Defining Our Role

In the past two years, we have received our fair share of critical comments. THIS WEEK, though, a new trend has emerged: some of our most thoughtful readers have begun to question (publicly and privately) our commentary. We are thankful for their honesty – thankful that they felt comfortable confronting our assertions and trying to keep us grounded.

Two things might account for this shift, and they are not mutually exclusive. First, it might be that conservatives have been so effective in pushing a position that any racial messages in the campaign are the “fault” of progressives and the Obama campaign so that our friends are beginning to panic about the possibility of losing moderate white voters. Second, it might be that we have veered off the path that we have set out for ourselves. Accordingly, we thought it appropriate to sketch out how we perceive our collective role – not just in this critical election period, but in general.

Before doing so, however, we want to direct your attention to a poll that was released this week by the Associated Press, in cooperation with Yahoo! News and Professor Paul Sniderman of Stanford University. Unlike most tracking polls by news organizations, the AP employed an elaborate instrument and used sophisticated analytical techniques on a very large national random sample (N = 2, 227). Results show that “[d]eep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close . . . [O]ne-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.” The AP story on the poll continues:

The poll suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about 2.5 percentage points.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

Among white Democrats, one-third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one-third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.

This is consistent with our research, as well as research from others who have been studying implicit associations and the potential effect of implicit racial messages.

The attack ads that have been produced take advantage of these deep-seated predispositions about African Americans. Whether that is the intent of the McCain campaign or the third-party sponsors of the ads is irrelevant to us. The point is that the messages, while they may have been leveled against a white opponent, will be more effective because Obama is black. We feel that it is our responsibility to continue to point this out as it occurs. Here’s why.


The Project on Race in Political Communication

In 2001, we set out to put forth an ambitious agenda to fill gaps in social science research on race, language and politics from an interdisciplinary angle. Shortly thereafter, we decided that students, other scholars and media organizations (as well as other interested persons and parties) might benefit from having a central place to go for historical information, updates on our work, and occasional analysis. We launched the RaceProject.org website in 2002 to provide that service.


THIS WEEK IN RACE

By 2006, we realized that we could reach a broader audience by applying scholarly principles to current events. We began this weekly blog in September of that year. Since then, there have been a number of other excellent websites and blogs devoted to explorations of latent racism (we are particularly impressed with the efforts of the folks at "Stop Dog Whistle Racism"). While it is true that we have been preoccupied with the presidential election as of late, our focus is much broader. If Obama wins, readers can feel confident that we will continue to follow attacks on him that activate racist predispositions. Irrespective of the outcome of the election, we will continue to bring forward elements of popular culture and news that reside at the intersection of politics, language and race.


Seeing the Big Picture

A reporter from the North Central College campus paper emailed Stephen about the comments exchanged on last week’s blog. She asked: What is your response to the blog being referenced as "about being anti-republican"?

Here is Stephen’s response (with hyperlinks added for TWIR readers):

A primary goal of the Race Project is to conduct research on race, language and politics and use what we learn to better understand racism so that we can move closer to racial equality. That is not a value-neutral position, but neither is it partisan. My blog writings are designed to explain the way racist and racial messages operate; we have been critical of both Democrats and Republicans over the two years that the blog has been up. While we do not endorse candidates, our feeling is that given not only Barack Obama's background, but his attitudes about race (expressed in his writings and his historic speech this past March), we as a nation would do more to address issues of racial inequality under his leadership than under John McCain's. The truth is that since the 1960s, neither party has gone out of its way to make progress on this issue. As a nation, we have largely swept under the rug the most important questions that still remain (disproportionate poverty, incarceration, lack of educational opportunities, joblessness, access to health care, etc. in communities of color). Progressives have expressed concern about the issue, but conservatives have by and large either argued that it does not exist or argued that it is up to people to pull themselves out of difficult conditions (ignoring the systemic barriers that lead to these conditions). Not since Jack Kemp in the late 1980s has a prominent conservative offered a specific strategy to rectify racial inequality (see our exchange with Professor William Voegeli in last month's blog for more on this issues). As a result, it is not surprising that we appear to be "anti-Republican" at times. For us, though, it's not about party or even this election specifically; it's about the bigger issue.

She also asked:

Do you think blogs such as these will have a positive effect on this year's election (as it pertains to more people becoming knowledgeable and aware of this campaign and politics in general)?

Stephen replied:

I have no illusion that the blog I write will have much of an effect on this election. Despite some healthy debate, most of our readers are already sensitive to these issues (or have become sensitive to them by reading our blog each week). In that regard, TWIR is an echo chamber of sorts. The fact is that because of the way the power structure is set up in America, and because white folks generally are not bigoted and like to believe that they have no racist predispositions, the deck is very much stacked against Obama. Most messages that take advantage of racist beliefs are subtle, so white folks do not see them as relating to race. When we or others point it out, folks generally think that we're "looking for racism" or are being overly sensitive. This has happened to Obama on a number of occasions during the campaign, as well. The problem is that if he (and we) ignores it, the implicit racist message will be effective, but if he (or we) points it out, it is he (or we) who is accused of "playing the race card." White folks would like to believe that we're "past race" in America because they have black friends or do not have conscious prejudiced thoughts. As a result, it is very uncomfortable to talk about race at all, and even more uncomfortable to admit that a message was particularly effective because of one's latent racism.In short, we feel that our job is to continue to help folks to understand how powerful systemic racism really is by pointing out the myriad ways it works. There is no doubt that we'll continue to get criticism from those aligned with the right when we expose messages from their side (as we've been doing with Republicans) and those from the left when we expose messages from their side (as we did repeatedly during the primaries with respect to Hillary Clinton's campaign).

