The Irrelevance of Intent: McCain and Palin Benefit from Racism

THIS WEEK, John McCain and Sarah Palin – both in public and in their campaign advertisements – continued their personal assault on Barack Obama as their standings in the polls (both nationally and in battleground states) continued to nose dive. This is typical, and on its face, not particularly problematic. Irrespective of party or ideology, when one’s candidate is losing on the issues, the last resort is to turn personal. Further, the politics of personal attacks have been part of presidential campaigns throughout our history. Most recently, Republicans attacked John Kerry as unpatriotic and untrustworthy, and Democrats attacked George W. Bush as being elitist and (paradoxically?) stupid. So some of this is not new. What is new is the extent to which these personal attacks on Obama tap into racist stereotypes of African Americans as untrustworthy (Obama has been called a "liar"), dangerous and as unAmerican.

Increasingly, McCain/Palin supporters have their backs up about this, so before they deluge the “comments” section with remarks that do not take into consideration the totality of our argument, let us be perfectly clear about what we are arguing (and what we are not).

We are NOT arguing that Palin and/or McCain are being intentionally bigoted in their comments. They very well may be, but whether they are or not is irrelevant to the point we are making here. Intent is absolutely irrelevant to consideration of what has been happening over the past week on the campaign trail. Intent is relevant to judging the character of candidates, but that is not what we seek to do in this space. We are interested to read about that in other spaces, but we do not claim to “know their hearts,” as President Bush might say.

We ARE arguing that the sort of assertions that are being made have the potential of unique and magnified effect as a result of the fact that they are being made against an African American candidate.

Perhaps what is most surprising is that we are not alone in this. While we have been writing about such effects for two years in this space, the mainstream media have, by and large, refused to engage in discussions of implicit racism. News organizations have certainly pointed out blatant, explicit bigotry (such as Don Imus’s comments, Michael Richards’s tirade, Mel Gibson’s drunken comments, etc.), but have largely shied away from shedding light on messages that maintain levels of plausible deniability from the sources. That is, if the racism inherent in the message is not a “slam dunk,” the mainstream media organizations have largely stayed clear of discussing it.

And for good reason. Since white folks want to talk about “intent” incessantly, any discussion of racism ultimately deteriorates into whether this person or that person is a “racist.” There is very little utility in this.

But what we have seen THIS WEEK is the media’s willingness to engage in decoding messages that are racist. While this is happening, McCain/Palin supporters are arguing that they are “not racist,” which, again is not at all the point. It is another example of Americans talking past one another on the complex issue of race relations.

Here are some examples.

While not new, we had yet to link to the Time Magazine story about the McCain ad (below) that some have argued suggests to fundamentalist Christians that Barack Obama may be the Antichrist.



But less alarmist concerns about Obama being “not like us” continue to pervade the McCain campaign discourse, just as we predicted at the start of the Republican National Convention.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd criticized what she sees as fear mongering by the McCain team (and McCain himself) in the wake of his “that one” comment at last week’s debate and what appears to be a resurgence of the same racist strategies that were used against McCain by Bush-supporting Republicans during his run for the presidency in 2000. (More on "that one" below)

In a Salon.com article, Gary Kamiya criticizes McCain’s campaign rhetoric THIS WEEK as reverting back to the historic Republican “Southern strategy” of invoking racial resentments to win the votes of white Southerners.

In The Washington Independent, Mary Kane reports about a flier that was circulated in her neighborhood that accuses white Obama supporters of liking him because of their own white guilt.

In contrast, a colleague of Stephen’s found this flier posted around her central Ohio neighborhood. (We are not sure if the errors are in the original or came during the transfer, but the substance is what is important.)

There were other reports that McCain volunteers were circulating information about Obama being an Arab or a Muslim, as well.

People protested outside of a Hendersonville, North Carolina real estate office, which featured this message on its marquee: “Osama-Obama; Not American; Not Welcome.”


This video (below) of McCain/Palin supporters in the parking lot of a campaign event made its way around the Internet THIS WEEK. Supporters are seen to be supportive of their ticket not because of the candidates’ merits or even the legitimate concerns about Obama (or Biden), but because of Obama’s status as “other.” The length they go to rationalize their irrational positions would be amusing if it were not so scary.



Politico also had a story THIS WEEK about voter anger at McCain/Palin rallies.

Individuals at McCain/Palin events were all over the news THIS WEEK, in fact. Much attention has been paid to the fact that John McCain twice had to disagree with supporters at events: one who said he was afraid of an Obama administration, and another who called Obama “an Arab.” John McCain responded in both cases by criticizing the supporter's comments, though he was booed by the audience after he did so in the first instance.

One guy brought an Obama monkey doll to a McCain campaign event. Watch the video below.



The mainstream media jumped all over this stuff (not fast enough for some, but it is irrefutable that they brought it to light).

Time Magazine’s Peter Beinart’s article complements TWIR guest blogger Ann Fisher’s offering last week by noting that attacks against Obama’s “patriotism” are not entirely distinct from appeals to “otherness.”

CNN’s Campbell Brown has put forth a number of statements and programs exploring the degree to which race has mattered in the election generally, and in the recent McCain/Palin events specifically. But, bless her heart, Brown does not entirely get it either.

