Clintons’ Racism Shows Through; Voters Respond with Backlash. . . for Now

The week after the so-called “truce” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was full of more implicitly racist language by both Hillary and Bill Clinton. It is shocking that even after the Obama camp and media personalities called the Clintons on their implicit racist rhetoric that they actually stepped up their racist attacks while campaigning in South Carolina – a state with a large black voting population.

The tactics backfired in South Carolina, where more than half of the voters in Saturday’s Democratic primary were black, and three-quarters of those black voters supported Obama. The result: the largest landslide in any nominating contest this year for Obama. But the results might obfuscate the reality of what appears to be the Clintons’ strategy – to make Obama exactly what he has tried not to be: “the black candidate.” If successful, Saturday’s defeat would be parallel to the military analogy of losing the battle but winning the war, as whites in other states (with smaller black populations) hesitate to vote for “the black candidate.”

There were three distinct incidents this week of implicitly racial messages from the Clintons. As we know by now, when an implicit racial message is identified as such, it becomes an explicit racial message and, therefore, has a backlash effect. What is new about this wave of attacks is that it is the first time we have seen a systematic use of implicit racial messages over a period of time (as opposed to a single message). Accordingly, while what happened in South Carolina was predictable (i.e., the backlash), we cannot predict what effect the characterization of Obama in terms that echo negative stereotypes about African Americans will have in the long run.

Two weeks ago, we wrote about the first shots fired from the Clintons that smacked of racism. Since then, race (and racial messages) has been discussed throughout the media and even in the debates. What we saw this week, however, was an insistence by the Clintons to continue to associate Obama with negative images that are traditionally associated with black Americans. Specifically, Hillary suggested that Obama wants to have things without working hard, that he believes he is entitled to that which he does not deserve, and that he is involved with shady people. For his part, Bill Clinton – on the heals of his “fairytale” comment, Compared Obama with Jesse Jackson, continuing the Clintons’ attempts to label Obama, as well as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jesse Jackson, politically impotent.

The most disturbing moment to us was when Hillary Clinton remarked at a rally in South Carolina, that she respected Congressman Charlie Rangel because he worked hard to raise himself up from being a high school drop out to one of the most powerful members of Congress. In an apparent contrast to Obama, Clinton then said of Rangel, “He didn't get there you know by leapfrogging - he got there by lots of hard work day in and day out.” This is implicitly racist on two levels.

First, like Biden’s “clean and articulate” comment, it relies on a tacit contrast between the praise for a successful black person and what whites overwhelmingly believe that most black Americans are like. In other words, most of white America hears, “Unlike most black folk, this man worked hard and earned what he got.” Further, the “leapfrogging” comment relies on another negative predisposition of black Americans: that they feel that they are entitled to that which they are not. Again, the implicit comparison is that Rangel waited his turn, worked hard, didn’t step out of line, get uppity and demand too much, and he was rewarded the American way. (Of course, Rangel has consistently and aggressively agitated for social justice, so the picture of him as a passive, quiet and obedient public service misses the mark.) She suggests that unlike Rangel, Obama – typical of most blacks – wants everything right now and is unwilling to put in the hard work to “earn” it. Such an image will resonate with white voters across the country, particularly as it is part of a larger message of Obama as “the black candidate” – too black for America.

Maybe most disturbing was the picture of Rangel sitting by as Clinton made such offensive statements. It must have been awkward for him to be used in such a condescending way – as the quintessential “House Negro” (pun fully intended). But what we have come to learn over the past few weeks is that the Clintons’ commitment to racial equality clearly takes a back seat to their electoral success. In fact, we may now suspect that racial equality was merely political expedient for Bill Clinton during his presidency. Now that it appears that black folks are supporting Obama, it is strategic to play up racial differences so that white folks (who are the vast majority of the electorate) see Obama as a niche candidate without the broad appeal that he demonstrated in Iowa. If the Clintons can relegate Obama to speaking only for black Americans, they have a much better chance of getting Hillary the nomination.

After Obama doubled Clinton’s votes in South Carolina, Bill Clinton dismissed it by noting that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988. The message: “Big deal – it’s not surprising that a black candidate won here. Jesse Jackson never got close to being president, and even HE won here. It doesn’t mean anything. Black people will never get to decide who becomes president, so while it’s cute that Obama won, we’ll see who has the last laugh.”

In New Hampshire, it was Martin Luther King and now Jesse Jackson is added to the list of black leaders who couldn’t get things done without whites. Next up: Super Tuesday. Maybe we’ll hear about how Michael Jordan never would have been as successful as he was without Bill Paxson making sure he got open shots.

It is disappointing to see the Clintons exposed in such a way after years of them giving the impression that racial equality was a core concern for them. This does not diminish the legacy of Bill Clinton’s policies, many of which were beneficial to persons of color, any more than the realization that Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation or Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957 had little to do with their respective concern for African Americans. The contrast between Obama’s message of hope and “new politics” with this Southern strategy of racial division, however, is striking.