Much has been made about whether Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama played "the race card" in a series of press-filtered exchanges that included analogy to Martin Luther King, Jr. and former President Lyndon B. Johnson. During MSNBC's Las Vegas debate on Tuesday—which, interestingly enough, was supposed to focus on Black and Brown issues—hosts Tim Russert and Brian Williams spent substantial air time pressing Obama and Clinton on a supposed "race war." John Edwards—whose media attention managed to diminish even further as the press salivated over the race bout—was finally invited to weigh in:
"What is a white male to do running against these historic candidacies?" one viewer wanted to know.
(Brian Williams later celebrated the historic diversity of the candidates by giving voice to internet-circulated conspiracy theories about Obama.)
The thing is, nothing about Hillary Clinton invoking the partnership of King and Johnson was racist. Racial politics is real (Haley Barbour helped invent its modern usage, in the Southern Strategy), and its ugly, not-too-distant history makes mincemeat out of Clinton's reasonable Civil Rights analogy. There's a difference between "fanning the flames" about the indignities of racism—something the media has an obligation to do—and manufacturing scandal out of campaign fodder.
So far, the media has done plenty of the latter, without paying much attention to the former. But the 2008 Campaign has indeed exposed genuine racism, sexism and intolerance. Not surprisingly, most of it has been on the side of the Republicans.
Here are a few of the worst examples:
-In a scramble to appear tougher-than-thou on immigration, Mike Huckabee signed a pledge of "no amnesty" with the anti-immigrant group NumbersUSA, whose ties to eugenics I've written about in the past. NumbersUSA now rates Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney as having "excellent" stances on immigration—while giving John McCain a rating of "abysmal" for refusing to accept those candidates' proposal for massive deportation.
-Amidst the typical flurry of anonymous attack ads, one South Carolina political hopeful put his name on an overtly racist commercial aimed at Sen. Lindsay Graham (who is currently campaigning for McCain). The ad, a swipe at Graham's support for McCain's immigration bill, features images of border patrol police arresting Latino families, while salsa music plays in the background and Latino actors thank Graham in Spanish. It begins with, "To see this message in English, press 1." Other than "Lou Dobbs Tonight," it's probably the most hateful anti-Latino propaganda I've seen aired on T.V.
-In an interview with BeliefNet, Huckabee equated homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. By the way, this is the former governor of Arkansas—not, you know, a 12-year-old kid who doesn't know any better:
Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.Well, I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic.
-Probably the most horrifying revelation so far in the campaign is that Ron Paul—a hero to anti-war progressives, libertarians and fringe anti-government groups—authored, or at least edited, a newsletter that for decades espoused anti-Semetic, racist, and anti-gay rhetoric. His excuse that he didn't know about the content of a newsletter that bore his name is pathetic.
From the New Republic investigative piece:
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
Ironically, one of the issues Paul lists on his Web site is racism. He writes there, "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism." This line of thinking, common among white supremacists and others who bemoan the absence of a "White History Month," seeks to hide the horrors of our past, and the often race-based realities of the present. Paul's solution—of choosing "liberty" over racial identity—is clearly rooted in hateful thinking. After hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow, and systematic oppression, race cannot be ignored. The media's duty to report this reality, though, is no excuse for its distortion of a "race war" among candidates. In fact, the press' manipulation of presupposed racial tension, in this instance, is a disservice to the civil-rights leaders who sought to bring attention to the real problem of race in this country.
Having a black candidate in this race has both exposed bigotries and, to a small degree, righted them. The fact that a substantial number of American have voted for a black man, and a woman, to lead this country says that we've come a long way. But, we must avoid exploiting Obama's race, and Clinton's gender, while still holding accountable the candidates who pander to hate and fear. Last I checked, Obama's message was something more positive than that.
Previous Commentsshow
What's this?More like this story
More stories by this author
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.