Race Cards

I think the McCain campaign's "Celebrity" ad and the whole line about Barack Obama being too arrogant or something are pretty ridiculous, but it's a bit puzzling to me to see liberals expressing the view that these are some kind of crypto-racist lines of attack. Given that Obama's black, and America's history, I think it's always going to be possible to read some kind of racial subtext into attacks on him. But both of these are lines of argument you could easily imagine being deployed against a white candidate and, indeed, they're fundamentally similar to arguments Republicans regularly make against Democrats.

Beyond that, trying to sniff out racial subtexts in these kind of things strikes me as overwhelmingly likely to prove problematic. People really don't like to be called racists. Obama really has had a brief tenure on the national stage and most people really aren't especially familiar with his legislative record or his agenda. If people hear about Obama's record their doubts may be allayed. If they're told that their doubts are really just racism, they get defensive. Personally, I think Obama's record on getting police to videotape interrogations speaks extremely well of him. For one thing, he was right on the merits of the issue. But beyond that, this is the kind of thankless cause that politicians normally avoid. Even those who might be willing to back a measure of this sort are rarely going to decide that it's worth investing actual time and energy in it. And Obama showed great skill in, over time, growing his coalition and defusing the initial opposition of law enforcement groups -- getting them to see that at the end of the day serious law enforcement professionals have nothing to fear from high professional standards and meaningful efforts to see that justice is done. But how many people know about this stuff?

Comments

Finally, some common sense amid the hysteria.

Posted by dry_fish | August 1, 2008 9:22 AM

What you say is very true, but most voters won't dig into his record to find stuff like this. Most will take a very superficial look and judge accordingly.

Posted by J Greer | August 1, 2008 9:23 AM

There's nothing "crypto" about the racism of the "Celebrity" ad. The appeal to racism is front and center. It's a standard dog-whistle, that allows nonracists to interpret the ad one way while sending a clear message to racists. There's a reason the "celebrities" highlighted in the ad were young, white, female, and hypersexualized, and that reason has to do with the fear some people have of black men having sex with white women. That doesn't mean that the ad is an appeal only> to racism, but if you're not willing to call this ad an appeal to racism, then you're pathetically blind to the realities of race in the United States.

Posted by R Johnston | August 1, 2008 9:25 AM

I appreciate your point. But the fact that people don't like to be called racist (or "really" don't like to be called racist), can easily become a dodge (I'd argue has always been a dodge) for, well, racist behavior. As a matter of fact, the McCain camp's entire reaction is predicated on "it's worse to call something racist than it is to do something racist" dodge.

This has more to do with the "arrogance" meme that has taken over the corporate media this week, perhaps, than the "celebrity" meme. But I"m willing to bet - given that the McCain camp has hired the author of the notorious Harold Ford "Call me" attack piece - that using Spears and Hilton was more of a camel's nose under the tent than a one-off on Obama's fame.

Posted by David | August 1, 2008 9:26 AM

Five words, Matt: 'Where da white wimmen at?'

Or ask yourself this, of all the celebrities, why two young white females and not, say, some combination of Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Jane Fonda, and Michael Moore?

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | August 1, 2008 9:33 AM

Yep, white people sure hate to talk about racism.

Obama's running for president of the US, so he needs people to vote for him. There's lots of white people in the US. So discussing race is counterproductive.

Doesn't mean that McCain's ad was above-board, though. Still, the situation being what it is, let's get back to talking about issues, if the media will allow it.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 1, 2008 9:33 AM

Matt, have a cup of coffee and go back to the infamous Lee Atwater quote.

Then maybe you'll be prepared for the impending column from someone like "independent" pundit Kathleen Parker with words to the effect of

I wouldn't want my daughter to date Barrack Obama--to be sure, not for any antiquated racial insecurities--but because I'm still not sure who he is. He hasn't shown me anything...

Anyone who questions her motivations will be viciously attacked as "playing the race card" (that phrase itself a barely veiled code), immensely aided by the groundwork laid out from this unfortunate incident.

Posted by ed | August 1, 2008 9:37 AM

The other problem with trying to go after the ad on the "implicit racist" grounds is that there are so many other grounds to attack the ad on that, from a political/horse race perspective, will have bigger bang for their buck (e.g. the ad is petty, highlights positive things about Obama given it is a good thing to have people abroad like America and its leaders, hypocritical given McCain takes Hilton money for his campaign and was the last politician Britney Spears actually appeared with, further proof that John McCain has completely abandoned his pro-enivornment record, etc.).

