I caught a really depressing post on Digby today talking about perceived racism in the Obama and McCain campaigns. The gist of it is that the majority of Americans see John McCain’s various attacks as not at all racist, but Obama’s little comment of how he’ll be attacked because he doesn’t look like the other faces on the dollar bill, is.
Okay, that’s not entirely accurate. There’s no one saying Obama’s comment was “racist” per se, he’s not going after McCain for being a white guy or saying he should be president because white guys are bad and he’s black. Rather, Obama is now “playing the race card.” That’s a phrase that immediately makes me want to punch people along with “Adam and Steve” and “latte-drinking liberal.”
To get an idea of what “playing the race card” means to most people, hop over to Ye Old Google. I wanted a good image to go with this article, so I searched for “race card” in the Google Image index. The result? A whole lot of snarky images involving blacks, usually Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
When most refer to the race card, what they’re saying is that someone has claimed that they are the victim of racism when in fact they aren’t in an attempt to soil the image of their opponent. It’s been cited all over the place from the OJ trial to Cynthia McKinney; any time racism enters the debate by the “victim” completely without merit. It’s a valid criticism.
Unfortunately we’ve gotten to the point where it’s impossible to even discuss the possibility of racially-motivated actions without “the race card” accusation flying out like a knee-jerk reflex.
Obama’s comment was entirely apt. FOX famously went racial twice with the huge “controversy” over the “terrorist fist bump,” and let’s not forget the famous “baby mama” chyron when showing Michelle. He’s consistently been demonized for his “difference” from Americans, be it his color or his upbringing (remember the madrassa bullshit?).
He’s been race-baited for months now, with pundits claiming at times that he’s not REALLY black, Democrats only like him because he’s got the color but not, I guess, the attitude. It’s been said for a long time now that the only reason Obama got the support he did was due to his race, that if he was a white dude he’d never have gotten noticed. Then, suddenly, when Obama rightfully points out, incredibly tactfully, that they’re going after him for (among other things) not looking like other Presidents, suddenly he’s “playing the race card”.
This is a painfully common tactic on the right. Bait the opponent over a trait for a while without ever coming out and saying it, and then immediately accuse him of bringing that issue into play for political purposes. The way they claim it, it’s the liberals that are racists for bringing it up, they’re not doing it. They’re actually more enlightened than we are, not thinking race at all. That was the premise behind Limbaugh’s whole ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ tirade. Liberals are racists, Limbaugh and his dittoheads are actually the colorblind people, far more racially progressive than the rest of us. Then when someone calls them on it, they’re “playing the race card.”
It’s important to remember that racism is frequently claimed when it wasn’t really used. When a cop arrests someone, even if the guy’s black it doesn’t mean racism was involved. You see it now and again even when the guy’s guilty. Same with media coverage of sports scandals. No, Kobe, it wasn’t because you’re black. It’s because it’s a scandal. Same to you, Michael Vick.
Here, though, no race card was played. Racism was involved. We’re going to see a lot of this the closer we get to the election. It’s dishonest and frankly it’s disgusting, but it’s not going to end soon. The important thing to remember is that, no matter how much Republicans bleat otherwise, they have indeed brought race into the race. Obama has every right to call ‘em on it, and it’s actually a great testament to his character that he’s only mentioned it offhandedly instead of turning it into the focal point of an ad campaign.
18 responses so far ↓
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 7:08 am |
“When most refer to the race card, what they’re saying is that someone has claimed that they are the victim of racism when in fact they aren’t in an attempt to soil the image of their opponent. ”
So basically you’re saying that when Obama warns us that John McCain is going to point out how Obama looks different from all the other presidents on dollar bills (and that’s quite a variety — what differences might there be?), and then his chief strategist later admits that Obama was indeed referring to his race, in this case you’re saying that this particular reference to John McCain was not intended to soil McCain’s image?