Breakfast of Racists

An example of a racist message that preserves plausible deniability occurred earlier in the month at an event sponsored by Focus on the Family. The Values Voter Summit, like many conferences, invited vendors to come and sell their wares to an audience that is presumed to be interested in what they have to sell.

One of the vendors featured a box of waffle mix with Obama’s likeness on it. Besides the caricature of Obama and the obvious link to Aunt Jamima, there are mocking references to Obama supporting “illegal aliens,” a picture of Obama in a turban, and a rap song (in hip-hop vernacular) about Obama’s “waffling.” (See details and an interview with the vendors here.)

Some of our most thoughtful and respected friends disagreed with our early analysis (which we posted on the RaceProject.org Facebook page) because they believed either that the box was attacking, but not necessarily racist, or that Focus on the Family had no responsibility for the product.

Our response is that the box is clearly racist, irrespective of whether the vendor intended for it to be so. Here’s a similar example.

In 2006, African American candidate Harold Ford, Jr. ran for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee. Like all black candidates running in majority-white districts, his election would rely on a significant number of white votes in addition to any minority support he would receive. The Republican National Committee ran a humorous ad against him (see below) that, in part, featured a white woman who claimed that she “met Harold at the Playboy party,” asking at the end (after the disclaimer, for Ford to call her. In fact, Ford had attended a Super Bowl party at the Playboy mansion, so while the woman was fictitious, the tone of the ad was clearly tongue-in-cheek, and therefore not inaccurate. However, the fact that the woman was white and Ford is black is not inconsequential. In a country that is still largely uncomfortable with interracial relationships (and even more so in the South), such a suggestion plays into deep-seated resentment about black men’s sexual prowess, and the need to protect white women from them. (The woman, by the way, is pictured from the shoulders up, with no visible clothing, even though she is on the street.)



In short, the ad was not inaccurate (as one could argue is the case with some of the claims on the Obama waffle box), but was more effective because Ford is black. The ability to deny that race is involved is not only not an effective claim that there is no racism, but it is, in fact, crucial to a racist message to work at all in the 21st century. (Though see Fox News Channels Neil Cavuto's comment from earlier THIS WEEK that lending money to "minorities and risky folks" is a disaster.)


In Solidarity

One of the reasons that progressive movements and activists have trouble is that they are constantly having wedges driven between them. We are not activists (we don't work that hard), but neither are we neutral bystanders in the struggle for social justice. Further, we understand that activists look to social scientists and other scholars for information relating to their work. We will not be providing any answers, per se, of how to defeat racism. We leave that to our readers and our students. Our role, as we see it and have defined it, is to help others to understand the myriad ways racism works to perpetuate white privilege and maintain racial inequality.

We invite our friends to continue to hold our feet to the fire. We do not want to stray from our mission. However, we believe that vigilance is more in order now than it has been for some time because 21st century racism is not nearly as recognizable as 20th century racism was. We do not wish to “find” it where it does not exist, but neither will we allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of satisfaction that explicit racism is out of vogue. On that point, as we noted in an earlier post, Obama’s selection as nominee (whether he wins or not) is likely to allow explicit racism to resurface since whites can feel confident that discrimination is gone once and for all as a result of this notable event.

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.

RNC Recap for Thursday, September 4

This past Monday, we provided a preview of the themes we expected to see this week during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. Here is a recap of Thursday’s events.

The theme for the night was “Peace: A Safer and More Secure America,” and the discourse was raised to a more sophisticated and positive level from that of Wednesday night. While there were a few references to Obama being “not like us” (U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said “I’m not saying Barack Obama doesn’t care; he doesn’t get it”; McCain suggested that Obama believes he is anointed by God to save the country), Theme 1 from Monday was generally not reflected, for the most part, in the language from the last night’s speakers. Overall, there were few messages that would be more successful because of racist predispositions. Theme 3 (McCain is conservative) was similarly minimal on Thursday night, though McCain had a number of lines such as “. . . the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.” While there were some other mentions of Ronald Reagan, low taxes and keeping government out of people’s lives, these messages gave way to stronger themes of change and reform. Theme 4 (Republicans are inclusive) more closely resembled that of Tuesday night than Wednesday night, with nearly all of the speakers being white and male (notable exceptions were U.S. Senator Mel Martinez and Cindy McCain), and the few people of color in the audience getting predictable camera time.

Theme 2: McCain and Palin are Change
The most prominent theme from those that we predicted on Monday was Theme 2. In the film designed to introduce Governor Sarah Palin (which was supposed to air last night, but was bumped due to time constraints), the word “maverick” was mentioned three times in the first 15 seconds and was used at least three more times in the brief clip.



