This Week’s Non-Racists: Michael Richards and Clint Eastwood

Much of the discussion of race in America this week has centered on ex-Seinfeld star Michael Richards’s (“Kramer”) tirade against an African American heckler at a comedy club. Few would disagree that it was offensive, uncalled for, and embarrassing. But our concern is primarily the way that Richards apologized.

In the same fashion as outed “racists” before him (see our discussion of Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, for example), Richards claimed during his satellite appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman (arranged by Jerry Seinfeld), “I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.” Once again, it’s another missed opportunity to talk about the roots of racism in America. Of course he’s racist. As we’ve noted before, if racism is understood as a system of beliefs that we are socialized to accept (consciously or otherwise), none of us is clear of that label. He means, of course, that under normal circumstances he’s not a bigot, and he wishes not to be racist. Running from the label is a large part of the reason that we cannot deal with race honestly.

That’s not to say that Richards didn’t try. It was clear from his appearance on The Late Show that he was personally shaken and that he had spent the days since the event reflecting on his own racism (even though he denies the label, conflating it with overt bigotry). At one point, he acknowledges the wider racial problems in America, and even expresses concern about the implications of his behavior. He astutely notes the irony that, at the time of his outburst, his colleagues were in Las Vegas and New Orleans raising money through Comic Relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina (who are disproportionately black). “And yet it’s said, it comes through, it fires out of me,” Richards laments. He clearly understands that it’s something that is present in our subconscious, available to be made visible in times of stress.

Paul Haggis’s film Crash illustrates this point nicely. In our sober moments, we are careful to suppress what we believe to be “bad” or “wrong” or “unjust” or “unfair” negative racial predispositions. But when we’re sleep deprived or intoxicated or angry or frightened or get cut off in traffic or are being heckled at a comedy club, that latent hatred and hostility that has been programmed into us may surface. When pushed by Letterman about what he can do besides apologize, Richards responded, “I have to do personal work.” He’s not alone in that, but he is exceptional – at least at this moment – in the sense that he realizes that he has personal work to do.

But here’s the problem: Jerry Seinfeld and David Letterman typically missed an opportunity to take the issue away from Richards – whose real crime was to be caught allowing his racism to surface (most of us get away with it because no one has a video camera in our car when we accuse the person in the car next to us of Driving While Asian) – and focus it on the wider issues of systemic racism. Richards clumsily tried to do it by making a larger point about where the “rage” comes from. He mentioned that there was a parallel between a white comic raging against a black heckler and America raging against another nation. Letterman interrupted him to ask him what would have happened if the hecklers had been white. What a stupid question! What does he think would have happened? Does he think Richards would have referred to the white hecklers with the “n” word? Again, we see the American tendency to individualize the behavior, rather than linking it to a larger tendency that is racism (as opposed to bigotry). By leaving it on Richards’s shoulders, we let ourselves off the hook. “It’s not our problem; that guy’s a racist.” It’s too easy, and it fails to get to the root of the problem. Again.

But Richards contributes to this, too, in a comment that would cause W.E.B. DuBois to roll over in his grave. Late in the interview, Richards notes that folks have appropriately taken his behavior to the press to make it public, and then says, “The fact that there’s that kind of solidarity and confronting those kinds of remarks – I think it’s important for the Afro-American community to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t come about.” So let’s review: It is the responsibility of individuals like Richards to stop saying such things that reflect and promote hatred, and it’s the responsibility of the black community to make sure those things don’t happen. This perfectly encapsulates why, 400 years after the first slave ships arrived, and more than 150 years since emancipation, we still have racial problems.

There are three groups of note: people of color, whites who are sensitive and concerned about racial inequality, and whites who are bigoted. The first group cannot bring about meaningful change in this area because they have been systematically denied access to the power in America. The third group has access to power, but no interest in bringing about racial equality. So it’s people who are thoughtful about racial inequality and desirous of a solution who are ultimately in a position to effect such change. But those folks invariably deflect that burden by claiming that they’re “not racist” because they have black friends or they “don’t see race” or their brother is married to a black woman and “we’re all okay with it.” It’s this refusal to embrace our racism and deal with the deeper issues that allow racial injustice to continue generation after generation.

And that invisibility is precisely what New York University journalism professor Yvonne Latty tried to confront in her November 2 USA Today op-ed about the film Flags of Our Fathers. Noting this invisibility of the black Marines who fought at Iwo Jima in Clint Eastwoods new film, Latty notes the racism that these men had to face from their colleagues, as well as the heroism with which they fought. Both of these realities are excluded, she complains, in Flags. She notes that “we . . . owe [surviving black WWII veterans] this recognition.” Does this mean that Eastwood is racist? You bet. It does not necessarily mean that he’s a bigot, but that’s beside the point. It’s not important to figure out if Eastwood intentionally excluded black soldiers from the film. He probably did not. It is perhaps more powerful to understand that as a white man, he didn’t even consider whether or not there were black soldiers at Iwo Jima. That’s a privilege of being white: white folks don’t have to think about race.

