Romney plays to nation's racial subconscious

Presidential politics is an increasingly exact science. Words are carefully chosen, poll-tested and fine-tuned before being used, and every catchphrase, slogan and sound bite is designed to maximize the campaign's appeal to their target audience.

This appeal takes place on two different levels- one conscious and one subconscious. While the term "subconscious" alludes to subliminal advertising, it generally only means appealing to implicit attitudes that are not consciously processed (although subliminal ads have entered presidential campaigns before). The best way to think of the distinction between the two is to consider what a candidate says as a conscious appeal, but how the candidate says it, or the choice to say it in the first place, a subconscious appeal.

Following the 1980 Republican Convention, Ronald Reagan launched his general election campaign with what have since become boilerplate GOP talking points. Here's an excerpt of what he said:

I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

On a conscious level, what Reagan said was fairly innocuous. But how did he say it? The speech was framed around Regan's "[belief] in states' rights," and was delivered in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same place where three civil rights workers had been killed for attempting to register African-American voters.

The Reagan campaign chose the location under the advice of Strom Thurmond (who, ironically, was later found to have fathered an out-of-wedlock child with his African-American housekeeper), and used the frame and location of the speech to make an appeal to the "Dixiecrats" of the South. Jimmy Carter failed to call Reagan out for the implicit racial appeal, and Reagan went on to cream Carter, winning every Southern state which Carter had won in 1976, except for Georgia, Carter's home state.

Fast-forward to 2012.

Mitt Romney is the front-runner for the Republican nomination but has showed signs of weakness with rural voters, particularly in the South. Many Republican strategists are worried that Team Romney will not be able to generate enough enthusiasm to win crucial states such as North Carolina and Virginia. Moreover, the rhetoric necessary to generate such enthusiasm among the GOP base will likely alienate independents in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. How has the Romney campaign attempted to confront this dilemma? With a catchy, multi-faceted slogan:

The black guy "isn't working" - get it?

As Tommy Christopher of Mediaite notes:

When I first saw the banner...the multiple meanings were clear: President Obama's policies aren't working, the Obama presidency isn't working, President Obama...isn't working, as in, doing any work. That's not a nice thing to say about any president, but like it or not, it becomes a more loaded accusation when leveled at our first black president.

Subconscious appeals are called dog-whistles for a reason: Three different people can read the above phrase and get three very different messages. "Obama Isn't Working" has economic connotations for some and racial connotations for others. For the surprisingly high amount of Americans who hold implicit racial biases, the phrase also can trigger negative subconscious associations regarding President Obama based on the color of his skin, aka racism.

Because of the slogan's multiple meanings, the Romney campaign has plausible deniability when its racial component is brought up. However, given its history, the GOP has forfeited its right to the benefit of the doubt when it comes to race. Considering the level of scrutiny placed on every word used by a presidential candidate, and the emphasis Romney is placing on this new slogan (in addition to appearing on stage, it has its own website), I find it hard to believe that the racial connotations of "Obama Isn't Working" went unnoticed before the phrase was unveiled.

Moreover, considering the benefit Team Romney gains from being able to trigger implicit racial biases without getting taken to task for it on a conscious level, it is far more likely that the creation of the slogan was a deliberate play to America's dark, but very real, subconscious biases and prejudices based on race.

Former DC Mayor Marion Barry labeled a racist for anti-Asian comments

The man appears to have series issues with Asian people.  There's just too much of a trend of nasty anti-Asian comments.  And he's a city council member of a minority-majority city.

At a hearing Monday on the University of the District of Columbia’s budget, he spoke about the need to train more African Americans to become nurses. In a video of his remarks aired by WTTG-TV, Barry noted a growing number of nurses are “immigrants” from the Philippines.

“[I]f you go to the hospital now, you’ll find a number of immigrants who are nurses, particularly from the Philippines,” said Barry (D-Ward 8). “And no offense, but let’s grow our own teachers, let’s grow our own nurses, and so that we don’t have to go scrounging in our community clinics and other kinds of places, having to hire people from somewhere else.”

The National Federation of Filipino American Associations called Barry’s remarks “racist” and “bigoted.”

HuffPost puts the comments in the larger context of Barry's other nasty quips about Asians.

“We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops,” Barry said. “They ought to go. I’m going to say that right now. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.”

Why write about this idiot? Because there's a larger history of bad relations between the black and Asian communities in this country, and the notion of Asian businesses somehow carpetbagging their way into black neighorhoods. That's what's likely influencing Barry's comments, and he's only feeding the racism, and mutual dislike and distrust, between the communities by speaking like this, repeatedly.