In short, it was a very strong final night to a strong convention. McCain did exactly what he needed to do: he placated the Evangelical right with his choice of VP, but maintained his ability to appear to be “independent” with the messages that came out of the convention hall. In particular, McCain’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech Thursday night will clearly resonate with a large number of Americans. In contrast to the fear mongering that took place earlier in the convention (there was a particularly offensive graphic film about 9/11 victims shown earlier in the evening) and the vitriol that was so much a part of most of the convention’s speakers, McCain’s call for civility, bipartisanship, and putting country above self was a breath of fresh air. After an unfortunate start due to Hurricane Gustav, the GOP put on an energetic and moving event that will clearly result in a solid bounce in support in the coming days.

Walking the High Wire
McCain and Palin are going to have a difficult time maintaining the momentum that they built this week, though. It will be tough to continue to walk the very thin line between change and appeasing the conservative base of the Party. Particularly in Thursday night’s speech, McCain did an admirable job of simultaneously running against Obama and the Bush Administration. But that was a scripted speech in front of a supportive crowd; he will have difficulty keeping aloft on the high wire when things are being thrown at him from multiple sides. Here are a few examples:

• During the Palin film, the narrator noted that “she managed to increase funding for infrastructure by cutting property taxes” when she was mayor of Wasilla. How did she manage that? Early reports suggest that she hired a lobbying firm and received nearly $27 million worth of federal earmarks, something that McCain has vowed to eliminate if elected president. Conservatives will like that she didn’t raise property taxes, but will be upset to learn that she was part of the spending that they find so “wasteful” coming out of Washington.
• McCain used an example of a Michigan couple who lost their real estate investments in the housing crash, saying that he’d “fight” for them. That will be appealing to the populist wing of the party, but fiscal conservatives will be more likely to side with the statements McCain made in March: “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."
• Sarah Palin said that she’d advocate for children with special needs, but what did she mean? Parents of special needs children need a lot of help, not the least of which is financial. While it is compassionate to “advocate” for children with special needs, she will have to explain to the far right how this type of governmental spending is warranted, while others is not, or she’ll have to explain to these families why securing funding for treatment and education for these kids is not what she meant by “advocate.”
• McCain mentioned that the daughter of a Latina worker is one of “God’s children” who deserves to be fought for. If the worker is undocumented, he’s right that the child is “American,” but many on the far right would like that child to be sent out of the country. Will he fight for that child or deport him or her?
• McCain promised to provide assistance to the unemployed worker (through Community College training), but was not clear if he was going to spend federal money to make the transition. The working class supporters will favor such a program, but if it costs money, McCain will run into problems with others in the Party.

And there were some questions that remain unanswered. Specifically, who is the “me-first, country-second crowd” to which McCain referred in his speech Thursday night? The handful of politicians who have been caught in scandals are obvious and common enemies of the people, but beyond that, is he referring to Democrats? It was a common call of previous speakers that “liberals” in Washington “want your money for themselves.” But those who favor government spending on social issues (or foreign policy, for that matter) don’t get to keep that money for themselves. Who is in this “crowd?” The call all week was for “country first,” but who were they suggesting puts themselves ahead of country? There was some implication that Obama is out for himself (a political opportunist), but the vague attack on an ambiguous target is parallel to the attacks against “the media.” During the debates, there should be some push to be specific about what is meant by such claims.




Racial Equality Through Education
Our concern, of course, is the move toward racial equality. There is very little that came out of this convention that suggests that McCain/Palin will be committed to bringing about more racial equality in America. After noting Obama’s historic nomination, McCain made a general reference to “defending the rights of the oppressed” and making sure that all Americans have opportunities. But we were quite impressed that he said that “education is the civil rights issue of this century.” There is more to racial inequality than education, but for the most part, McCain is exactly correct. The problem, though, is that his plan to fix the education system is pointed in the wrong direction.

Educational opportunities are unequal in America largely due to the way schools are funded. While some federal and state money is given to schools by way of grants, much (usually most) funding of schools is reliant on property taxes in the district. So if a neighborhood is wealthy, the schools are wealthy; if it is poor, the schools are poor. Poor districts are understaffed, do not have materials and resources necessary to educate in the 21st century, and do not attract the most talented teachers. Further, poor districts are likely to have students whose parents have to work long hours and consequently may not be home to help with schoolwork. After-school programs are not possible because of funding issues. McCain promised Thursday night to “shake up failed school bureaucracy,” a vague phrase that directs attention away from the real problem. Bureaucracy does not create discrepancies in school funding, economic inequality (which is closely tied to racial inequality) does. McCain promises to make schools compete with one another and then allow parents to have the “choice” to move their students to a better school. But what does this really mean?

Without equality in funding, the “competition” is not fair. Particularly since No Child Left Behind financially punishes schools whose students do not meet standardized benchmarks, the “competition” is not likely to become fairer without a major change in funding structure. But that change will not happen if the far right continues to dictate policy. McCain promised folks that they should be able to keep the fruits of their hard labor. That is precisely what does not need to happen.

To make schools more equal, wealthy people will have to give money to poor schools through taxes and redistribution of finances. So long as wealthy (mostly white) folks move to the suburbs and keep their wealth in their own schools, leaving poorer families behind (or, as Obama said last Thursday, “on their own”), there will be inequality in schools. A voucher that gives a family a $4,000 credit to put toward tuition at a private school will help families that are $4,000 short for private school tuition of, say, $12,000 per year, but for those who can’t get the remaining $8,000, that’s simply an additional $4,000 that will not be in the pool for the local public school.