Predictably, Latty has gotten some very hostile responses to her column. As noted in a report in the Washington Square News, one USA Today reader posted a note proclaiming, “When we make a movie about cotton-picking slaves in the 1800s, they’ll be black. I promise. And when we make a movie about useless, crack-smoking, welfare-grabbing, pregnant whores, they’ll be black.” As disgusting as such sentiments are, we are more concerned with the fact that progressive-minded whites feel comfortable shaking off the label “racist” by distancing themselves from such remarks. These words are articulations of deep-seeded racial hatred that Americans of all races have been subtly encouraged to internalize throughout our lives. A lot of it sticks, whether we like it or not. If we continue to place the burden on the shoulders of people of color and people like Michael Richards, we, in the words DuBois wrote over 100 years ago, “sit silently by while the inevitable seeds are sown for a harvest of disaster to our children, black and white.”

GOP Tastes for Latino Flava Satisfied

We’re tired. We’re probably not as tired as candidates who lost their races last week, but we’re pretty flippin’ tired. Besides the election fatigue, we’re writing this week from San Antonio, Texas, where the National Communication Association is having its annual conference (which, interestingly enough, is conspicuously lacking in discussion of race and political communication – are they leaving it all up to us?). Stephen is a fish out of water here, being a political scientist. There is an unsettling pseudo-humorous disdain for political scientists among communication scholars. We’re not exactly sure what that’s about (but Charlton has some theories). Anyway, we’re hopeful that Stephen will make it back to Chicago in one piece. If not, Charlton will post a heartfelt eulogy here next week.

We’ve been filling our substantial bellies with Hispanic food all week, and it seems that the GOP is equally hungry for some Latino “flava.” While we don’t have the time or energy to do a lot in this space this week, we wanted to address the recent announcement that U.S. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) will take over as “general chairman” of the Republican National Committee. We’re sensitive to the implication that any time a minority is appointed to a high-profile position it constitutes tokenism, but this revelation reeks of a 21st Century J.C. Watts scenario. Martinez, who is the only Republican Hispanic member of the Senate, emerged on the national scene two years ago. While the same can be said of Barack Obama, contrasting the two men’s charisma and potential for national prominence is an exercise in futility. To paraphrase the famous words late Senator and vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, “You, Mr. Martinez, are no Barack Obama.” Further, the position as general chairman does not require Martinez to give up his Senate seat, as the day-to-day operations will be handled by Mike Duncan.

The GOP is clearly sending a message to Latino voters. In 2000, Republicans did well with Latino voters, but they only pulled about 30% of the Latino vote this year. With conflicting views on immigration, as well as the rest of issues that caused voters to vote Democratic this year, the signal sent by the Martinez appointment is that the Party is not only interested in having Latino support, but that they are willing to put such efforts front-and-center. Does this mean that they are abandoning their wooing of the black vote after three prominent black Republicans failed to win statewide seats last week? It’s possible. But what is clear is that the GOP leadership will have to do at least as much soul searching as the Democrats had to do two years ago.

FIVE BLACKS, TWO PARTIES – ONLY ONE VICTORY

Five prominent black candidates for governerships and U.S. Senate seats dared to run in this election in races that began as tremendous challenges. Two of them were Democrats, three, Republicans. Three were in the Northeast, while the other two split the South and Midwest. One made history, one landed on the brink; the other three didn’t even come close.

When one looks at the results of this field of candidates in the 2006 election – Senate candidates Michael Steele (R-MD) and Harold Ford (D-Tennessee), and the three gubernatorial candidates, Deval Patrick (D-MA), Lynn Swann (R-PA), and Ken Blackwell (R-OH) – one has to ask questions about some dismal failures.

Question 1: What do we make of the clean sweep of the three black Republican candidates?

One has to wonder whether Ken Mehlman and other Republicans’ strategy to recruit more African American support is less of a strategy than it is hollow rhetoric. Only a few short years ago Republicans moved beyond mere words to action when George W. Bush appointed Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell to the most powerful slots ever held by black individuals in the country’s history. But they can only trot them out for so long as proof that the Republican Party is a welcome place for African Americans. Many blacks are likely asking, “What have you done for us lately?” If the reply is symbolized by this year’s election results, then the answer is an unequivocal “nothing.”

Republicans at this point, if they are indeed interested in recruiting more blacks into the Party, have to really be concerned that their efforts in this election make it seem that all their black candidates were nothing more than window-dressing. This is especially so for Blackwell and Swann – high-profile, well-known suckers lured by a party offering a false sense of hope and support where there was, in reality, little. But it also pertains to Steele, whose (mere) ten-point margin of loss seemed to be in spite of the Republican Party. Steele placed more rhetorical currency in downplaying party allegiances and support for Bush and other prominent Republicans, signaling perhaps that he himself didn’t drink the same Party Kool-Aid offered to Swann and Blackwell.

Question 2: What do we make of the Democratic victory in Massachusetts and near win in Tennessee?