The man really is an idiot. I was asked by a Swedish friend last night how idiot conservatives were elected to parliament in his country. I told him that it happened in politics wordlwide. Marion Barry is a great, local, example.

It's art, but is it racist?

A mini-scandal here in Sweden over the Minister of Culture, Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth, showing up at an event and cutting a cake that's a caricature of an obese African minstrel woman.  At first glance, it sure looks racist.

Of course, the issue is a bit more complicated.

The artist who made the cake is black (does that matter?). And he's actually the head of the cake.  Each time a guest slices a piece of the blood red cake, the artist moans in agony (see video below).  The message seems pretty clearly one lampooning the cake-cutters as racist, rather than a message that's racist against blacks or Africans.



But.

It's not entirely clear to me that, when a government official is presented with the prospect of carving up a caricature of a black person, the government official should happily oblige. I get that the art is intended to fight racism. But does it?  And what happens when a government official plays along with the joke/art?  Some have asked whether the government would play along with a cake carving up a Jew, or a Muslim?  How about a fetus?

I do think, first of all, that the minister is an idiot for carving the cake. She must have known what the optics would be like, and that the photos of her carving the cake would look per se racist. But is she racist for carving the cake and going along with the joke/political lesson? Of that I'm not so sure. In the end, the cake seems to have been made so that the guest would cut it up, and that the visual would send an anti-racism message. One could argue that the minister was simply a willing pawn in helping to spread that message.

In the end, is this a cake that was never intended to be eaten at all?  Wasn't the point to make the guests uncomfortable carving the cake, so that the only "good" person is one who refuses to carve the cake, period?  In a way, I'm starting to find the cake quite a brilliant statement. The guests who were willing to carve the cake with a laugh, less so.

What do you think? Take a look at the video and let me know what you think in the comments.

"Dead White Men" and a debate over semantics at Kenyon College

One of the lesser-known perks of going to a small college is that the school can set up a system where anyone can send an email that reaches the entire student body - at Kenyon we call it "allstu" - without creating total chaos. This system is generally used as  the go-to resource for finding lost keys, promoting your band's concert or finding a ride to the airport. But, as is the case for any unregulated message board on the Internet, allstu also generates its fair share of flame wars (with an added twist: since personal email accounts are used, real names are attached to what is said).

Earlier this week such a war erupted. A group of students announced that they will be performing a play this weekend entitled "Dead White Men," in which a black teenager's (unarmed) best friend is shot by a police officer, and the teenager is out for revenge. A quote used in the promotion for the play read, "if white people are the problem, I'll be the solution." The play is expected be a reaction to the Trayvon Martin case and has already pushed some uncomfortable buttons relating to racial issues.

Shortly after the play was announced, one student, notably a student of color, pointed out the double standard that the director was creating. He argued that they were endorsing the very racist feelings and actions that the play was supposedly denouncing. What, he asked, would the reaction be if this play was advertised instead:

"If black people are the problem, then I'm the solution" --come see my play about how black neighborhoods have consistently higher instances of crime and how the most dangerous person in a young black man's life is another young black man and not us whites---and yes, it is us vs. them.

Several students jumped to the play's defense. As one student replied:

Claiming that making bold statements like [the director's] against white people is racist, then maybe you should realize that to be racist requires both using discrimination AND POWER. Based on our system of oppression today, it is white people who have privilege, i.e., power. So one can be non-white and prejudiced against whites, but not racist.

At this point the "allstu war" escalated further. Can racism exist without institutional backing? Is it really impossible for people of color to be racist? As another student said:

If a white person feels threatened by a prejudiced non-white person, there may be a power differential on an individual level in which it's entirely legitimate for the white person to feel powerless. That kind of dynamic does not, however, reach the level of institutionalized racism.

These questions highlighted the semantic differences between the two sides. Those defending the play were separating racism from prejudice by tying the word "racism" to a history of discriminatory policies and cultural norms. To them, racism was more than just prejudiced thoughts or actions; to qualify as racism those prejudiced thoughts and actions needed to be supported by a system which endorsed their manifestation. This was a distinction that those offended by the play did not make. For them, racism was a characteristic that could be assigned to an individual, regardless of whether or not that characteristic was supported by a higher authority.