Further, while it is popular in conservative circles to run against unions, his promise to take education out of the hands of “bureaucrats and unions” and give it to parents and children is wrongheaded. Letting students decide what should happen in schools is like having physicians permit patients to make their own medical diagnoses. Until teachers are treated like professionals and not merely government employees (i.e., better pay, greater respect and autonomy), great leaps in education will not be possible. In short, without a major redistribution of wealth for school funding, McCain’s vision of civil rights being achieved through education will not be realized.

McCain spoke of the sort of selflessness that wealthy persons like to applaud, but only occasionally advocate in practice. The truth is that there is economic inequality in this country, and those who have wealth do not usually support policies to help those who do not. So while it is probably soothing for wealthy folks to cheer calls to serve a cause greater than oneself and put service first, the policies that are advocated by the Republican Party in 2008 are not a change from those of the past forty years. Tax-deductible contributions to get one’s family into a lower bracket are welcome, but they are no substitute for the greater good that can come from working together as a national community to solve our great problems of homelessness, hunger, poverty, and inequality. The market cannot solve those problems, and when the confetti clears in St. Paul, it will be obvious that the real empty rhetoric is not coming from Obama, whose policies are designed to address inequality, but from the GOP, whose presidential candidate we believe is personally committed to making the world a fairer, better place for all (at least Americans), but whose power is still centered in the far right, which have already pulled the “maverick” from his comfort zone and into a policy world with nothing but continued and increased inequality on the horizon.

RNC Recap for Wednesday, September 3

Monday, we provided a preview of the themes we expect to see this week during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. Below is a recap of Wednesday’s events, organized by our predicted themes.

We very much appreciate Karla’s thoughtful comments on yesterday’s blog. If you have not read them, we urge you to do so. Since we know that we may be picking up new readers this week, we want to be clear about the way we use the words “racist” and “racial.” We reserve the former for the often-subconscious beliefs that pervade our culture and that tacitly promote and perpetuate white supremacy. Most racist appeals are not explicit, and their intentionality is not of our concern. Rather, we focus on potential effects of the interaction between messages that tap into latent racist sentiments and the way that individuals may process such messages, which, accordingly, can affect attitudes and, ultimately, behavior. Claims of “racism” below are not attacks on speakers or on the Republican Party; they are not claims that there was intent to play on racist predispositions. They may or may not be. That's not our concern. Rather, we aim to point out that certain claims that might be made against an opponent of any race work exponentially well when the candidate is African American because they trigger and amplify existing racial resentment and stereotypes.

Sexism and Governor Palin
The focus tonight, of course, was on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain’s nominee for vice president. In short, she gave a very good speech. It was well delivered, hard-hitting, and very effective on a number of levels. When she was first chosen, Stephen called the pick “brilliant political strategy” because it took most of the focus off Obama’s speech from the night before and because it allowed the market on “history” in this election to no longer be cornered by the Democrats. Many commentators have referred to her as a “Hail Mary” choice, using the American football analogy of throwing a pass high and far into a crowd in desperation at the end of a game (or half). The more appropriate analogy would be a team that has very little chance of winning starting the game with an onside kick; if it works, it can generate quick points, a morale boost, and some momentum. If not, the underdog is likely to go down early, with little chance of recovering. To extend the analogy beyond comfort, tonight was about seeing if the ball got the coveted “second bounce” and whether the “hands team” can come up with possession. As we noted previously, her far-right ideology is unlikely to translate into disgruntled Hillary Clinton voters’ support, but it is unclear how the choice will affect voters to the right and center of McCain. Tonight was a good start.



What is clear, however, is that the scrutiny of Palin’s nomination has become an important teaching lesson for all Americans. The party that has been first to unfairly demonize teenage pregnancy and single parenthood in poor communities and communities of color is in the position of having to defend it as a natural occurrence that can happen in any family now that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. The party that perennially failed to consider how systemic sexism acts as a barrier to women’s professional progress is forced to not only acknowledge it, but to put forth forceful arguments about how questions of Palin’s ability to care for her children reflect a double-standard in American culture. Rather than point fingers and say “ah-ha!” to those who have chastised others for generations, we urge unification on these issues from this point forward so that we can remove those barriers that still disproportionately disadvantage women. (Although, to be honest, seeing a delegate with a button that read “Hoosiers for the hot chick” is not exactly moving us beyond sexist stereotypes and misogyny.) Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani made an unfair inference about Barack Obama Wednesday night when he used an ambiguous pronoun (“they”) to refer to media questions about how much time Palin would have for her children, right after he talked about Obama’s campaign. To our knowledge, Obama has never raised such a question, and allowing the audience to infer that he has is disappointing.

Tonight was the big night for the RNC. The audience for McCain’s speech on Thursday night will not come anywhere close to the size of the audience for Obama’s speech last week. First, what more is there to know about John McCain? Second, the NFL kicks off its season with a prime-time game between the Super Bowl champion New York Giants and division rival Washington Redskins. Palin is the wild card for this ticket. Tonight was her night, and she nailed it.