Take this statement (below) as an example. Brown acknowledges the possibility of “race baiting” at McCain/Palin rallies, but criticizes those (like Dowd) who suggest that McCain’s referring to Obama as “that one” in the second presidential debate is overreacting. It is not. Invoking the common admonition by surface-deep ABC commentator John Stossel, Brown tells us to “give [her] a break” and asks us to “be careful” – to “use our heads.” Brown implicitly refers to the conscious mind as “our head” – as always, we argue that we must dig below that to really understand what is going on.

Brown says that calling Obama “that one” is not racist because she can remember her grandfather “talking about one of his kids or his grandkids as ‘that one.’” She allows for the fact that McCain may have meant to be disrespectful, but not racist. Here’s why she’s mistaken.

First, AGAIN, intent is not the issue. We do not believe that McCain was consciously being bigoted or even necessarily trying to implicitly tap into racist predispositions among potential supporters. He was, as he has been in all of the debates, being dismissive of Obama as not ready to be president. On its own, that is a legitimate campaign strategy. But with an African American opponent, referring to him in a way that puts him in the position of one’s child or grandchild is consistent with centuries of whites treating African Americans as children. If he had called Obama “boy” (as a McCain supporter called an African American cameraman this week), Brown would not have argued that the comment was not racist. If we are focusing on intent, there is a big difference between referring to Obama as “boy” or “that one”; since intent is not the most important element, the distinction is not important.

The McCain campaign has a strategy to convince white voters that Obama is not fit to be president on a number of levels. Since experience is not an option after they chose Sarah Palin as a vice-presidential candidate, they have focused almost exclusively on the “not like us” motif.

African American member of Congress John Lewis, a veteran of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, reacted to all of these stories with a statement:

"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

Speaking of the segregationist former Alabama governor and one-time presidential candidate George Wallace, Lewis said that Wallace "never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

The McCain campaign responded with outrage, and the Obama campaign came to McCain’s defense, all of which was centered on the ridiculous notion that Lewis’s claim was about McCain’s intent. Lewis was, like we do each week, pointing out that it is not enough to be non-racist; one must be anti-racist in the face of such harmful messages. McCain himself clearly realized this at the end of the week as he began to criticize those messages at his rallies.

Watch McCain supporter U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (below), who claimed on Face the Nation Sunday morning that Lewis’s comments were “an absolute offense to people like [him].” He went on to say “[W]e’re not going to be intimidated by this playing the race card simply because Senator Obama’s record has been attacked in a very fair way.”



But John Lewis was not at all reacting to attacks on Obama’s record. He was responding to suggestions that Obama is a terrorist, which the campaign has almost solely focused on since they abandoned discussion about issues two weeks ago. When host Bob Sheiffer asked Graham if some of the comments at the McCain/Palin rallies were “over the line,” Graham responded that what was over the line was Obama’s attacks against McCain on things like stem cell research. Hey Lindsey – that’s AN ISSUE. There can be disagreement as to whether Obama misrepresented McCain on that issue, but to not understand how criticizing an issue is not the same as implying that one’s opponent is sympathetic to terrorists is an alarming display of either stupidity or disingenuousness.

In contrast to all of this is an op-ed by Michael Cohen of The New American Foundation, who basically argues that if race matters at all, it will be in a way that benefits Obama. He says concerns about the way race implicitly biases white voters against Obama are “wildly overstated.”

Ok, Mike. Whatever you say. The examples we list above are surely just anomalies. Very few people really think like this.

How does that sand taste?

We leave you THIS WEEK with a grim prediction that we hope is not realized: the McCain/Palin events will become more heated and racial over the coming days. Someone will be caught using the n-word; someone will be caught with an Obama doll in a noose. Those actions cannot fairly be argued to be reflective of the candidates or the campaigns, but it is important to ask, as John Lewis has, why those folks feel comfortable saying and doing such things at McCain/Palin events. Remember, when McCain chastised the man for saying he was afraid of Obama, McCain was booed. In contrast, when Obama gave McCain credit for doing so, the crowd cheered. This is not to say that no Obama supporters are overly angry or out of control, but neither is it fair to merely say that “both sides have their wackos.”

The hatred is very lopsided here, and it is the responsibility of John McCain (and to a lesser extent Sarah Palin) to vociferously condemn such ideas, not just the actions. If they do, they risk putting a damper on the excitement they have stirred up among their most conservative and less educated supporters (we do not mean to imply any degree of overlap between those categories, by the way); if they do not, they will continue to alienate moderates that they will need to win the presidency.

Here Comes the Scum

It is about to get nasty. With John McCain slipping quickly in the polls (both nationally and in key states – McCain’s campaign announced THIS WEEK that they were conceding Michigan), we are bracing for the most racially-charged rhetoric and advertisements to surface in the coming days and weeks.