Hanlon // August 4, 2008 at 8:07 am |
Hey buddy, here’s a hint: read the entire article. Don’t just pluck out a quote and respond to it. Makes you look foolish since I, y’know, completely addressed that “question”.
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 8:13 am |
read the entire article. Don’t just pluck out a quote and respond to it.
As compared to you finding some questionable comments from the right in general — none of which originated with McCain — justifies Obama’s comment as “apt”? Are you sure you’re not “plucking,” lib?
Hanlon // August 4, 2008 at 9:37 am |
Obama was entirely correct that the right is going to be going after him for his race. End of story.
Oh, and if you don’t think the Britney/Paris ad was race-baiting, you’re either a little thick or just being dishonest. That’s pure post-Civil-War race-baiting.
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 10:00 am |
Obama was entirely correct that the right is going to be going after him for his race. End of story.
I see. So it’s okay for him to play the race card against McCain pre-emptively? Gotcha.
And while I haven’t seen the Britney/Paris stuff, I understood it to focus on Obama’s “rock star” phenomenon; a serious question about whether there’s any actual substance there.
Hanlon // August 4, 2008 at 10:14 am |
“And while I haven’t seen the Britney/Paris stuff”
Thanks for explaining everything I needed to know. Here’s another hint: avoid political discussions when you haven’t actually read/seen the pertinent information.
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 11:07 am |
So, I went to look at it and, lo and behold, it turns out I had seen it. And it’s just like I described.
Which part of that is “race baiting”?
PaulM // August 4, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
Hey, Rick, why do you even come here? It’s clear you’re not open to intelligent discussion or to rational examination of facts, nor do you tolerate any challenge to your own preconceived opinions. You have no intention of engaging anyone here in an honest examination.
You’re here for one reason only: Because you hate Democrats, period. By your own admission, “it is always fun to give both barrels to the left.”
So go drive your German dream-car to the next meeting of the Young Republicans and save your blog comments for FreeRepublic. No one here is interested in argument simply for argument’s sake.
And for someone who considers himself a linguist, you sure do resort to name-calling quite readily.
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
LOL, Paul. I am a rational examination of facts. And as my opinions were arrived at through such examination, they’re hardly “preconceived.” Do you suppose your alternate opinions were arrived at through the examination of other facts, or maybe through something a little more — well, preconceived?
you hate Democrats
In fact, I love freedom. The real question is why Democrats threaten it so. Could you imagine a Democrat today saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you..”?
And I do not argue for argument’s sake. I argue for the sake of those who haven’t heard all the arguments.
Why would you visit a blog where thought fragments are accepted without ever being tested for holes?
It’s always an honor to be Googled by you though, Paul.
Hanlon // August 4, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
“Which part of that is “race baiting”?”
Race-baiting is not racism, remember. It’s subtle jabs intended to get the other guy to call racism in order to immediately respond with “race card!”
Pretend for a moment you’re a gay man. If I constantly called you feminine, said you were being “snippy” and that you were “flighty”, that you needed to stop acting so prissy, eventually you’d get mad and say I’m attacking your sexuality. But I technically said no such thing, so my response would be to accuse you of going straight for “the bigotry card” in order to confuse the issue.
The thing is, I 100% baited you into that. McCain’s ad did that as well by having the famous bogeyman of the “black man near blond white girls”, not to mention the statements made by those who endorse him who he hasn’t denounced. No one has outright said “Obama’s black and that’s bad”, but they HAVE danced along the line of the issue in order to goad him into pointing it out.
So he did, and now it’s the race card. Are you following?
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
I understand your definition of race baiting. Now, when I look at the McCain ad, I don’t see anything in there that would work any differently, or say anything differently to Obama whether he was black or white.
I hadn’t considered the black man/blonde white girls thing, because the obvious message is the rock star phenom, with Britney and Paris being the two least-notable people in celebrity today.
Does this mean that every time a racial angle can be found in any direct political attack, that said angle will become the main issue? Isn’t that called “playing the race card”?