The contests involving Harold Ford, Jr. and Deval Patrick are in some ways both historical, even though Patrick is the only one who gets to walk away with the prize. That a black man was elected to Massachusetts’s highest office is testament to a state perhaps not best-known historically for its racial tolerance, lack of intense racial conflicts, or election of blacks to political office.

Similarly, in Tennessee, Ford’s narrow loss is quite remarkable given that the racial divide seems very much in tact. Exit poll results show that Ford didn’t do all that well with white voters in Tennessee, even compared to the other black candidates this year. Only 40% of whites in Tennessee voted for Ford, as compared to 43% of whites in Pennsylvania for Swann, 40% of whites in Ohio for Blackwell, 50% of whites in Maryland for Steele, and 51% of whites in Massachusetts for Patrick. Ford pulled 60% of the vote in the Memphis area, 53% in Western Tennessee, and no more than 48% in the rest of the state. Despite his claims that he “likes. . .girls,” Ford only managed to get 42% of white women to vote for him (91% of non-white women voted for Ford). At the end of the day, race still mattered in Tennessee, and there simply were not enough African Americans voting in the state to put Ford over the top.

As we’ve noted before, it is very difficult for black candidates to win high profile statewide races because white voters generally do not vote for black candidates. Remember, this race was never supposed to be close. That it was is testament to a brilliant campaigner, a party willing to take risks, and a constituency (or at least part of a constituency) able to perhaps put race on a back burner when making the choice of a most suitable candidate.

Ford, Football & Girls

We didn’t want to let our last blog before the mid-term elections go by without weighing in on the Tennessee U.S. Senate race. Though there are prominent minority candidates running in national and statewide elections in a number of states, this race has gotten the most attention, largely due to the ads run by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The first of the controversial ads, which has since been pulled (and replaced by a number of similarly-themed replicas), features a number of persons on the street facetiously praising Harold Ford for such things as looking good and taking money from people in the pornography industry. The person on the street who got the most attention, though, was a white woman, who appears to be naked (but who is only shot from the shoulders up), claiming that she met Ford at the Playboy mansion. The spot ends with the woman holding her fingers to her head in a mock-phone pose, saying, “Harold, call me.”

The NAACP, as well as Democrats and other pundits, cried “foul” and claimed that the ad was implicitly racist. It is. In Tennessee, interracial romance is not widely accepted, and the appeal plays to deeply held fears of white men that black men are trying to steal “their” women. To further place the ad in context, it is important to know that the primary theme of the Republicans’ campaign against Ford is that he is “not one of us” – that he does not reflect “Tennessee values.” This is simply one brick in the wall of an overall strategy by Republicans to paint Ford as the brutal black buck caricatured in a number of media genres – a black man with unbridled sexual appetites whose greatest conquest is the sexual ravaging of white women. .

Early in the campaign, the NRSC launched a website – Fancyford.com – that is critical of Ford’s taste for “liv[ing] the good life.” The viewer is invited to “Party like Ford,” “Shop like Ford,” “Relax like Ford,” or “Dine like Ford.”

The original NRSC ad has inspired a number of over-the-top spoofs, including this one, this one, and this one.

Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee, defended the original ad as not being racist – a dubious claim, particularly in light of Mehlman’s trip to the NAACP last year to apologize for the GOP’s history of exploiting racial inequality for political purposes.

However, Ford, too, denies the reality of the ad's racial flavor. “I don't think race had anything to do with that ad,” Ford commented on Fox News Sunday this past weekend. Admittedly “smut,” he asserts, but no hint of racial animus. Surely Republicans and others will take Ford’s comments as support for the disavowal of the racial undertones of the ad. “Ford is black, and if he says there’s nothing racial about the ad then it must be so. Wouldn’t he know?” The answer is he does know. And, he also knows of the strategic dangers, in this case, of admitting what he undoubtedly knows full well. That is, if Ford jumps on the race bandwagon – even as a defense – he gets voters thinking and talking about race, and that’s the last thing you want to be most salient in the minds of Tennessee voters come election day. If race becomes a deciding factor, then Ford loses with some Tennesseans.

In fact, Ford is quite clear that if you’re going to make football parties and women an issue of public discussion, then let’s talk about women and parties and not race. “I like football and I like girls.” Ford said quite pointedly on the same Fox News interview cited earlier, saying he thinks that’s something that will resonate quite well with Tennessee voters. Talk about smooth moves – not to mention simply a politically brilliant retort.

Willie Horton – Again? Really?

On a side note, we have been surprised to see more overtly racist advertising, some of which centers on illegal immigration (see our 10/19/06 blog). But others, such as this spot run by the Ohio Republican Campaign Committee on behalf of State Legislature candidate Bill Hayes, does so by replicating the infamous “Willie Horton ad” run against Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential campaign. This ad features a full-screen picture of the black man accused of the crime, with a narrator describing the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl and claiming that Hayes’s opponent, Dan Dodd, has a liberal plan to spare the man’s life. A photo of Dodd appears in the ad, posed beside the head of the black man, with a menacing shadow behind him. Dodd’s body (waist to head) is nearly the size of the man’s head.