Here is what to look for:

1. We certainly haven’t seen the end of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Since the high-profile release of snippets of selected sermons by Rev. Wright this spring, there has been almost no mention of him in the mainstream press. But conservative radio hosts bring him up all the time, so it is virtually certain that ads will surface that attempt to link Barack Obama to the incendiary remarks by Obama's former pastor. The plausible deniability of racism here is that it is Wright’s radical position, not his race, that makes him (and Obama’s association with him) scary. Wright’s radical positions, though, are based on theories of racial oppression and black liberation theology. Since that is not understood or endorsed by most of white America, and because it will highlight Obama’s “blackness,” the result is an effective prime of white fears and resentment about the potential policies of a black president. These concerns are reinforced by the fact that even though Obama does not espouse similar beliefs, a stereotype of African Americans is that they are shifty and untrustworthy, so it will be easy for white Americans to believe that Obama is simply being deceitful.
2. Look for associations of Barack Obama with former member of the Weathermen Underground William Ayers. Even though Ayers is white, there are racial undercurrents to Obama’s relationship with him because portraying a black candidate as “a radical,” “out of the mainstream,” or “extremely liberal” has been an effective mechanism for priming racial resentment in biracial campaigns over the past twenty years. Add to this ostensibly race-neutral (but very racially-infused) terms such as “street agitator” and “thug” (both used by Rush Limbaugh), Obama will be portrayed as “dangerous,” which plays into the stereotype of the dangerous black man that has been cultivated over the past 400 years in America.
3. While it is possible that the first two items might come primarily or exclusively from 527 groups and the Republican Party, expect the McCain campaign to hammer home a broader theme about Obama that “he’s just not like us.” Part of that will focus on policy differences (which are largely non-racial), but a large part of the strategy will also be suggestions that he is at once too black (he is liberal, he cannot be trusted, he associates himself with shady people) and elitist (he has contempt for fundamentalist Christians, he is not in touch with common people because of his Hollywood connections and Ivy League education, he has shown a disregard for American troops in battle, he is getting a pass from the “liberal elite” media while McCain and Palin are continually grilled over irrelevant issues like having seven homes or being unable to name one Supreme Court case).

The real question will be the degree to which these racist attacks will be effective. Remember that the most powerful defense against “stealth,” "implicit" or “dog whistle” racist appeals is pointing out the inherent racism in the appeals. When moderate and progressive whites realize that their deep-seated racism is being activated, the result is usually the reverse of what would be the case if consciousness is not heightened, with folks pushing against the discomfort of the realization. In this case, though, Republicans have learned from the Clintons’ strategy from the nominating contests and will accuse Obama and his surrogates of “playing the race card” when they point out the racism. Because the most dangerous thing for Obama in the remaining weeks is being seen as “the black candidate,” he can hardly afford the risk. We expect that Obama himself will avoid mentioning race at all in the coming weeks (unless there is a direct question asked of him in an interview or a debate), leaving the spotlight shining to surrogates and media analysts. Because of Republican efforts to equate the media with the Obama campaign proper, though, there will still be plenty of fodder for accusations of Obama playing the race card, which, as noted above, will be a consistent element in McCain’s attacks.

Bias Against the Young?
Tuesday is the next presidential debate, moderated by Tom Brokaw in a town-hall format. We expect that the folks who believed that Gwen Ifill could not be objective in her role as the vice-presidential debate moderator because she’s finishing a book on African American politicians will be equally vigilant about arguing that Brokaw, who wrote a best seller about “the greatest generation” will not be able to be fair toward the 40-something Obama in a debate with the 70-something McCain. Unless the attacks were more about African Americans not being able to resist helping each other at the expense of whites (or otherwise being cheaters) instead of the issue of the book. Hmmmm.

Stephen on the Move
Stephen will be making several appearances next in October. All are open to the public (with the exception of the October 24 event), so if one or more is in your area, please stop by and say hello. All times are local.

• Monday October 6: “Race in the 2008 Elections,” Perkins Auditorium, Penn State University—Berks, 6:00 p.m.
• Wednesday October 8: “Race and Politics” (panel), ATC Auditorium, Elgin Community College (Elgin, IL), 12:15 p.m. Lunch provided, though reservations required by 10/4/08. RSVP to Joyce Fountain, 847-214-7534 or jfountain@elgin.edu
• Friday October 24: “The 2008 Presidential Elections,” St. Mary’s Cathedral third grade classes (Lafayette, IN)
• Tuesday October 28: “Fairytales, Radicals and Crooks: The Role of Race in the 2008 Presidential Election,” Hart Chapel, Clarion University of Pennsylvania (time TBA)

Breaking News: Republicans Support Affirmative Action (Sorta)

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin might be an excellent choice for vice-president of the United States. While it might seem a stretch to consider that Palin could be president if the Republican ticket is elected and something happens to McCain, our attention THIS WEEK is centered on the choice itself.

Palin was clearly chosen because she is a woman. She’s not just any woman, of course, but neither is she the most qualified conservative available. Still, she is a good choice to energize the far right, who have been less-than-enthusiastic about John McCain. Palin is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and a creationist. Folks on the far right who may very well have stayed home on November 4 are likely to come out now. They may be more inclined to organize and volunteer for McCain in a way they might not have if he would have chosen Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman or even Mitt Romney. For all of these reasons, McCain has raised his raw number of votes for the general election. The question now is how many independents will revert to Obama since the Republican ticket looks more conservative than it did three days ago.

