Willie Horton 2008: Republicans Go Racist Early

It took less than a week after the Republican National Convention for the racist attacks to hit the airwaves. As we predicted, racist messages will likely not come directly from McCain’s campaign, but rather be offered by third-party groups. THIS WEEK, a conservative group called Freedom’s Defense Fund released an ad that is virtually a carbon copy of the infamous Willie Horton ad against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988 (Republican operative Lee Atwater apologized near the end of his life for tactics he used during that campaign, including the Horton ad). The current ad is planned to "run a saturated one-week schedule" in Michigan. There is one important difference, though: this time, the ad is run against an African American candidate.

The Horton ad has been discussed in popular and scholarly literature as being the quintessential implicit racist message. Because the words “race,” “black” or “African American” are never spoken, white viewers can assure themselves that the message is not about race, freeing them up to accept the message without violation of the cultural norm. The racial factor comes with the tacit associations with stereotypes about black men; in these cases, the stereotypes are about black men’s criminality. In the Horton ad, viewers were prompted to be more afraid of Willie Horton because he fit the stereotype of the “scary black man” who would perform violent acts (presumably on white folks) if given the chance. While Horton’s story was true (and, as such, fair game for a political attack), his race was irrelevant to the message that Dukakis was “soft on crime.” By alerting whites to the fact that he was black, the ad sponsors multiplied the effect of their fear of a Dukakis presidency.



Because the target of the attack this time is black, there is a further benefit to playing into racist predispositions. In this case, there is a direct link made between shamed Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Barack Obama. The message: they (African Americans) are all the same. The ad explicitly notes that a candidate’s “friends” matter. This foreshadows what we predict will be a similar ad featuring Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the coming weeks.



Obamas are “Uppity”
This next story could have been printed in The Onion. As TWIR readers know, we focus almost exclusively on implicit racial messages because explicit messages have been shown to backfire. Every once in a while, though, an overtly bigoted comment surfaces. Often, such comments are revealed through surreptitious means, as most bigots are careful to keep their true sentiments out of public spaces. U.S. House member Lynn Westmoreland, however, is apparently of a different mindset.

Here’s what happened, according to The Hill:

Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

What is particularly amazing is that even given the chance to back off the term, Westmoreland decided to stay with it. “Uppity” is a term that has clear, deep racial implications. Painting Obama as “elite” is effective largely because of the deep-seated presumption among whites that African Americans should “know their place.” That is an implicit racist message. Using the term “uppity,” however, comes as close to explicitly racist as we are likely to see from a mainstream public figure (i.e., not a member of the Ku Klux Klan or another white supremacist group) in the 21st Century. “Uppity” has historically almost always been followed by the “n-word,” or, in more polite circles through the Jim Crow era, “Negro.”

Lipstick on a Party
Finally, another that pervaded news THIS WEEK was about gender. While this space is devoted to race, we mention this here because there are very similar principles of power and oppression at work in this particular dynamic.

Barack Obama made the following comment on Tuesday:

John McCain says he’s about change, too – except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics . . . That’s not change. That’s just calling the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig – it’s still a pig.

The McCain camp immediately jumped on the remark, arguing that Obama was clearly referencing Sarah Palin because of her comment during her speech at the Republican National Convention that the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is lipstick. They issued a web ad, but quickly pulled it after widespread criticism on the blogs. We've got it, though, embedded in a spot from MSNBC, along with a ridiculous ad attacking Obama for wanting to teach sex education to kids before they can read (it was a bill to help kids avoid child sexual predators).



This is not surprising given the fact that the choice of Palin’s was clearly overwhelmingly due to her gender, and Republicans apparently believe that they have inoculated themselves against any criticism of her whatsoever because to attack her is to be sexist. In reality, their claims of “sexism” are further evidence that they do not understand the way systemic oppression works.

“Sexism” is not saying something bad about a woman. Sexism is leveraging people’s existing predispositions about the role and character of women in society in a way that advantages males (generally or specifically). The type of patriarchal protectionism that they have exhibited toward Palin could be considered more sexist than any negative attacks that the Obama campaign have launched against her. (It is important to note that the questions about her readiness to lead because of her childcare responsibilities are deeply rooted in sexist assumptions; the Obama campaign, however, has not raised such questions.)

Obama’s “lipstick” comment 1) was clearly not made about Palin, as she was not even referenced until later in the speech and he was directly talking about John McCain (see the quote), and 2) employed a common expression that is used to describe dressing up something that is otherwise perceived as bad or “ugly.” In the first case, it should be noted that even if Palin was mentioned prior to the comment, referring to her as a “pig” would not only be far outside the mistake buffer of someone who has been running for president for two years, but nonsensical at best. There are many of negative adjectives that might be used for Sarah Palin, but “pig” is not one of them because she is neither heavy nor dirty nor conventionally unattractive. In short, such an attack would make no sense. It would be like calling George W. Bush an elitist: it might be meant as an insult, but it is an insult that does not fit into any preconception about him that it would be an ineffective jab. Further, it has been widely noted that McCain has used the expression himself (in reference to Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, in fact), and Obama has used it in the past.

