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.

"Truce" Instead of "True": Democrats Attempt to Downplay Race

Many people applauded the so-called “truce” agreed upon last week between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the culmination of a week-long argument battle royal over who played the race card. The presidential candidates pledged to shy away from injecting race into their campaigns, from making race (and gender) a platform upon which to make claims about who is better fit to hold the office of president. But this pledge is as misguided and misplaced as some of the comments flying around over the past few weeks (e.g., BET founder Bob Johnson’s winking nod toward Barack’s drug use, Clinton’s refusal to acknowledge it for what it was, or Obama’s mis-characterization of Clinton’s comments about Marin Luther King, Jr.).

The pledge, however, simply denies the realities of racial appeals and discourse in the presidential campaign specifically and race-related public policy issues more broadly.

Let’s begin first with the most glaring reality in the Democratic nomination contest. We have an African American man running for president who claims to be black enough to appeal to the interests of African Americans, while at the same time not too black to represent the interests of white voters, whose support he needs to be successful. On the other hand, we have a white woman whose electoral success in Party primaries depends in large part on garnering black votes, using her husband’s affinity with the black community as leverage to gain the support of high-powered, black political leaders to endorse the reality – as former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young put it – that Hillary and Bill Clinton are just as black as Obama…if not more.

And we’re supposed to believe that there’s any way that race can and will not be a predominant focus in this election?

Assertions to the contrary by the candidates and others who espouse this all-race-card-barred rhetoric are victimized by two logical flaws regarding the realities of race, racial appeals, and political campaigns. One flaw is based on the errors of scholars of race and politics who have historically approached the topic of racial appeals in such a myopic way that it has clouded our judgment about just these kinds of circumstances in the news over the last week or so. That is, we’ve long used the term “race card” to refer to white candidates who use it to appeal to the racial antipathies that white voters have about blacks and other racial minorities in order to disenfranchise racial minorities and their interests.

Such a view has led many to two substantial errors – that a message constitutes a racial appeal only if one intends it as such, and only if the basis of the appeal is a negative trait of the target of that appeal. In our myopia – certainly those of the candidates – these are the only kinds of appeals that count, the only kinds that need be repudiated, because they are the only appeals have any real effect.

For instance, no one makes a fuss when Hillary Clinton or her surrogates make the claim that she deserves the votes of African Americans because she – as a white woman – is more qualified than her black opponent to represent the interests of African Americans. But this is a very powerful racial appeal that undercuts the racial heritage of her opponent by suggesting that one’s racial background has little or nothing to do with one’s ability to represent others that look like oneself. In fact, it is such powerful claim that it flies in the face of the very premise underlying the Civil Rights Act, which initiated the idea that minority communities should be represented by members of that community because such representation constitutes the essence of equal rights.

Additionally, the kind of after-the-fact repudiations of racial appeals made by several of Clinton’s surrogates disregards the reality that to the degree that such appeals work in tarnishing the image of Obama [i.e., he is unelectable], Clinton is the beneficiary. So, in fact, it is not enough to simply say that she will wag a finger at people who make such claims on her behalf. Their racial appeal is her racial appeal because she ultimately benefits, and so long as she doesn’t run out of high profile supporters, she can afford to play this game all election season long, expecting that the American public should not hold her responsible or accountable for playing the race card.

The second flaw with the candidate’s ephemeral pledge to stay away from race is that it is based on the post-Civil Rights ideology about colorblindness – that somehow and for some reason Dr. King’s message was that we should no longer see color (as opposed to not allowing color to affect our evaluations of one another). What this has meant for many Americans – liberals and conservatives alike – is that people have a newfound ability to ostensibly see straight past people’s skin color right into their hearts and souls. They disregard the color of one’s skin, claim that they no longer see color, then declare that racism no longer exists.

In that context, of course, we shouldn’t talk about race at all.

When the presidential candidates express this point of view, what they ultimately mean is that they – like the rest of us – are off the hook from talking specifically about how race really does matter in almost every facet of America social and political life. As we have noted time and time again in this space, we are once again missing an important opportunity to talk about race honestly in America. It is possible that the candidates know that such frank talk about such an uncomfortable and, indeed, taboo subject among whites would amount to political suicide. It is possible that, if elected, either of them would push forth a directed national conversation about racial inequality of opportunity. It is possible that when the nomination is secured, both senators will join together to push for real change with respect to the conditions that plague the have-nots and have-too-littles in America (who are disproportionately of color). But it is more likely that neither of them has or will have the power to change the national discourse on race. It is more likely that either (both?) will continue to play along with the consensus that race is a subject that is off limits. It is more likely that we will continue to have material for analysis and discussion for this blog no matter who secures the Democratic nomination, and no matter who wins the election in November.