The theme Wednesday night was “reform,” and all of the speakers sought to highlight this ticket’s ability to bring about reform. It’s tricky for conservatives generally to argue for change (unless it is change back to traditional values), but it’s more tricky for Republicans to argue for change on the heels of a Republican administration.

With that in mind, here are how our predictions from Monday panned out Wednesday night.

Theme 1: He (Obama) is Not Like Us
In speeches Wednesday night, Obama was painted as a skillful orator, with no substance, who is a political opportunist, an elitist and is out of touch with “normal” Americans. While an effective strategy in general, these ideas fit nicely with stereotypes of African Americans that they are shifty, slick, always scamming, and looking to help themselves to that which they do not deserve. Black athletes and celebrities (Giuliani called Obama a “celebrity senator,” suggesting that he is all flash and no substance or hard work) are stereotyped to be self-promoting and arrogant. In short, the various images of the black male in the American imagination are combined and ascribed to Barack Obama. Here is a list of quotes from Wednesday night that support this idea.

• “We need a leader who will work in the public’s interest, not clamor for the public’s applause.” (Michael Steele)
• “Mere words about change are not enough to transform this nation . . .” (Michael Steele)
• “There has never been a day when I was not proud to be an American.” (Mitt Romney, referring to Michelle Obama’s statement that for the first time in her adult life, she’s really proud of her country)
• Mike Huckabee expressed concern over the “European ideas” that Obama brought back from his trip overseas. The explicit claim he made is that these are not American ideas.
• “[He] couldn’t make a decision . . . it was too tough.” (Giuliani, suggesting that Obama has no firm principles upon which to base a decision)
• “Substance over style” (Giuliani)
• "[He] broke his promise” (Giuliani, referring to Obama’s pledge to accept public financing – feeds into stereotypes of lack of trustworthiness and willing to say anything to get what he wants)
• Giuliani noted that Obama changed his mind on wire tapping and on a united Jerusalem, which goes to an inability to trust his word.
• Giuliani made a joke that Obama didn’t think Palin’s hometown was “cosmopolitan enough” or “flashy enough,” which plays into the stereotype of the slick talking and arrogant black man – an attack we saw used against Harold Ford, Jr. in his 2006 senatorial bid in Tennessee.
• Referring to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Michael Steele said that “associations – who you hang out with – does matter . . . America should never be damned for creating a place so many people want to call home.”
• Governor Palin noted that there is “a time to campaign and a time to put our country first,” which plays into the stereotype that black folks put themselves and their needs above all else.
• Like Huckabee, Palin appealed to small town values – connection to hard workers and soldiers in small-town America. She said, “they’re always proud of America,” which contrasts with Obama’s alleged elitism.
• Palin said that Obama was two-faced when it comes to working people.
• Palin said that being a leader is “Not just mingl[ing] with the right people.”
• Palin talked about Obama making “dramatic speeches before devoted followers.” She said that he never uses the word “victory” unless he’s talking about his own campaign.
• Palin said: “There are some candidates, who use change to promote their careers, and then there are other candidates like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”
• Palin referred to “high-flung speechmaking in which crowds are stirringly summoned to promote great things.”
• Palin said that we needed leaders who were “Good for more than talk.”
• Of McCain, Palin said that he is a leader “we can count on,” presumably in contrast to Obama.
• “There is only one man in this election who has really fought for you—” At this point, Palin was interrupted by applause at this point (mid-sentence), but we wonder who the “you” is meant to address. Recall that McCain has no record on advocating for civil rights specifically, and he openly opposed the Martin Luther King holiday. McCain is no enemy of people of color, but “you” is ambiguous, and arguing that he has fought for them is curious. In fairness, Palin was trying to make the point that he fought in Vietnam for “you,” but the interruption at her pause reflects the attitudes of the audience members.
• Palin called McCain “upright and honorable,” presumably in contrast with Obama.
• “For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words, but for a lifetime, John McCain has inspired through his deeds.”

Some of Palin’s speech was quite acerbic. She mocked Obama on a number of occasions, at one point predicting what change he’d make “after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet.” A few moments later, she made a joke about accused terrorists having rights. From our perspective, this is a relatively easy joke since very few white folks are getting accused of terrorism. Civil liberties protect the most vulnerable among us (a decidedly Christian concept, ironically enough), and many right-wing conservatives are very concerned about “big brother” taking away those liberties. This will be a difficult line to walk, and presenting it sarcastically might make it that much more difficult.

Theme 2: McCain [and Palin are] Change
Like Tuesday night, there was a lot of talk about McCain as “maverick.” Of course, since it was Palin’s night, a lot of the attribution of potential change was placed on her, as well. Choosing her was about being a maverick, and her existence on the ticket is partly because she has a reputation for being a maverick. The most memorable direct quote was when Palin urged voters to “take the maverick out of the Senate [and] put him in the White House.” At one point in her speech, Palin noted that she is “not a member of the permanent political establishment.” This is certainly true, but to the extent that she wishes to contrast with Obama, it is going to be a tough sell to convince voters that he is at once inexperienced and at the same time part of the establishment.

