« Yglesias vs. Kirchick | Main | The Victory Savings Plan »

In Re: Gant

08 Jul 2008 01:42 pm

I've read a lot of conservative defenses of Jesse Helms' infamous "white hands" ad over the past few days, and I have to say it's all pretty dumb:

Granted, there's a difference between opposing affirmative action and being racist. Yes, this is an anti-affirmative action ad that seeks specifically to motivate white resentments rather than to appeal to an argument about fairness, but still, politics ain't beanbag. But the obvious difference in the case of the Helms ad is that it was an ad for Jesse Helms who started his career running a race-baiting campaign for a white supremacist candidate who went on to become a white supremacist television commentator who left the Democratic Party over the Democratic Party's abandonment of white supremacy who opposed making Martin Luther King Day a holiday who opposed the civil rights act, etc., etc., etc., and who never expressed any regrets about any of those things.

The context is clearly relevant and all points in one direction. The ad, absent Helms' career, would just be a demagogic campaign ad among many demagogic campaign ads. But in the context of Helms' career, it encapsulates his utter lack of remorse for his history of racial bigotry which, in turn, provides the context in which we must understand his anti-gay bigotry.

I think, however, that this will be the last I say on Helms. Ross Douthat takes the line I think conservatives ought to take on this character, as did Jonathan Rauch in 2002 and as does Max Boot. So I'll wish them and whomever else luck in building a post-Helms conservatism and hope for the best.

Share This

Comments (18)

Gantt. Two t's. Harvey Gantt.

Jesse Helms' did not lie in state in the rotunda because of the holiday...his bigotry kept the funeral in NC.

Somebody start a fundraiser for a new comma key, stat. Matt's seems to be toiling for the choir invisible.

It is possible to oppose affirmative action without being racist.

It is not, however, possible to oppose affirmative action without being racist and without being a damn fool.

Contrary to apparent widespread belief on the right, anti-white discrimination is not the principle civil rights problem in this country.

Helms' ad lied about affirmative action. Nobody has proposed hiring quotas since the 60's. Ted Kennedy didn't sponsor some kind of "quota" bill. Helms was engaged in race baiting, pure and simple. Hint: when a politician lies, chances are, he isn't arguing in good faith.

Just...really? The guy's name is right there in the video's first frame, about six inches below your post title. You really couldn't manage to spell it correctly?

Just be happy he didn't spell it "gnat".

It's an interesting double-standard that black candidates have to disavow Farrakhan, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson while white candidates never have to disavow Thurmond and Helms, even though Thurmond & Helms were U.S. Senators !

It is not, however, possible to oppose affirmative action without being racist and without being a damn fool.

Few people seem to be aware that affirmative action, or "positive discrimination" as it is called over here, has until very recently (changes are currently being discussed) been explicitly forbidden in the UK. Yet I fail to see how the UK as a country has been more racist than the US.

Well, Helms probably also thought Ron Gant was taking away a job from a deserving white outfielder, so Matt's point still applies.

The use of the white hands angrily crushing the paper was meant to express white anger, saying "we're not going to take this anymore," meaning that a white person watching the ad was meant to feel angry about being beaten around by powerful black people. Of course such an ad is based on racist lies. There are many ways to attack AA in an ad without going for such obvious ways to exploit white racial anger.

I can't find any online reference to this via google, but I recall that race being too close for Helms' comfort toward the end, at which point Jesse started warning voters that his opponent was going to "get out the secret black vote."

I still have no idea what that means, but it seems to have worked.
.

It is not, however, possible to oppose affirmative action without being racist and without being a damn fool.

Sure it is. AA should be based on SES not race.

That was easy.

Reagan's "states rights" speech in Philadelphia,Miss. in 1980 undercuts Douthat's "Reagan Good/Helms Bad" absolving dichotomy.

Reagan kick-started his march to the presidency by making a nasty, coded appeal to racists.

The reason the ad was racist and not a tough campaign ad was that Gantt was AGAINST affirmative action and had stated it publicly more than once.
So it was not aimed at attacking him. It was merely aimed at introducing a racial resentment theme in the campaign

saw the bloggingheads segment and i have to say that it was just outstanding to see matt pound the heck out of the vapid kirchik.
matt revealed him to be the slogan-spouting emptyheaded that he is.
great job matt and i just wish more progressives would adopt your take-no-bullshit stance with people like kirchik, who depend on progressives allowing them to run off at the mouth without being called on their nonsense.
everyone should see the segment. he did himself proud.

"Sure it is. AA should be based on SES not race."

white women were in the mix of historically marginalized groups at the inception of AA policies. they now have become the biggest beneficiaries of AA policies (a third now have bachelor degrees).

poor whites will become the biggest beneficiaries of SES-based AA policies. it's called white skin privilege and america functions on a system of advantages based on that privilege. again, how's that leveling the playing field for poor people of color?

"Sure it is. AA should be based on SES not race."

white women were in the mix of historically marginalized groups at the inception of AA policies. they now have become the biggest beneficiaries of AA policies (a third now have bachelor degrees).

poor whites will become the biggest beneficiaries of SES-based AA policies. it's called white skin privilege and america functions on a system of advantages based on that privilege. again, how's that leveling the playing field for poor people of color?

You really think racial AA is going to level the playing field for people of color? Really?

I can't imagine any benefit from AA has been large enough to justify the political damage it's done. Sure, the Helms ad was unfair. Boo-friggin-hoo. You give people these opportunities, and they'll use them.

But benjamin, please.... an attack ad doesn't have to attack the opponent's actual positions. It just has to attack the positions the public thinks he has. Tough luck for Harvey Gantt that he was attacked for policies he didn't support, but that's the fault of the national Dems, who did support them.


Comments closed July 22, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.