Hanlon // August 4, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
“Does this mean that every time a racial angle can be found in any direct political attack, that said angle will become the main issue?”
Ah, but here’s Obama’s full quote:
“Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, ‘he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know, ‘he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’”
He was just rapping off a list of ways he may get attacked. And frankly, all three HAVE appeared in one manner or another. He wasn’t making a big point out of race, it was just one of multiple manners he expects to be attacked via. He didn’t even say McCain or Bush HAD done it yet, just that they very well may because, as he put it, they have no real answers.
It was a perfectly apropos comment. He didn’t deliver a speech about racial politics, he didn’t attack McCain gratuitously for being racist. He simply made a good point in passing.
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
Well, I suppose it would be a shame if McCain had to be more careful in a contest with Obama just because any point is liable to be received as racism.
On the other hand, if the majority of the public does not think the point was intended as racism, then reacting to it as such is potentially dangerous for Obama’s support.
This all sounds about right to me. Is that pretty much what you’re complaining about?
Hanlon // August 4, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
It was a passing comment about the kind of attacks he anticipates. The media and the right turned it into Obama playing the race card.
As they say, 99% of the time it is the one who cries “race card” that is the racist. But hey, why let logic get in the way, right Rick? It’s just more fun to troll.
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
It was a passing comment about the kind of attacks he anticipates. The media and the right turned it into Obama playing the race card.
If you make a passing comment that you’re expecting your opponent to make racial attacks, I suppose it would help to have better examples than the Obama/Britney thing which, quite frankly, didn’t even have a racial angle for me till you explained it.
In that case, I can certainly understand the sentiments observed in the polling data that started all this.
FWIW, I don’t think the voting public would give McCain a pass if they thought he actually did anything racist. Obama’s best bet would be to let the media crucify McCain over racism instead of taking a victim’s stance.
I’ve seen trolling. There’s no trolling here. Is your personal preference moderated comments or visitor registration?
Hanlon // August 4, 2008 at 6:42 pm |
The point is, Rick, that Obama has been the victim of racial attacks thus far and has every effing reason to expect that he’ll get more in the upcoming months. McCain has stooped pretty far so far, what makes you think he won’t get more blatant? He’s skirting with it already.
If McCain and the right weren’t racist at all, they wouldn’t be attacking Obama for saying that. They’d give a simple “Sorry for anything that may have sounded racist, we didn’t mean it like that, let’s all just move on.”
Again, the people who cry “race card!!” the loudest are, nearly universally, racists themselves.
cpurick // August 4, 2008 at 8:12 pm |
“If McCain and the right weren’t racist at all, they wouldn’t be attacking Obama for saying that.”
I’m not racist. I have no problems complaining when I see the race card being played. As someone who genuinely believes conservative principles can win in open debate, I obviously don’t want that debate deflected or preempted by irrelevant political correctness.
Perhaps those who cry “race card” the loudest are simply those who don’t want the subject changed.
Hamilton // August 5, 2008 at 8:10 pm |
David Gergen’s words from a This Week roundtable with George Stephanopolus:
“There has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream, other, ‘he’s not one of us,’” said Gergen, who has worked with White Houses, both Republican and Democrat, from Nixon to Clinton. “I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it’s the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, ‘The One,’ that’s code for, ‘he’s uppity, he ought to stay in his place.’ Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, ‘I’m against quotas,’ we get what that’s about.”
I think their is a strong concensus by anyone not directly campaigning for office that their are strong racial subtexts coming out in the presidential contest, and while I dont beleive McCain is in any way a racist, race is going to be an important issue either way.
To be the black candidate for president and not be able to address people’s reservations about that, without being attacked by an overly defensive McCain for a statenemnt in which Obama did not even single out or specify him, is unfortunate.
My question to you Rick, is if you don’t deny that people have underlying fears of electing a young, new, and black president, then how should he have addressed the issue in a way that would not have inflamed concervatives?