Theme 3: McCain is Conservative
Reagan mentions were limited, but both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani invoked his legacy (both linking him with the current ticket). Beyond that, there were a lot of references to early 1990s conservatism. We heard arguments that we haven’t heard in a long time. Romney talked about runaway government spending since 1980 (ignoring defense spending by Reagan and G.W. Bush as the largest contributions to the national debt), and several speakers used the term “political correctness” (Rudy Giuliani said, “Democrats think it is politically incorrect to use the words ‘Islamic terrorist.’”; Mitt Romney said that folks “. . . prefer straight talk to politically correct talk.”). That term was used in the 1980s and early 1990s as a way to discredit efforts to promote cultural sensitivity and tolerance as “thought crimes.” Giuliani referred to “big brother,” and several speakers tied the current Democratic ticket with the tax-and-spend liberalism that helped usher Republicans into power in 1994.

Mitt Romney said, "liberals would replace opportunity with dependency on government largess. They grow government and raise taxes to put more people on Medicaid, to work requirements out of welfare, and to grow the ranks of those who pay no taxes at all. Dependency is death to initiative, to risk-taking and opportunity. It's time to stop the spread of government dependency and fight it like the poison it is! It’s time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother!"

Further, the speakers invoked a strategy that has been very effective since the Reagan administration: running against the “elite media.” Because “media” is an abstract entity, candidates can set themselves up as underdogs by claiming that the media is against them. This works best for conservatives who want to play into populist sentiment, which the speakers tonight did very well.

Mike Huckabee helped to deliver a populist message, trying to wrestle the support of the working class from the Democrats. He made reference to single moms (not a group that Republicans have historically spent a lot of time trying to attract) and (union) flight attendants and airline baggage handlers. He told a story of his father who was poor, which is a very common response when conservatives feel defensive about being insensitive to the poor. The fact is that just about everyone who is rich can tell a story about someone in his or her family who was broke at some point. (Cindy McCain told a story about her father on Monday night.) The message is that America is fair, and those who aren’t making it are failing because of their own poor choices and lack of hard work. In fact, Huckabee said at one point, “I’m a Republican because I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life poor, waiting for the government to rescue me.” This is a picture of America’s poor (which is disproporationately of color) that allows folks to feel comfortable not addressing systemic barriers to success.



Sarah Palin argued that she and McCain would give government back to the people. This is a an important point to be made from a party that is often accused of favoring the wealthy. Tapping into the Pat Buchanan (now Mike Huckabee) wing of the Republican Party will be important to their success in many key states, particularly those in the Rust Belt. Palin made reference to “the compassion of one who once was powerless,” which is an important point because of the heat McCain has generated by not knowing how many houses he owns. As the black candidate, Obama will be presumed to know more about oppression, but matching his experience as a black man in America with McCain’s five years of torture may be effective to offset that advantage in the minds of undecided voters.

Theme 4: Republicans are Inclusive
There seemed to be somewhere near three times the number of African Americans in the hall Wednesday night compared to Tuesday. As we predicted on Monday, it seemed as if each of them got close-up time on television (some more than once).

Early in the evening, there was barely a white man to be found on the podium, though a lot of this was due to the prominence of women Republicans on the night that Sarah Palin was to introduce herself. We heard the lovely singing voice of Ruby Brown, an African American woman and friend of the McCains, in a duet of “America the Beautiful” to open the session. Several people of color were shown in the audience as she sang. When Elena Rios, President and CEO of the National Hispanic Medical Association, was speaking, no one was paying attention. She talked about minority children not getting immunizations and the discrepancy between white and of-color persons with respect to access to health care. Camera pans of the crowd showed private conversations and distracted delegates, reading, laughing and daydreaming. Ruth Lopez Novodor, a small business owner, commanded much more attention with her discussion of business and the amount of money small businesses contribute to the economy. Michael Williams, Texas Railroad Commission Chairman and an African American, noted that he was at the Republican Convention because he found little value in the “politics of demography.” He also noted that “Americans will not fall for identity politics over good ideas.” Before hearing from two wealthy businesswomen (Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina), Delegate Luis Fortuno of Puerto Rico addressed the crowd.

Then, Michael Steele, who is perhaps the most well known black Republican on the current political landscape, gave a stirring speech that greatly energized the crowd. He addressed race directly by saying that “the ideal of a color blind society is worth fighting for, because each man, woman and child is an individual, not a member of some hyphenated. . .group.” Mike Huckabee personalized his intolerance of racism: “. . . I witnessed firsthand the shameful evil of racism.” He said that he had respect for Obama’s securing of the nomination: “We celebrate this milestone because it elevates our country, but the presidency is not a symbolic job.” With this point, we recall Geraldine Ferraro’s claim that Obama’s nomination was an affirmative action hire. Huckabee is noting that we need more than the mere symbolism that a black president can offer.



And to close out the night, Cowboy Troy, a black country singer, spoke the Pledge of Allegiance as two other (white) singers sang the Star Spangled Banner.

