? how is it not completely insane to say that you can't show pictures of black people in conjunction with certain otherwise innocuous words? how is it not more damaging to race relations to force everyone to walk on eggshells whenever the topic of race comes even remotely close to being broached?



Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would think that showing images of a black man and two white women in a negative context could have any racial undertones. I mean, it's not like miscegenation has ever been considered a bad thing in America or anything.



You'd have to have some kind of segregation fetish to see a racist message in that video, simply because it compares the popularity of a black presidential candidate to that of two white pop stars. Talk about race baiting!

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

AUG 08, 2008 09:49 AM

Ff said:

Uncognitive said:

motorfirebox said:
but that's crazy. anything can be interpreted as being racist. again: how is it not racist and divisive to say that pictures of black people can't be shown at the same time as pictures of white people? how is it not completely insane to say that you can't show pictures of black people in conjunction with certain otherwise innocuous words? how is it not more damaging to race relations to force everyone to walk on eggshells whenever the topic of race comes even remotely close to being broached?



Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would think that showing images of a black man and two white women in a negative context could have any racial undertones. I mean, it's not like miscegenation has ever been considered a bad thing in America or anything.



You'd have to have some kind of segregation fetish to see a racist message in that video, simply because it compares the popularity of a black presidential candidate to that of two white pop stars. Talk about race baiting!



Yes, anyone who thinks that a GOP campaign running against a black dude would even consider inserting any racial overtones into their campaign commercials must be the one doing the race baiting...

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

AUG 08, 2008 10:12 AM

Same guy who made the McCain celebrity ad just happened to make the above ad, BTW. That would be why McCain hired him.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

AUG 08, 2008 10:57 AM

CheshireCat said:

motorfirebox said:

SockPuppet said:
But if FTR is right, the McCain campaign believes that enough people are (tacitly or unconsciously) racist enough to be influenced. Their definition of "enough" isn't the point, except that it appears to justify spending the money.


if it was intentional on the part of the McCain campaign, then yes, i agree that it was racist. but even if it was intentional, i still don't see it as being harmful enough to warrant even the barest acknowledgment, much less a direct response. lashing back at the McCain campaign for this perceived racism--whether the racism was real/intentional or not--does more damage to the Obama campaign than simply ignoring it and being 'the bigger man'.

SockPuppet said:
Either way, it's not wise (IMO) for the campaign to be producing ads which could be interpreted as racist, unless the candidate either doesn't care, or is actively trying for tacitly-racist voters.


but that's crazy. anything can be interpreted as being racist. again: how is it not racist and divisive to say that pictures of black people can't be shown at the same time as pictures of white people? how is it not completely insane to say that you can't show pictures of black people in conjunction with certain otherwise innocuous words? how is it not more damaging to race relations to force everyone to walk on eggshells whenever the topic of race comes even remotely close to being broached?



I agree with you,anything can be interpreted as racist.


please refrain from agreeing with me.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

AUG 08, 2008 11:39 AM

Ff said:

MisterLinguist said:

CheshireCat said:

motorfirebox said:

SockPuppet said:
But if FTR is right, the McCain campaign believes that enough people are (tacitly or unconsciously) racist enough to be influenced. Their definition of "enough" isn't the point, except that it appears to justify spending the money.


if it was intentional on the part of the McCain campaign, then yes, i agree that it was racist. but even if it was intentional, i still don't see it as being harmful enough to warrant even the barest acknowledgment, much less a direct response. lashing back at the McCain campaign for this perceived racism--whether the racism was real/intentional or not--does more damage to the Obama campaign than simply ignoring it and being 'the bigger man'.

SockPuppet said:
Either way, it's not wise (IMO) for the campaign to be producing ads which could be interpreted as racist, unless the candidate either doesn't care, or is actively trying for tacitly-racist voters.


but that's crazy. anything can be interpreted as being racist. again: how is it not racist and divisive to say that pictures of black people can't be shown at the same time as pictures of white people? how is it not completely insane to say that you can't show pictures of black people in conjunction with certain otherwise innocuous words? how is it not more damaging to race relations to force everyone to walk on eggshells whenever the topic of race comes even remotely close to being broached?