From the Republican perspective, independents will be attracted to the ticket because Palin is a proven reformer. She fought against her own party (thank goodness that Ted Stevens is now a punching bag for Republicans!), and she and her husband have ties to unions. It is clear that Americans want change, and the Republicans have put together a ticket that is designed to offer that change: a “maverick” Republican senator and a little-known woman (and that’s important) who has not always toed the party line all.

The choice of a woman for vice-president is not, as many have argued, designed to woo Hillary Clinton supporters. It was clear in Denver last week – at least for the first two days – that Clinton supporters were still angry over Obama’s nomination. But Karl Rove and McCain strategists are not stupid enough to think that Clinton supporters would vote for McCain simply because he chose a woman as a vice-presidential candidate. Most of those supporters have no policy congruence with Palin (or McCain), and they are no more likely to stay home on election day now than they were before Palin was chosen.

What Palin offers (besides appealing to the far right) is an opportunity for white voters to feel good about their ability to help make history without voting for Obama. The “history” motif is now not exclusively the domain of the Democrats. Palin will be the second woman nominated for vice-president by a major party (and the first Republican), and she would be the first female vice-president. But many of those who wish to see the political glass ceiling shattered are not willing to see it happen by someone whose policies are not in line with their interests – especially because Palin has virtually no experience, and she is not on the top of the ticket.

The tradeoff for the Republicans is that they no longer will be able to argue that Obama’s experience is an issue in the campaign. Or will they? On ABC News’s This Week, Senator Lindsey Graham argued that Palin is more prepared to be president than Barack Obama. That argument is going to be difficult to make.

What has yet to be discussed is the fact that the choice of Palin cuts against conservative ideology. For conservatives, meritocracy is the call of the day. Ignoring elements of a racist and patriarchal culture that makes it difficult for women and persons of color to compete with white males, conservatives argue that hard work trumps disadvantage, and that the person with the best qualifications should get the job. It would be very difficult to argue that Palin was the most qualified individual for this position. In short, she is an affirmative action pick. One of the reasons that her resume is thinner than that of other possible choices is that she is a woman and a mother. In a culture that places disproportionate childcare responsibilities on women, men are able to rise in their professions much more quickly. Woman are paid less, promoted less often, and perceived as less competent than men. Her gender has been a hindrance to her advancement. But will the Republicans call out Obama supporters on their inherent sexism when they question Palin’s qualifications?

It’s not likely. They’ve got no credibility on the issue since such an argument is contrary to their philosophy. But we will see them accuse Obama supporters of being sexist. Count on it.
Similar to the way Geraldine Ferraro accused the Obama camp of “playing the race card” when they called out Ferraro’s racism, the McCain folks will certainly accuse Obama supporters of being sexist when they point out that Palin was primarily chosen because she is a woman.

So here we go. Let’s keep an eye on the doublespeak that will be coming out of the Republican Convention this week. They will seek to have it both ways: they are against affirmative action when it is convenient, and they are for it when it is convenient. From where we sit, they should be for it all the time. Having a female vice-president would, indeed, be an important step toward equality between the sexes. Her lack of experience is certainly related to her gender. She will be treated unfairly as a result of her gender (watch for comments about her attractiveness, her attire, her voice, investigations into her sex life, etc.). The Republicans will use this reality to criticize Obama supporters’ attacks of Palin, even though they have dismissed similar criticisms in the past.

The result will be a muddying of the water with respect to who is standing for the ordinary American, who is on the side of history, and who is the candidate of change. The game for Obama, then, will be sorting it all out in a way that the American public can digest it. The game for McCain will be continuing to keep things confusing so that the choice for change is not so clear. McCain needs to convince voters in key states that he and Palin are simultaneously dedicated to the right and willing to fight the right when the situation arises. If they are able to pull it off, they will win in November. At this point, though, it’s still a long shot.

It's Time

Stephen will be blogging for the next four weeks from Princeton University, where he is teaching Campaigns and Elections for the Junior State of America summer school program.

Six attempts. There were six previous attempts to post this blog. The number of relevant stories as the week continued to unfold made it impossible to feel satisfied that we’d addressed what we needed to. At the bottom of this entry are links to a number of other stories that deserve our time and attention. There’s simply too much to cover.

Sunday’s Washington Post, however, provided the material that forced us to stop and think about what a truly unique time in our nation’s history we find ourselves. The time to have the most meaningful discussion of race relations in America is not only opportune, but is, we argue below, imperative. At the risk of sounding alarmist, we are at a juncture at which continual navel-gazing, avoidance, and shifting the burden will result in dire consequences for our democratic system. Here’s why.

There were two prominent stories in yesterday’s Post. The first reported the results of a new poll that shows three in ten Americans admit feelings of racial prejudice. There are always many ways to look at numbers, but this finding is nothing short of shocking. It is not shocking that 30% of Americans have racial bias – far more than that do. The number is alarming for two reasons.