Insensitivity and Callousness
The most disturbing note Wednesday night came during Rudy Giuliani’s speech. People laughed when he noted that Obama was a “community organizer” (though it didn't appear to be planned as a joke in and of itself) and held up zeros, chanting "ZEE-RO" as if such work is of no importance whatsoever. Governor Palin piled on with even more vitriol as she said that “a small town mayor is like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.” Later, referring to the presidency, Palin said “It’s not just a community and it doesn’t need an organizer. This sort of devaluation of the work that is done in inner cities by leaders – many of whom (like Barack Obama) eschew personal wealth and fame to make the lives of disadvantaged folks better – will not be well received in a large section of America. Further, Giuliani said that “[Obama] never had to lead people in crisis.” This discounts the crisis poor folks faced in the communities in which Obama worked and the crisis in which America’s poor face on a daily basis. When you are poor and cannot take care of your family, you don’t need a terrorist attack or a hurricane to create a crisis; you live in a constant state of crisis. Perhaps McCain and Palin are writing off the inner cities altogether, but the danger of such dismissiveness is that suburban independents will take offense to such a flip attitude toward folks who are suffering (in this case, due to steel mills closing when jobs moved overseas).



Miscellaneous
Two more quick points that we’d like to make before we get some sleep:

1. We really liked Giuliani’s assertion Democrats are in a state of denial about national security. He said, “If you deny it, and you don’t deal with it, then you can’t face it.” This is precisely the argument critical race theorists have been making about systemic racism.
2. Finally, during one break, there was a country music song called “If You’re Going Through Hell” by Rodney Atkins. The chorus, in part, advises “If you’re going through hell, just keep moving.” This is typical of American individualistic sentiment. If things are bad, they’re bad because you’re not trying hard enough. There are no systemic barriers to your progress. Just work harder. If you fail, that’s your problem. Maybe someone will come by to help, but no one is going to remove the things that are keeping you from getting the same chance as others. It’s consistent with conservative philosophy, but it’s the type of conservatism that has widespread support because it appears to be a feel-good message about hard work and optimism. At its root, there is danger, though, because it fails to acknowledge the reasons why some folks are in “hell,” why some have a better chance of getting out of (or keeping out of) “hell” in the first place, and what all of us might do to make sure our neighbors get a little piece of heaven.

As we did yesterday, we very much want to encourage readers to post their own observations and comments below to provide a more full and vigorous dialogue about the Republican National Convention, its themes, and the potential for priming of racist stereotypes about African Americans.

RNC Recap for Tuesday, September 2

Yesterday, we provided a preview of the themes we expect to see this week during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. Here is a recap of Tuesday’s events, organized by our predicted themes.

For readers who are new to TWIR, we want to be clear about the way we use the words “racist” and “racial.” We reserve the former for the often-subconscious beliefs that pervade our culture and that tacitly promote and perpetuate the white power structure. Most racist appeals are not explicit, and their intentionality is not of our concern. Rather, we focus on potential effects of the interaction between messages that tap into latent racist sentiments and the way that individuals may process such messages, which, accordingly, can affect attitudes and, ultimately, behavior.

The overarching RNC themes last night were “Service Above Self” and “Country First,” both of which were reflected through signs handed out in the convention hall, as well as through the speeches that were given. Most of the evening’s speakers testified to John McCain’s character, particularly his love of country and the sacrifices he made as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. Those themes led nicely to the sentiment that John McCain deserves to be president – he has earned it through his experience. Barack Obama on the other hand, was presented as a shallow orator who has political ambitions, but no true love of country (or, at least he has yet to demonstrate it). Here are some examples of what we saw that matched our predictions from yesterday.

Theme 1: He’s Not Like Us
Former Tennessee Senator (and 2008 presidential hopeful) Fred Thompson’s speech was centered on vivid descriptors of McCain’s torture in Vietnam, as well as contrasting McCain’s action and experience with Obama’s “talk.” Playing on Obama’s theme “A change you can believe in,” Thompson said that McCain has “character you can believe in.” The remarks with the greatest potential to play into racist predispositions came when Thompson said that Washington has had its share of “smooth talkers and big talkers.” He added, “Obviously it still has.” The stereotype of African Americans – particularly African American men – as shifty, fast-talking and untrustworthy is primed by suggestions that Obama talks a good game, but is really trying to fool everyone for his own benefit. He, unlike McCain, will not put country first. Thompson referred to Obama making a “teleprompter speech designed to appeal to America’s critics abroad,” and tried to turn Obama’s historical run on its side by noting that it is, indeed, history making because he is “the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee ever to run for president.” Finally, Thompson said that we need a president who feels no need to apologize for the United States of America. Senator Joe Lieberman said the following of Obama: He’s “gifted and eloquent”; “eloquence is no substitute for a record.”

In short, Obama was presented last night as someone who is far out in left field, someone who is “not us,” and someone who just doesn’t get it (a claim the Democrats leveled against McCain last week). In the context of the approximately 99% white convention hall, there is a decidedly racist undertone (intentional or otherwise) to this line of rhetoric.

Theme 2: McCain is Change
As we predicted, there was a lot of talk of McCain as “maverick” and Palin as “reformer.” In his video speech to the convention, President George W. Bush provided the following quotes about McCain: “John is an independent man who thinks for himself” and “This man is honest and speaks straight from the heart.” He went on to suggest that Barack Obama is a political opportunist by noting that McCain would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. Additionally, he called Sarah Palin “strong and principled,” suggesting that she, too, is not bound to party, but rather to principle – to country first. Fred Thompson spoke directly about how McCain is running against Washington, and about how he has been fighting Washington since he arrived (a point that President Bush made, as well, with effective humor). In fact, Thompson argued that what Obama is advocating is not change at all. He called it “ the same old stuff [Democrats have] been peddling for years.” Thompson claimed that he’d rather have Palin than someone who is part of the old beltway crowd (presumably referring to Obama or Biden, not McCain).