Race will be front and center this week as we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Democrats focus their attention on South Carolina. The Congressional Black Caucus will host a debate before Saturday’s election, and we can expect some pushing on the margins of the “truce” this week, as either the candidates or their surrogates (keep a careful eye on the former president’s comments) do their best to use language in a way that simultaneously courts black and white votes.

Hillary Plays the Race Card

Last week, we came as close as we ever will to making an electoral prediction. We warned that Barack Obama’s win in Iowa might not translate into a win in New Hampshire because concerns about electing a black man as president (in a state that is almost completely comprised of white voters) can more easily affect vote choice in the privacy of a voting booth as opposed to in a public caucus setting. There is no way to be certain that Hillary Clinton won for this reason, but the historic inaccuracy of pre-election polls in New Hampshire suggests the possibility.

Further, the Clinton camp launched an all-out assault on Obama after his win in Iowa. Two of the comments rise to the level of “playing the race card,” so this space is dedicated to an analysis of those.

First, it is important to remember what it means to “play the race card” in contemporary American politics. There are two elements that are counter-intuitive: invoking race does not necessarily have to be intentional, and the message must be implicitly racial so as not to alert the audience that race is being used. While the media is primarily interested in intent, we are not. It is sexy to find a “smoking gun” that proves a campaign intended to prime negative predispositions about race to help its candidate, but such a quest does not help us to understand the way people may be affected by the message (which is our primary interest). What we do know from scores of studies is that an explicit mention of race – particularly from a white candidate running against a candidate of color – will inevitably backfire. Because, as Tali Mendelberg has now famously showed us, we have a cultural norm of racial equality, white Americans in particular are sensitive to being (or at least appearing) to be racially prejudiced. For a racial message to be effective, it must prime racial resentment at the subconscious level; that is, the receiver of the message cannot be alerted to the fact that the message is inherently racial.

We saw this twice over the past week from the Clinton campaign: once from the candidate herself and once from her husband, the former president.

Last Monday (the day before the New Hampshire primaries) Bill Clinton publicly referred to Barack Obama’s record of opposing the war in Iraq as a “fairy tale.” Ordinarily, this would not trigger any concern about racial messages, but the phrase was exactly the same as former Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Joe Biden used one year ago to refer to Obama’s candidacy. Those remarks were explicitly racial, though they were intended as a compliment. Biden’s point was that Obama is an attractive candidate because he is well-spoken, bright, and without a lot of political baggage or skeletons. Implicit in his comments was the suggestion that black candidates – and African Americans in general – do not possess these qualities. That comment garnered a significant amount of media attention (we wrote about it in this space), so it is certain that the former president had heard about it. Again, intent aside, the term “fairly tale,” which is not often used in politics, has the potential to cue Biden’s comments or otherwise suggest that this black candidate is not fit to be president – a message that the Clinton campaign is using explicitly as they argue that Obama does not have enough experience to inhabit the Oval Office.

What’s more, Bill Clinton’s comments come the same day that Senator Clinton made remarks about Obama’s similarity to Dr. Martin Luther King. In a series of speeches, Clinton has invoked the memory of Dr. King – particularly as she has campaigned in South Carolina – to separate her commitment to minority rights from Obama’s. How, you might ask, can a white candidate out-black a black candidate? By suggesting that the latter does not have the ability to effect meaningful change – just like Martin Luther King. The exchange went something like this: Obama has mentioned King often in his remarks to remind voters of a time when people had “the audacity to hope,” and since the Iowa caucuses he had given a number of stirring speeches with a cadence and charisma reminiscent of King. Clinton was quick to stay on message that Obama is little more than a pretty package with not enough substance to get the job done. In doing so, she played the race card by saying the following at a rally in New Hampshire last Monday: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

Because we are more on alert to the race card being played (because of past usage, as well as because there is a black candidate in the race), the racial implications of the message did not go unnoticed. The remarks started a vigorous discussion in the media and online, even prompting the influential black member of Congress James Clyburn of South Carolina to seemingly break his neutrality by openly criticizing the comment. By suggesting that black leaders can stir emotions but cannot achieve results without white allies, she suggested (intentionally or otherwise – remember: we are not concerned about intent) that while Obama might talk a good game, it is important to remember that change will only truly come with a white person at the helm.

The situation became even more curious when billionaire Black Entertainment Founder Bob Johnson attacked Obama at a Clinton rally by saying that Obama must believe black folks are “stupid” to think that Clinton was trying to play the race card. He went on to suggest that Obama was doing drugs while the Clintons were fighting for racial justice, a suggestion he unsuccessfully tried to deny later in the day. Johnson, who has come under consistent fire from black Americans for perpetuating racial stereotypes on his network while making a fortune from doing so, showed how the Clintons will be able to use their significant clout with African American leaders to mitigate Obama’s messages among black voters.