First, it surprising that three in ten Americans recognize that they have racial prejudice. We certainly do not see numbers anywhere close to that in informal polling of our own students. Do three of every ten folks you talk to admit to racial prejudice? Given the culture of acceptance and tolerance that has characterized American conscious political culture over the past four decades, it is quite surprising that this many respondents were aware of their own biases.

Secondly, it is surprising that even if folks realize their own biases that they are willing to admit it to survey administrators, even anonymously. It has been very difficult to gain an accurate measure of “racism” (defined numerous ways), and social scientists have consistently assumed that the numbers generated by surveys were low. It is similar to the difficulty of ascertaining the persistence of sexually transmitted diseases without access to medical records. Folks just are reluctant to admit to that which they understand to be socially unacceptable.

The situation becomes dire as we examine the gap in perceptions of race relations between whites and blacks:

Overall, 51 percent call the current state of race relations "excellent" or "good," about the same as said so five years ago. That is a relative thaw from more negative ratings in the 1990s, but the gap between whites and blacks on the issue is now the widest it has been in polls dating to early 1992.

More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as "not so good" or "poor," while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination. There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

John Edwards has been often criticized for being divisive by noting that there are “two Americas,” but the more we acknowledge that perceptions of common circumstances between men and women, middle-class and poor, black and white, etc., the more we must admit that we are not living in one common America, no matter how much we wish to be.

What is not surprising are the results of a Post poll last month that found that nine in ten whites would be comfortable with the idea of a black president. (We should be surprised that one in ten admitted discomfort.) Yesterday’s Post story goes on to report, however, that more than half of whites called Obama a “risky” choice for president, while 2/3 saw McCain as a safe pick. While it would be foolish to dismiss the public’s familiarity with McCain, particularly when compared to Obama, it is also hard to imagine that there is not some “substitution” going on. That is, folks tend to evaluate consciously on criteria that are ostensibly unrelated to race, even though historically such characteristics are very much connected to racial stereotypes. A similar scenario exists with gender bias: women are not promoted as often as men to top corporate jobs because they lack characteristics of strong leadership – characteristics that are often associated with males. In other words: Obama is risky because he’s shifty and hates America, not because he’s black, but we “know” that blacks are untrustworthy and are angry at America because they haven’t “made it” at the same rate as whites.

Adding yet another twist to our concern is a corollary article that appeared in Sunday’s Post. Eli Saslow reports on the increased interest and membership in white supremacist groups in recent weeks (since Obama secured the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination).

"I haven't seen this much anger in a long, long time," said Billy Roper, a 36-year-old who runs a group called White Revolution in Russellville, Ark. "Nothing has awakened normally complacent white Americans more than the prospect of America having an overtly nonwhite president."

Another supremacist activist said,

"I get nonstop e-mails and private message from new people who are mad as hell about the possibility of Obama being elected," said [Don] Black, a white power activist since the 1970s. "White people, for a long time, have thought of our government as being for us, and Obama is the best possible evidence that we've lost that. This is scaring a lot of people who maybe never considered themselves racists, and it's bringing them over to our side."

And yet another admitted the following:

"Our side does better when the public is being pressured, when gas prices are high, when housing is bad, when a black man might be president," said Ron Doggett, who runs a white power group called EURO in Richmond. "People start looking for solutions and changes, and we offer radical changes to what's going on."

And what good is an article on white supremacy and politics without a quote from David Duke?

"One person put it this way: Obama for president paves the way for David Duke as president," said Duke, who ran for president in 1988, received less than 1 percent of the vote and has since spent much of his time in Europe. "This is finally going to make whites begin to realize it's a necessity to stick up for their own heritage, and that's going to make them turn to people like me. We're the next logical step."

So here is how we see it:

• Americans who consciously subscribe to racial equality have long ignored their subconscious racial bias because they are overtly egalitarian (e.g., have black friends, don’t use the n-word, etc.).

• Barack Obama’s candidacy has capitalized on this “norm of racial equality” (see Tali Mendelberg’s work) to form a coalition of progressive whites and African Americans at a time when most Americans are ready for “change.”

• Obama’s nomination will signal to whites who have resisted arguments about continuing systemic oppression against blacks that they were right all along. If black folks just worked harder, such folks will reason, they could achieve anything whites could achieve; and Obama’s nomination is proof of it. (They tried to point this out in the 1980s when the Huxtables from Bill Cosby’s popular television show had “made it!” And Colin Powell? Condoleeza Rice? Clarence Thomas? Hello?! Pay attention, people!!).

• This realization of achieved racial equality will serve to attract more whites to the idea that racial minorities are unfairly advantaged in America by a government that ignores the needs of whites. Under such circumstances (i.e., perceived equal political footing amongst whites and blacks), more whites will feel justified in fighting for “their” rights like black leaders have been doing.

At the end of last week, Barack Obama predicted in a speech that Republicans would use his race against him in the campaign:

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me: 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"'

Several news organizations questioned whether he had “crossed the line” by mentioning this (CNN’s Anderson Cooper, for instance). In truth, it has already been shown that Obama’s opponents (of both parties) are willing to draw upon racial prejudices to try to defeat him. His attempt to inoculate against it was predicted by our research findings of congressional communication involving black candidates. (See Obama’s latest ad where he emphasizes being raised on values such as self-reliance and making no excuses, as well as other values that white Americans tend to not associate with African Americans.) He wants to head it off and call attention to it because doing so has been shown to minimize (or reverse) the effects of implicitly racist messages.