I agree with you,anything can be interpreted as racist.



I like ice cream. That means I'm a racist.



That depends. Is it chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Or god forbid

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Neopolitaneeek



Caramel ice cream, chico.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

AUG 08, 2008 06:20 PM

motorfirebox said:

SockPuppet said:
But if FTR is right, the McCain campaign believes that enough people are (tacitly or unconsciously) racist enough to be influenced. Their definition of "enough" isn't the point, except that it appears to justify spending the money.


if it was intentional on the part of the McCain campaign, then yes, i agree that it was racist. but even if it was intentional, i still don't see it as being harmful enough to warrant even the barest acknowledgment, much less a direct response. lashing back at the McCain campaign for this perceived racism--whether the racism was real/intentional or not--does more damage to the Obama campaign than simply ignoring it and being 'the bigger man'.



Call me a hopeless idealist, but it seems to me that the first credible black Presidential candidate is a position in its own right, whether it's intentional or not (just as Hillary's was). That position implies questions which previously have been ignorable. The result of the election is not the only thing at stake here.


SockPuppet said:
Either way, it's not wise (IMO) for the campaign to be producing ads which could be interpreted as racist, unless the candidate either doesn't care, or is actively trying for tacitly-racist voters.


but that's crazy. anything can be interpreted as being racist. again: how is it not racist and divisive to say that pictures of black people can't be shown at the same time as pictures of white people? how is it not completely insane to say that you can't show pictures of black people in conjunction with certain otherwise innocuous words? how is it not more damaging to race relations to force everyone to walk on eggshells whenever the topic of race comes even remotely close to being broached?



It depends how it's done, doesn't it? It's certainly possible to construct race-baiting cartoons which involve words as innocuous as "We know where you live". Not one of those words is threatening.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

AUG 08, 2008 08:57 PM

SockPuppet said:
Call me a hopeless idealist, but it seems to me that the first credible black Presidential candidate is a position in its own right, whether it's intentional or not (just as Hillary's was). That position implies questions which previously have been ignorable. The result of the election is not the only thing at stake here.


to clarify, are you saying that Obama's position as the first credible black presidential candidate requires him to defend against every possible minor racial slight? because i would say the opposite. i think that breaking the long line of white presidents is more important than allowing the election to devolve into quibbling over slights so veiled and obscure that more than half of the nation apparently didn't even notice them. race is an issue that creates deep, unhealable divisions. bringing it up in the context of an issue that most people don't even agree is an issue can only be harmful.

i mean, let's say the allegations are true, and that the McCain campaign is knowingly engaging in race baiting that has been specifically designed to appear innocuous and be easily deniable. what advantage is there, in either the short or long term, in rising to that bait?


SockPuppet said:
It depends how it's done, doesn't it? It's certainly possible to construct race-baiting cartoons which involve words as innocuous as "We know where you live". Not one of those words is threatening.


it's certainly possible to be overtly racist. but it's also possible to be so hypersensitive that one begins seeing insults where none exist.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

AUG 09, 2008 03:30 AM

CheshireCat said:
I love how people seem to think all white people have it made in the shade, as if when we are around each other we give ourselves free shit,I think pointing the racist finger is way to easy,its obvious that ad meant to say that Obama was aligned with celebrity status or being a fad for the moment,or worse yet just shallow with no real thought considering who they chose to portray with him. In a way they re right ,and its a brilliant ad ,showcasing Obama as the media whore candidate he is .I remember seeing his wife on entertainment tonight,talking bout what her favorite clothes were.I think both candidates suck,and that we are so desperate for change we will elect anyone other than the ruling party of the last 8 years.In a perfect world give me Ralph Nader,a man who aligns himself with no party ,yet lacks the charisma a camera can show.



Show me anywhere someone has indicated that and I'll pretend that you can paint.

DoktorSleepless

DoktorSleepless

Havre De Grace, MD
May 2008

AUG 09, 2008 05:41 AM

I noticed when you quoted Obama saying "They're going to try to say that I'm a risky guy, they're going to try to say, 'Well, you know, he's got a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they're going to send out nasty emails." you left out the next sentence. You know, the one where he says "Did I mention he's black?" I guess that would be to racist for you to put in your column. You aren't racist, are you? No, I'm sure you're not.