This allstu war serves as a reminder of the extent to which words and definitions matter in a public discourse. What started as an argument about racism quickly became an argument about semantics - about what the definition of racism really was (further complicated by the fact that different dictionaries vary in their definitions of the word). The email exchange raised important and timely questions about how we define race and racism in this country. They are questions can only be answered through continued discussion and debate, as I'm sure will take place on the unregulated message board below.

National Review fires contributor after race baiting "advice" column

It's no wonder the GOP has a major problem with the issue of race when you hear this. Surely John Derbyshire did not just wake up, write this offensive column and it was the birth of his racism. The National Review had to know him since he wrote there often enough but they failed to take action because his racism was not that far off from mainstream conservative views.

Isn't it rather odd that the National Review's editor praised Derbyshire at the same time as he fired him? If only Derbyshire could keep his racist rants within acceptable limits, perhaps? Very strange. It should not be that difficult to say that the writer is offensive and unacceptable and leave it at tha rather than including praise. The Guardian:

Derbyshire, who has previously described himself as a racist and homophobe, wrote the column in the form of "advice" to his teenage children on how to stay safe when around African Americans....

"If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks," Derbyshire wrote.

NOTE FROM JOHN: I just read the article, and wow. I don't know what I was expecting, but I certainly didn't expect what I got. It's far worse than folks are depicting. For example:

There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners.

I'm sure past prejudice has nothing to do with that. Oh but it gets worse:

Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.  [Note from John: I guess that means Derbyshire is leaving America - good riddance.]

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

Read the rest of the article yourself.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone say to not help a black person in distress.  Wow.

Zimmerman will walk in the Trayvon shooting case—"Sanford is the new Selma"

Via Ron Beasley at Newshoggers, we find this great interview — lawyer and former prosecutor Mike Papantonio on the Stephanie Miller Show.

His point is clear: Because the Sanford police did not do their job, any competent defense attorney can get George Zimmerman found innocent of wrongdoing.

Watch:



Be sure to listen through — at 2:35 Papantonio discusses the racial history of that department.

This isn't the first time with this police department down there. They're disfunctional, and part of the problem is the "race card" runs through that department. Sanford is the new Selma.

And (4:52):

People are missing the fact [that] this is an area that didn't even have an organized neighborhood watch [!]. ... When I used to prosecute I would see these characters that would hang out at police departments, they'd hang around the state attorney's office, they had this Batman mentality.... In reality they are Walter Mitty ... with a gun.

Did you catch that? No neighborhood watch, says Florida-based Mike Papantonio. Is the media misunder-characterizing our local neighborhood shooter?

Which reminds me of this excellent piece by Digby, on Sanford Florida's other dark days:

We were talking about the Trayvon Martin tragedy the other day and a friend pointed out that Sanford was only about 130 miles from the town of Rosewood, the site of the notorious Rosewood massacre:

Rosewood was a quiet, primarily black, self-sufficient whistle stop on the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Spurred by unsupported accusations that a white woman in nearby Sumner had been beaten and possibly raped by a black drifter, white men from nearby towns lynched a Rosewood resident. When black citizens defended themselves against further attack, several hundred whites combed the countryside hunting for black people, and burned almost every structure in Rosewood. Survivors hid for several days in nearby swamps and were evacuated by train and car to larger towns. Although state and local authorities were aware of the violence, they made no arrests for the activities in Rosewood. The town was abandoned by black residents during the attacks. None ever returned.

It turns out that Sanford Florida, where Trayvon was killed, has a history of its own:

[W]hen it comes to a history of fear, racism and violence, Sanford, Florida, has a particularly fraught past, one that traces right up to the night a month ago when an unarmed black kid was shot dead on one of its streets, and his killer went free. ...

I'll let you read the rest; it's an especially fine bit of research.

The new Selma. I keep thinking about those White Pride marches the crazy right keeps thinking is the ever-innocent equivalent of Black Pride or Gay Pride events.

Equivalent only on the surface. What's missing? Any recognition of the extreme imbalance in power.

How about this? Oppressor Pride Day. Or a Nazi Pride march through Warsaw, 1940. Maybe a Male Pride rally around the local YWCA. Or a Roman Army Pride march straight down the streets of Jerusalem in 42 AD — 'cause, you know, the Legion has rights too, and pride to burn.

All the equivalence in the world, except ... not.

UPDATES: (1) This comment and its replies are worth noting. (2) Also this re Neighborhood Watch.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

Romney donated $10k to organization that wanted to incite race war

I think Mr. Mitt has some explaining to do.