As scholars dedicated to educating about power inequalities and the way our use of language can contribute to or challenge those differences, we see a moment in time that we cannot let pass. We are at a very crucial crossroads – not the first and probably not the last, but crucial nonetheless.

In addition to our scholarly work together, we are each embarking on more accessible projects separately to seize this moment and engage as many people as possible in honest and meaningful dialogue about race. We will be available throughout the fall to speak at colleges and universities (as we have for several years), civic group meetings and wherever else we are invited. We will continue to contribute to the broader discussion in this space, and we will continue to make ourselves available to media to facilitate discussions as events unfold.

If you agree (and we recognize that all of our readers do not – we are grateful for your attention, as well), we encourage you to share this blog and others that address similar topics, read as much as you can by the folks who comprise our scholarly base (Dyson, West, hooks, Patricia Williams, etc.), and talk to as many folks as you can.

This is not about electing Barack Obama. That’s a political decision that revolves around more than race. Our immediate concern is to take advantage of this crucial time in our national discourse to be clear about what we are really dealing with in America. When we launched The Project on Race in Political Communication in the summer of 2001, we did not expect to be faced with such a scenario so quickly. Win or lose, Obama’s run has provided us with this opportunity. The time is right to do our part.



Here are the other stories that deserve our attention. We are sorry that we are unavailable to discuss them all, but we encourage you to post your comments about any of them below.

Obama volunteers ban Muslim women from behind-the-podium position

In a testament to the reality that Obama’s campaign has to deal with in terms of people either believing he is a Muslim publicly or secretly, staffers engaged in the inexcusable last week in Detroit, keeping two women wearing the traditional hijab head scarf from sitting behind the podium, since folks in those positions often appear in media clips of the candidate’s speech. This is certainly not behavior befitting of a campaign that expects to be representative of all Americans, including minority groups.

In a related story, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg told a Jewish group in Florida to disregard rumors that Obama is Muslim.

New York Mets baseball team manager Willie Randolph fired in the middle of the night

Besides the fact that Randolph is black, this firing wouldn’t warrant attention in our blog. However, last month, Randolph gave an interview where he wondered aloud whether he was being treated differently by the Mets organization because he is black. See interesting discussion on this issue by William Rhoden, JonGee and “The East Coast Bias.”

Obama eschews public financing

Most Americans probably didn’t even realize that general election campaigns for president have been fully funded by tax money since the 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance reform laws were enacted. Obama will be the first major party candidate to elect to raise his own money (and therefore not be subject to spending limits for the period between the Democratic National Convention and the general election in November). Those who have pushed for more equality in elections have long advocated public funding as a remedy to the interest-group-soaked fundraising that takes place in other campaigns and in presidential nominating contests. For them, Obama’s decision will be of great disappointment. For his part, Obama claimed that the public financing system put him at a disadvantage because Republicans were better poised to take advantage of loopholes in the existing law (that John McCain famously co-wrote and pushed through Congress).

Sock Obama monkey doll gets sacked

Stephen’s colleague, psychologist Heather Coon, alerted us to a short-lived controversy by a Utah-based company that planned to manufacture sock monkey dolls in support of Obama’s candidacy. After a day or so of vociferous complaints, the company scrapped the plans and offered a curious apology, claiming that they were too naïve to know that there was any history of linking Africans and African Americans to monkeys as a source of dehumanization. Though the original page is down, you can read Andrew Sullivan’s pre-apology blog on the subject (which includes a picture of the doll), as well as an interesting article by Kyle E. Moore on racial iconography generally.

Mountains and Molehills

A particularly bright and insightful person asked us this week if we found the criticism over Hillary Clinton’s latest racist slip to undermine the Obama campaign’s stated intention to be a different kind of campaign – that is, one that does not seek to magnify every slip by an opposing candidate. It’s a point worthy of consideration.

First, as our friend recognizes, spending time analyzing Clinton’s comments in this space is not the same as the Obama campaign making political hay out of it. Our job, as we see it, is to provide some perspective that our readers may not have gleaned from the mainstream media or from their own analysis. In fact, most of the criticism of Clinton’s comments about “hard working Americans, white Americans” from this past week came from media pundits and bloggers rather from the Obama campaign itself.

Second, it is one thing to capitalize on an isolated “slip” and quite another to point out a communicative act that is indicative of a trend in one’s campaign. Clinton’s remarks clearly fall into the latter category. In the context of “fairy tales,” MLK needing a white politician to accomplish something, Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina, praise for black men who know their proper place, and Geraldine Ferraro’s suggestion of affirmative action in the presidential race, the latest comment carries more substantive weight than what Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe offered on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

First, let’s take a look at McAuliffe’s explanation of Clinton’s comments. We will then go back to the original statement to see if we can accept it as valid.