Bravo on the frequent use of the word "fuck", by the way. I find that really helps to make an intelligent, well thought out point.

ardour

ardour

Canada
March 2006

AUG 09, 2008 01:57 PM

DeadBilly said:

FearTheReaper said:
That's the plan they have followed, ever since. Bush used the famous Willy Horton ad against Michael Dukakis quite effectively.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)



Oh, my God! A black man!



Yeah, really. They act like he murdered somebody.



You (and many other people, it would seem) are missing FTR's point.

I don't really see that either of those ads as racist, however, they are set up so that they'll appeal to racists. It's like the stories Reagan used to tell when he was campaigning (FTR refers to these as well). How when in the south he'd tell stories like how he saw a "young buck” using food stamps to buy steaks. "Young buck" being an old slang term for a black man. See how that would appeal to racists? See how at the same time, he's not being overtly racist?

These commercials appeal to racists. Then, when the "race card" is played, it is very simple to deny it, and then get sympathy from those who don't see any racism. Pretty much a win win all around.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

AUG 09, 2008 02:10 PM

ardour said:
I don't really see that either of those ads as racist, however, they are set up so that they'll appeal to racists.


it's easy to claim that, and it's easy to deny it. at some point, perceived racist sentiment becomes so obscure and so hard to detect by the masses that it may as well not exist. if 90% of the population doesn't know that "young buck" is old slang for "black man", what the heck does it matter if a politician uses it to speak in code to his KKK buddies? making a mountain out of a molehill--whether it's a real molehill or a figment of your imagination--doesn't help anyone. pointing it out and making it a big deal causes more racial friction and tension--thereby spawning more racist sentiment--than simply ignoring it.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

AUG 09, 2008 03:18 PM

motorfirebox said:

SockPuppet said:
Call me a hopeless idealist, but it seems to me that the first credible black Presidential candidate is a position in its own right, whether it's intentional or not (just as Hillary's was). That position implies questions which previously have been ignorable. The result of the election is not the only thing at stake here.


to clarify, are you saying that Obama's position as the first credible black presidential candidate requires him to defend against every possible minor racial slight? because i would say the opposite. i think that breaking the long line of white presidents is more important than allowing the election to devolve into quibbling over slights so veiled and obscure that more than half of the nation apparently didn't even notice them. race is an issue that creates deep, unhealable divisions. bringing it up in the context of an issue that most people don't even agree is an issue can only be harmful.



No, I'm not saying that at all; I don't think it requires him to do anything, necessarily. I'm saying that his position generates expectations among other people. Almost everyone who pays any attention to it, in fact.


i mean, let's say the allegations are true, and that the McCain campaign is knowingly engaging in race baiting that has been specifically designed to appear innocuous and be easily deniable. what advantage is there, in either the short or long term, in rising to that bait?



Again, it depends how it's done, and what it's done for. Exposing the nature of the campaign which engaged in that baiting might be worth votes. I agree it could easily be counterproductive, though. If I was a paranoid person, I might think that baiting like that was specifically designed to push the candidate into a response which would be inherently divisive, both in the short term - deliberately, for electoral advantage - and the longer - as collateral damage.



SockPuppet said:
It depends how it's done, doesn't it? It's certainly possible to construct race-baiting cartoons which involve words as innocuous as "We know where you live". Not one of those words is threatening.


it's certainly possible to be overtly racist. but it's also possible to be so hypersensitive that one begins seeing insults where none exist.



Absolutely. But I'm afraid that that sensitivity already exists, in some quarters, and if McCain's campaign hasn't taken account of that, then they are utterly inept.

ardour

ardour

Canada
March 2006

AUG 09, 2008 03:53 PM

I don't really disagree with anything you said. I do think it matters if it's going on, because it is a shady practice. I agree that making a big deal out of it isn't really going to help anyone, the article is called "Quality Race Baiting" afterall. I don't think stuff like this should really be ignored...

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

featured interviews