Senator Joe Lieberman’s very presence as a former Democrat (though he curiously referred to himself as a Democrat in the present tense on a number of occasions) was designed to show that McCain is a different kind of politician – one who can reach across the aisle or fight against members of his own party. He also noted that Governor Palin is a reformer who has reached across party lines; she is going to “help John shake up Washington.” Lieberman, like Thompson before him, noted that “the real ticket for change this year is the McCain/Palin ticket,” adding that the bureaucrats in Washington “will not be able to build a pen to hold in these two mavericks.”

Theme 3: McCain is Conservative
President Bush made reference to “the angry left,” which drew a huge applause from the crowd. As we noted in our preview yesterday, accusing Democrats of being “liberal” or “too liberal” is not unique to running against a black candidate, but the charge works differently when the candidate is black. In this case, the sentiment plays into the “angry black man” stereotype, as well as a “liberal as emotional and irrational political actor” motif.

As for our Reagan prediction: there was an entire video montage dedicated to Reagan. If you took our advice and played the drinking game, make sure to drink a lot of water today and take a couple of aspirin. In the video, Regan was equated with John McCain implicitly, as he was portrayed as a man who “never forgot who he was” and “a leader who would always put his country first.” The narrator noted that the media “despised” Reagan because he was an outsider, and that some even called him a “maverick” – a word most often used to describe John McCain since his 2000 election run. After noting that Reagan “replaced [President Jimmy] Carter’s indecision with conviction politics,” McCain was linked with Reagan through a photo of the two shortly after McCain arrived in Washington. Finally, discussion of Nancy Reagan as a supportive, loving, doting first lady was clearly designed to show a parallel with Cindy McCain (and a contrast with Michelle Obama).

Theme 4: Republicans are Inclusive
The limited diversity in the convention hall is striking when compared to last week’s convention in Denver. Wide camera pans shows an almost all-white delegation and audience. As we predicted, though, the camera was sure to find the few people of color in the crowd. Here’s what we noticed: one black woman during Thompson’s speech; one elderly black man cheering; a woman of color sitting behind Cindy McCain; and a black woman holding a sign that read “McCain Rules.” While we were not able to watch all of the speeches, we did note that Miles McPherson, who is African American, spoke as president of Miles Ahead Ministries.

Earlier in the evening, there was a video montage put together around a 500-word essay from a young woman who won a contest about what the American flag means. The pictures of the classroom of students pledging to the flag looked like a United Colors of Benetton advertisement, even though virtually no classrooms in the United States feature this type of ethnic diversity.


We want to urge readers to post their own observations and comments below to provide a more full and vigorous dialogue about the Republican National Convention, its themes, and the potential for priming of racist stereotypes about African Americans.

Preview of Republican National Convention

THIS WEEK, we will be keeping our eye on the speakers at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. Here is a preview of the themes that we expect to see and hear.

He’s Not Like Us
Look for messages about how Obama is “different.” No one will mention his race, of course, but there will be suggestions about how he’s too liberal, too elitist, too naïve, etc. These are claims that would be made against any candidate, but they work differently because Obama is black. That is, it is always effective for a conservative candidate to claim that his or her opponent is too liberal. But when used against a black opponent, the effect is stronger because it plays into stereotypes about African Americans and liberals: they want government to do everything for them, they’re lazy, they’re permissive (not concerned with personal responsibility), and they want to take things from folks who have worked hard and earned what they have. McCain and Palin will be portrayed as “normal,” while Obama, specifically, will be portrayed as “other.”

McCain is Change
No one is going to vote for status quo this year, with the exception of the super wealthy and corporate leaders. To win a plurality of votes in any state, a candidate will have to convince voters that he stands for change. The question, then, is what type of change. Obama gave a fairly detailed policy speech on Thursday night, but look for Republicans to accuse him of being vague about his vision of change. Since McCain does not favor many changes in policy from the Bush Administration, look for the Republicans to emphasize “change in Washington,” where McCain is portrayed as a maverick independent and Palin is characterized (rightly so) as a Washington outsider. Look for rhetoric that signals a break from the Bush Administration, particularly since Obama is trying to tie McCain to Bush.

McCain is Conservative
Here’s a drinking game for you: Do a shot of your favorite liquor each time Ronald Reagan’s name is mentioned at the convention. Then call Alcoholics Anonymous.

Republicans are Inclusive
Republicans need to make sure that white folks do not feel guilty for voting against Obama since he is black. To make a vote for McCain not cause cognitive dissonance among whites who fancy themselves post-racial (i.e., “color blind”), the Republicans will show – in words and images – as much diversity as possible. Choosing Palin was a strong step in that direction. Every person of color in the hall will be seen on television at least once. As many black Republicans as they can find will speak. Many Latino leaders will speak. There will be language about how revolutionary (change!) it would be to choose a female vice-president. Remember, they will imply, the Democrats treated their female candidate poorly.

As with the DNC, we will not be able to watch every speech. So please feel free to post your observations of the accuracy or inaccuracy of our predictions in the comments section below.