The bottom line is that the McCain campaign engaged in what Obama appropriately labeled as “faux outrage.” Because the conservatives generally do not acknowledge the power of systemic oppression, they have no credibility making accusations of sexism. As we have seen, they do not even know what it means.

To wrap up this section, though, we do want to note that the very expression “putting lipstick on a pig” has clear sexist overtones. The expression is sexist on its face, and therefore should be avoided. But Obama’s use of it was clearly not a reference to Palin at all, and certainly not a sexist attack. This seems to be at once a misguided attempt to claim the moral high ground on issues of oppression and to paint Obama as oppressive himself. It is a common tactic to divide the left by instigating what has been called “the Oppression Olympics.” In other words, if those in power can convince women that African Americans do not care about their interests, they can drive a wedge in that coalition. If they can convince the LGBT community that women’s groups and African Americans are not interested in their concerns, they can drive a wedge in that coalition. The insulting presumption that women will vote for Palin simply because she is female is illustrative of this approach. To date, it is working to a greater extent than we would have anticipated.

What It All Means
Putting aside the false accusations of Obama’s sexism, here is the cumulative effect of the racist messages coming from Republicans thus far:

Obama is

• all talk and no substance
• wishes to fool us with his slick rhetoric
• has “jumped the line” by getting where he is without putting in the work (he is inexperienced; he desires to get what he does not deserve), and
• is an elitist who looks down on “regular” (white) folks (he and his wife are “uppity”).

Further, America would be taken in a dangerous (liberal) direction where taxes would be raised and spent on programs to benefit people like him.

This does not particularly advance the positives for the McCain/Palin ticket, but it muddies the water enough to make people frustrated about the way the campaign is going. Because it is the longest presidential campaign in history, it is not difficult to frustrate most of the public in this regard. Once folks get off their Obama high (seems to be happening quickly lately) and start to feel that “all politicians are the same,” the choice will come down to visceral reactions and comfort level. The guy who is “not like us” will have a hard time competing in that situation. The chance to secure a plurality of votes in enough (majority white) states to win 270 electoral votes in a context shaped with such messages is, indeed, quite daunting. Obama will have to find a way to cut through the politics of distraction and get back to the issues that got people excited about him in the first place. He needs to make “change” mean “change from Republican policies,” while McCain needs to make “change” mean “change from liberal values that would allow a black guy to get the nomination in the first place.”

Fifty-four days to go. . .

Anniversary
This week marks the second anniversary of THIS WEEK IN RACE. For the past two years, we have worked to apply the results of our research, as well as that of other scholars, to current events in a way that is accessible to as many folks as possible. In those first few weeks, we only had a dozen or so hits a day. Now, there are approximately 400 people who read our blog each week. It’s certainly not HuffingtonPost numbers, but we are happy to have our corps of loyal readers. Your comments and suggestions have greatly enhanced our posts and our work in general. We extend our thanks with the hopes that you will keep reading and providing feedback.

RaceProject in the Media
While we are regularly asked to provide media analysis on a variety of issues, we were more busy than usual during the two back-to-back weeks of the national conventions. Below is a list (with links, where available) of the interviews we gave during that fortnight.

Charlton
August 27: St. Louis Post-Dispatch video blog: preview of Obama’s speech



August 28: National Public Radio: “Inside the art of political speech writing” (listen here)

August 28: Tokyo Shimbun: analysis of the Democratic National Convention (no link available)

August 30: CNN, “Hillary v. Michelle Obama” (watch here)

September 4: National Public Radio: “Speech writers preview McCain’s RNC address” (listen here) (read here)

Stephen
August 24: WGN Overnight with Brian Noonan, WGN radio (show not archived)

August 26: Radio France International: “Obama black in the U.S., mixed race in France” (listen here [in English]) (read here)

August 27: CBS2 Chicago Morning News: analysis of Hillary Clinton’s speech at the DNC, via phone from Denver (watch here)

August 28: CBS2 Chicago Morning News: live from Invesco Field in Denver (watch here)

August 28: WDCB public radio: analysis of Obama’s acceptance speech from Invesco Field (story not archived)

September 3: CBS2 Chicago Morning News: preview of Palin’s speech (watch here)

September 3: Naperville Sun: “Palin situation brings teen pregnancy to light” (read here)

September 4: WDCB public radio: analysis of McCain’s acceptance speech (story not archived)

September 5: CBS2 Chicago Morning News: analysis of McCain’s speech (watch here)


Keep Up with the RaceProject Guys
Both of us have YouTube channels. Become a subscriber so that you get an email when we add a new video of our media appearances. Stephen’s channel is here; Charlton’s channel is here.

Join the RaceProject Facebook Group to stay updated with media appearances and quotations, blogs, research, and other noteworthy postings regarding race, politics and language.

RSS Feed or Subscribe via email to THIS WEEK IN RACE.

We are available to come to your school or group meeting to discuss the RaceProject generally or the 2008 presidential election. For more information, see the “appearances” page on the RaceProject.org website.