Secret docs show lead anti- "gay marriage" group wanted to "fan" race war

Ben Smith at Buzzfeed sums up the secret documents that he calls "explosive":

Final line I'm amazed NOM put on paper: Goal of "fanning the hostility" btw blacks and gays

This is seriously f'd up.

A "confidential" internal document of the lead anti-"gay marriage" group, the National Organization for Marriage" (NOM), shows that the organization was not simply content at taking civil rights away from gay couples, they wanted to start a political race war between black, Latino and white Democrats, and they admitted it in writing. They outright admitted that "the" top goal of the anti-"gay marriage" movement is "fanning the hostility" between blacks and white gays, and between Latinos.

Here are their own words:

"The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key..."

That last line is referring to a blow up in the gay community following Prop 8 when an exit poll showed that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans voted in favor of the anti-gay amendment. In other words, the religious right wants to fan the flames of racial hatred between blacks and whites.

They write of the black community, and Latinos, as if they're mere puppets for the religious right to manipulate. They continue:

"Consider pushing a marriage amendment in Washington, D.C."

What they mean is, DC is a majority black and Democratic town with a large gay community. They want to start a race war in the nation's capital.

This line was also particularly crude:

"Find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally."

Again, it's all about promoting a race war between blacks and whites in order to hurt gays and the Democratic party, to hell with what it does to the black community, the civil rights movement, or the future of this country.

None of this is a surprise. What is surprising is that they would put talk of fanning a race war in writing.

Here's a second document, below, and Joe has a third over at AMERICAblog Gay. We'll have much more on this tomorrow.

20100716 Doc 128b NOM Depo - Exhibit 2 - NOM Depo Exhibit 12 Nat'l Strategy for Winning 12-15-09

Geraldo Rivera: "I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as George Zimmerman was"

Geraldo Rivera took to the airwaves of FOX News Friday morning for the purpose of giving his take on the Trayvon Martin case, quickly turning it into a racially-charged tirade against hoodies:

When you see a Black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation... [Trayvon Martin] didn't deserve to die. But I bet you money, if he didn't have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn't have responded in that violent and aggressive way.

Victim-blaming in this nature is inexcusable. Rivera is arguing that if George Zimmerman in fact did act in a malicious and racially-motivated fashion his actions would be understandable because, "hey, we're ALL afraid of black kids in hoodies, right?" Apparently it's unreasonable to expect someone to resist their xenophobic impulses related to a person's clothing preference, but it's perfectly reasonable to tell kids that they should accept racism in our society and change what they wear out of fear for their safety.

Hoodies don't kill people, guns kill people. Wearing a hoodie shouldn't put your life at risk, and wearing one does NOT make you responsible for someone else's racially charged violence.

Is "white pride" inherently racist?

Sure feels like it.

There's a growing college group, Youth for Western Civilization, that, rather than being proud of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, or the Renaissance, likes to focus instead on "white pride" and "straight pride."  In my opinion, yeah, that's kind of racist.  The group argues, hey, there's Black Pride and Gay Pride, why don't they get their "pride" too.  It strikes me as a racist question, but at the same time, it's an interesting one that deserves an answer.

Why is Black Pride and Gay Pride okay whereas the other ones clearly set off our alarm bells?  To some degree, you'd have to ask a black person what they're "proud" of, and then think as to whether there's a similar "white" counterpart that doesn't come off sounding white supremacist.  Part of the problem is that I'm not convinced that American, for example, has a "white community."  We have white people.  They often live in the same community as other white people, but we don't define our community as "white."  We might attend the same church and define our community by our faith, we might define our community by our ethnic background - and be proud of both of those.  But I've never really thought of myself as a member of a white "community," nor been proud of it.

For example, I'm a member of the gay community and the Greek community.  I'm proud of my membership in both.  I define myself by my membership in both.  But I just don't think of being white the same way.  Clearly these guys do.

Having said that, gays certainly perceive the existence of a "straight community," even though straight people may not fully realize they're part of a specific community for being straight.  And I suspect that African-Americans recognize the existence of a "white community" even though most white people don't see themselves as a community simply for being white.

It's a complicated issue.  And I don't like saying that something is bigoted simply because it's feels that way.  But it does.

Thoughts?

Gingrich says nothing as man calls Obama a Muslim at campaign event

RT @SarahH_CBSNJ: Man just called Obama a Muslim at Newt's Lake Charles event...Newt does not address or correct claim.

Republican white supremacist running for N. Idaho sherrif

He says his views on race will not influence his approach to the office.  I'm sure a lot of Republicans claim the same.