When Russert played the audio clip of Clinton’s remarks and asked about it, here was McAuliffe’s initial response:

First of all, Tim, as you know, she was quoting an AP story. In fairness, she was quoting what had been written in the AP. Both candidates have put together terrific coalitions. What Hillary was talking about is the coalitions that she has been able to put together that has allowed her to win Texas and Ohio, a lot of working-class folks have come out. I'm not saying that Senator Obama can't win that at the end of the day. But, you know, we have been both proud of what we have brought to this table. . .

At this point, McAuliffe continued his rationalization for Clinton staying in the race, deflecting the substance of the question. One might notice, however, that besides falsely putting the words in the metaphorical mouth of the Associated Press, McAuliff did not at all address the questions about racism implicit in the answer. Russert pressed:

But when she uses a phrase, “hardworking Americans, white Americans,” Mayor Willie Brown, San Francisco…she's saying that white Americans are hardworking Americans. A lot of African-Americans took great offense at that.

To which McAuliffe responded:

Yeah. Well, and that's not what she meant. And she was quoting the AP story and could--literally, nobody has worked harder, as you know, than President Clinton... Tim, listen, both Clintons have worked their whole life on civil rights issues; Hillary, her entire life, has been working on issues, on education, on health care. They both have been out there fighting hard. This is the end of a long campaign.

And back to rationalizing her continued presence in the campaign. McAuliffe fails to offer exactly what she did mean. She was NOT quoting the AP story, and the old “I have supported equal rights for black folks all my life” argument has nothing to do with the fact that she clearly implicitly associates “hard-working” with whites. This is consistent with a study conducted in 1990 by Linda Williams, where she found that whites in her study tended to attribute positive characteristics such as “intelligent,” “strong leader,” “knowledgeable,” “hard-working,” “gets things done,” “experienced,” and “trustworthy” more often to white candidates than to black candidates. Further, it is consistent with all of the work that has come from the Implicit Associations research at Harvard (go here to take the Implicit Associations Test yourself to see your level of subconscious bias).

And hold on a sec: "literally, nobody has worked harder than President Clinton. . .on civil rights issues." Is he serious? LITERALLY. So Bill Clinton has worked harder on civil rights than Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Angela Davis, Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisolm, Al Sharpton -- Barack Obama, even! We have one of two possibilities here: 1) McAuliff really thinks that Bill Clinton has "literally" worked harder for civil rights than each of these people, or 2) McAuliff meant that he worked harder than any other white person, which, besides being highly arguable, is further indicative of the notion that his reference point is whites and whites only (he'll let us know if he's including people of color when he speaks of "anyone").

In any case, Tim Russert stayed on point:

Here's a report from the New York Post: "Hillary Rodham Clinton played the race card as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who can't win support from `white Americans.' ... The `white Americans' remark drew a swift rebuke from some superdelegates, and private dismay from several Democratic" party "officials who said they're concerned about reuniting the factionalized party. Muriel Offerman, a North Carolina superdelegate who has not disclosed her choice, said: `That should not have been said. I think it drives a wedge, a racial wedge, that's not what the Democratic Party's about.' ... Massachusetts [undeclared] superdelegate Debra Kozikowski said: `That's distressing. ... I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I'd like to think that it was not intended to be what it sounds" "but... it" "sounds like trying to split the country down the middle.'" Those are undeclared superdelegates responding to Hillary comments about race.

Uh oh. How is McAuliffe going to respond to all of THAT? How ‘bout with:

And you know what? I can put up 30, 40 more superdelegates who will say, you know, talk about what the Clintons have done on the race issue. First of all, I hate that even race is even in the--we should not have it. We shouldn't have race, we shouldn't have gender. We ought to talk about who can do the best job uniting this country, moving us forward, dealing with health care, getting our troops out of Iraq fast and safe, creating jobs, dealing with the mortgage crisis. That's what this campaign has been about, in fairness. We had 23 total debates through the process, a lot of issues being discussed and let's make sure we stay back focused on the issues.

Ok, so let’s make sure we’re clear here. If you know people who think what she said is racist, but I know people who think it’s not, it’s a wash and therefore not racist. Got it.

Most important, though, the white guy wishes race wasn’t an issue. How nice. How novel! “We shouldn’t have it,” he says. “Can’t we just forget about this whole messy race stuff – it makes me so uncomfortable to have to deal with the realities of racial inequality and the fact that my candidate is garnering support by tapping into existing racial animosity (the type “antipathy” for folks unlike themselves that Obama was so criticized for noting last month in San Francisco).”

Finally, McAuliffe argues at the end of this statement that we should be sure to “stay back focused on the issues.” By this, we presume, he means issues such as those he just mentioned above. But he didn’t just say THOSE issues, he called those issues, THE issues, which means that he does not think race IS an issue – not only that it he wishes that it weren’t. In other words, “people” are trying to make this an issue when it is not. And who are those “people?” Not the hard working white Americans, of course – they, like the rest of us, are ostensibly past race and view everyone equally.

McAuliff’s argument is deflective and insulting to anyone who cares about racial injustice as a real and important issue facing America. But more than that, he is off mark from what Clinton actually said. Let’s take it apart. Here is the quote:

There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working--hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. ... I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.