Ironically, we may see a twist on the “New Hampshire effect” in South Carolina. That is, no matter how many black folks Clinton can draw to her rallies, she may find that in the privacy of a voting booth, African Americans display a propensity to vote for Obama in numbers greater than the polls indicate.

In closing, it is important to note that Bill Richardson, the first Latino candidate to participate in a presidential primary for a major party nomination, dropped out after he failed to exceed expectations in New Hampshire. While there was little explicit discussion about race during his campaign, he served as a symbol of the attempt of American to transcend its divisive past in this year when the Democratic Party’s top front runners are a woman and an African American. He, too, pushed forward the path to disassembling the 220 years of white male presidents (and presidential candidates).

Related Stories:

"Clinton, Obama Clash Over Race Issue " (New York Times)
"Clinton-Obama War of Words" (New York Times blog)
"Race and Gender are Issues in Tense Day for Democrats" (New York Times)
"Obama Attacked by 'Big Bobcat'" (Chicago Tribune blog)

Obama Conquers Iowa: Can He Do the Same in NH?

The Iowa caucuses held Thursday night were exciting and full of surprises. Despite spending a ton of money in the state, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney had disappointing finishes (Romey, however, fared exceptionally well in the largely-ignored Wyoming Republican caucuses on Saturday). Despite starting late, Fred Thompson did relatively well. Despite being outspent, Ron Paul and John Edwards exceeded media expectations (if not their own campaigns’). Despite not campaigning very much, John McCain had a solid showing, which will be helpful to him as Tuesday’s primaries in New Hampshire approach (recall that McCain beat George W. Bush there in 2000).

Among the biggest surprises were Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. It’s not particularly surprising that each won his respective party’s contest, but the margin by which they won (9% and 8%, respectively) was larger than expected. As always, race matters in an election that features a racial minority candidate. Since Obama got the most attention coming out of Iowa, we wanted to take a moment to examine the racial issues surrounding his “win,” and what that might mean for the forthcoming contests.

First, it’s important to understand how the Democratic Party structures its caucus rules. There are two rounds of “voting” during a caucus. The first is simply to determine “viability.” If a candidate has fewer than 15% of the caucus-goers in his or her corner (often literally), that candidate is not viable. That means that supporters of that candidate can either leave the caucus meeting or support a candidate who is viable in the second round – the round that “counts” toward selecting delegates to the next round of caucuses in the state. As expected, many caucus first rounds resulted in Kucinich, Dodd, Biden and Richardson not being viable. So the question then was: Which of the top three Democratic candidates (Clinton, Edwards and Obama) were second-choices for those who supported one of the four who did not have enough support to be viable? The answer: most for Obama, many for Edwards, and hardly any for Clinton.

Given Americans’ propensity to vote for white men, what can be gleaned from these results in Iowa? First, at least under these circumstances, an answer to the old debate about whether we are more likely to get a black man or a white woman as president first is suggested: the former. If the Democratic caucuses in Iowa are viewed as a contest between racism and patriarchy, it is clear that patriarchy is a more solid American tradition than racism. Of course, it’s not appropriate to extrapolate such a large question from this limited experience. But in the context of Obama v. Clinton, the Obama camp should take some comfort in that Obama was the first or second choice of 38% of Iowa caucus-goers, while Clinton was only able to get support from about 29% of them, even though both spend considerable time and money in the state, and both had extensive grass-roots organizations there.

But there are big differences between caucuses and primaries, and this year, race is an important element in those differences.

There is no secret voting during a caucus. Not only is one’s preference public, but it is cast in front of neighbors. Mendelberg’s “norm of racial equality” is essential to understand here. Americans understand that it is not socially acceptable to discriminate on the basis of race, so we are careful to do what we can to avoid even the appearance of bigotry in our language and actions. If a caucus-goer in Iowa had concerns about having a black man as president (whether he or she was consciously aware of the concerns or not), those concerns were unlikely to surface because of the public nature of making one’s preference known. This will not be the situation in New Hampshire. When the curtain is drawn in the voting booth, concerns about black men’s ability to be trusted, willingness to play by the rules, laziness and/or lack of intellect can surface in ways they will not in a caucus or even in an anonymous public opinion poll.

If Obama conquers New Hampshire in the same way he conquered Iowa, it will be a sign that he has been able to transcend negative racial predispositions (though NOT a sign that such dispositions have dissipated in American culture – see. . . well, see this blog every week for evidence to the contrary). If he stumbles in NH, it will be time to take a hard look at what factors may be at work to allow those predispositions to drive voting preferences. In that case, we will be as far as we have always been from resolving the black man / white woman question about electing a minority president.

See Stephen’s analysis of the Iowa caucuses from CBS2 in Chicago here. Check that site on Wednesday morning for his analysis of Tuesday’s primaries in New Hampshire.