It is very important for us to listen to her comments, not just read them. (Again, you can do that here). Listen for when Clinton 1) interrupts herself (to make a correction) and 2) uses a vocalized pause to buy some time to think.

1) She interrupts herself after “working” to change it to “hard working.” Why the importance of the modifier? The suggestion is that she’s not being supported by all Americans who have jobs (who “work”) but by those who work “hard,” which implies jobs that require physical labor or repetition and do not pay particularly well. These jobs are most often held by Americans without college degrees. She is absolutely correct that she has been doing well in part of this demographic – whites who meet these qualifications. But there is a disproportionate amount African Americans who are without college degrees and are therefore “hard working” and she has not gotten their support (though she has done well with Latinos of all economic groups). So the interruption and clarification helps to narrow down the base of her support, distancing her from the so-called “intellectual elites” that make up a portion of Obama’s base.

2) But the second clarification comes as she wrestles – as so many of us do (Ever notice how when white folks talk about “blacks” or “African Americans” they often say those words quieter than the rest of the sentence?) – with how to insert race into the conversation. One can hear her hesitation as she flips through her mental Rolodex to see if there is another word or phrase to convey the same message: “. . .and how the, you know, whites. . .” The “you know” here is not a question, but a vocalized pause that at once affords her an opportunity to search for a substitute and brings the listener into her thought process by using second person “you.” By stating that we “know,” she implies that it is factual. “Everyone knows they’re white, so I’m not a bad person for bringing it up.”

So while it is true that harping on a small “slip” is the sort of politics-as-usual that the Obama campaign has emphasized (and that millions have embraced), this incident does not fall into that category. She has talked about this particular racial dimension of the contest since the Texas and Ohio primaries. Her surrogates have used it a number of times since her support among African Americans slipped (the Iowa caucuses). There is a clear pattern that demonstrates that no matter how much Clinton and her husband, the former president, may have “worked” for issues of concern to African Americans, she is not somehow above racism anymore than the rest of us. What we hoped would have been different, however, is that she recognized that and worked hard to avoid using it to her political advantage.

Three research assistants from The Project on Race in Political Communication presented original social science research at North Central College’s annual Rall Symposium for Undergraduate Research this week. We present their paper titles and abstracts below.

The RaceProject welcomes undergraduate and graduate students who wish to get hands-on research experience working on issues of race, politics and language. Interested students should contact either of us by visiting the RaceProject main page.

The Digital “Hood”: Effects of Racial Priming on Online Argumentation

Mark Jenkins

Recent research on online argumentation primarily centers on the outcomes produced by the discussion. There has been a push to explore the potential effect on an individual’s civic participation as a result of having access to new media sources. Democracy is believed to be weakened by the threat of selective exposure and the lack of concrete identity in the online world. However, there have been few studies that have looked at this issue through a racial lens. By using Daniel Canary’s Manual for Coding Conversational Argument (1989) and viewing racial and political content on the new media source YouTube, I examine basic and often unfiltered arguments between individuals to gauge the level of racial discourse in an online forum of a user-submitted video featuring 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

“George Bush Doesn’t Care about Black People”: An Analysis of the Presidents Who Did “Care” about Black Americans

Ann Fisher

Of the forty-two presidents whom Americans have elected into office, only seven have made executive orders or proclamations with the attempt of advancing African Americans in American society (Lincoln, F. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, L. Johnson, and Nixon).I do not examine what these presidents did to enhance the lives of African Americans, rather what they could have done to have an even greater effect on racial equality. Using scholarly literature from race theory, psychology of leadership, racial communication and public opinion, I examine environmental constraints, options available to presidents, and ultimately, action. The result will be a greater understanding of the reasons for the statistical inequality within the United States and the role American presidents have played.

Ethical Ideology Influences Judgment of Employees Returning from FMLA Leave

Elizabeth Konrad

The current research examines how employees who take FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) are perceived by their manager upon return from leave. The FMLA was enacted to allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave after the birth of a child or to care for a sick child or parent. In this study, we look at how the ethical position of the manager, as measured by Forsyth’s (1980) EPQ, impacts how the employee is perceived. Participants in this study were asked to imagine that they were responsible for a firm during a critical time. They were told they had an employee who needed leave and were asked to evaluate that employee upon return from leave. The results indicate that individuals with low relativism and high idealism scores were the most negative in their evaluations, particularly when organizational problems occurred in their absence.

Additionally, Gwen Bowman, another RaceProject research assistant, participated in the Rall recitals of student scholarship.

Ballade by Albert Perilhou

Albert Perilhou was born in 1846 and died in 1936. He was a French composer and one of his most famous pieces is “Ballade,” composed in 1903. Ballade is French for ballad. A musical ballad is a piece with one movement which includes dramatic and lyrical narrative qualities. In fact, medieval ballads generally featured an upper voice and two lower voices. This theme is reflected during the Allegro sections the very expressive runs spanning the range of the flute. The beginning of the piece starts out in a slow Lento section. The introduction is very dramatic, further echoing the qualities of a ballad. The transition into the Allegro section is very abrupt. The Lento sections are song-like, with a distinctive melody. This melody from the beginning Lento section can be heard throughout each phrase, and the melody returns at the end.