Posted by deekerj | August 1, 2008 9:40 AM

ahh, the 'race card' card.

perfect for shutting down any discussion of race no matter how legitimate the grievance

Posted by Edward | August 1, 2008 9:41 AM

The problem with reading the McCain ad as being similar to the anti-Ford ad is that the connection between Britney and Paris and Obama is not really as clear. The relationship vis a vis the ad is that Obama is *like* them or *is* them--not that he's having sex with them. So if McCain is trying to dog whistle, it's not a particularly clear or obvious dog whistle--one doesn't think it would be terribly effective as a dog whistle, actually. On the other hand, if McCain ran an ad that was more overtly a dog whistle, it would be more justifiable to raise the "race card", so he's a little hemmed in there.

However, one might even think (except I can't give the McCain team this many points for conscious competence) that the ad was calibrated so that certain liberals would cry foul, but be vague enough that said liberals would look silly doing so. Bait for the base, and they took it, in other words. But since I don't think that McCain is that competent, I think he got lucky.

Then again, don't think this will matter in November--we're just bored now.

Posted by JMS | August 1, 2008 9:43 AM

I think the dogwhistle theory is correct. These guys are past masters at subtexts that will send the right message to the right audience. I can't interpret the use of Britney and Paris any other way than as an appeal to the subliminal fear of a black man being attractive to young white women. It's one of the strongest tropes in the psychology of the Southern white male - William Faulker practically built a literary career on it. One of the dirtiest words in southern culture is the gruesome-sounding "miscegenation". Don't underestimate the remnants of this sleeping vampire.

The only good thing (maybe) is that they will have shot this wad before we get too far into the campaign.

Posted by Virginia | August 1, 2008 9:44 AM

It's nice of Atlantic bloggers to take a safe literary critical approach to the ad, asking about intention and parsing the details.

The point, however, is that out in the hinterland plenty of people are seeing the ad and they get the racial imagery immediately, even if the precise message it sends is unclear. Just look, for example, at any NFL team fan blog that allows non-football topics: discussions of the ad are split 50-50 between those who think it's racist and those who think it isn't racist (because John McCain is a good man) but Obama is an uppity negro anyway; in fact, Obama is the one who's racist.

And now with people like Yglesias giving McCain cover, they'll keeping pumping out borderline ads like this; liberals testifying to the McCain camp's purity of heart just innoculates them for the future.

This nonsense has to be nipped in the bud. It wasn't, so it will come back in even more virulent form, again and again and again.

Posted by lampwick | August 1, 2008 9:47 AM

It doesn't really matter what Obama or his supporters say or do, the McCain campaign will continue to just make stuff up-- Schmidt's faux outrage over the "dollar bill" comment being a case in point.

The clip from yesterday of Obama saying why is my opponent focusing on Britney Spears when we have serious issues ("is that the best he can do?") is spot on, the perfect tone and reaction and they need to keep hammering back as well as get more aggressive about pointing out the stupidity and/or emptiness of McCain's policies.

All the pundit bloviating about the race card crap is just the media doing what they love to do-- whipping themselves into a frenzy that distracts from any discussion of real issues like health care and the economy.

Posted by Ruth | August 1, 2008 9:49 AM

Then again, don't think this will matter in November--we're just bored now.

Outside of billmon's theory being true, I think you're pretty much correct.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | August 1, 2008 9:49 AM

All I know is that Obama needs to get a better messaging team. He has missed so many opportunities to pounce McCain but he didn't.

Posted by Micheline | August 1, 2008 9:50 AM

Just in case anyone is confused, here's the Atwater quote, yet again. Matt, if you would be so kind as to post this at the top of your main webpage, that would be helpful:

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.

Posted by ed | August 1, 2008 9:53 AM

It doesn't do us any good to talk about now. McCain is appealing to evil tendencies within the voters, but if you try to call him out on it, those evil tendencies will only grow. As long as our democracy is filled with human beings, it's not going to be pretty.

But make note of it. Record it in the history books. Make sure posterity knows that in 2008 racism was a core part of McCain's strategy. Some day we'll know better, but it's important to note which party was part of the problem.

Posted by Consumatopia | August 1, 2008 9:54 AM

Matt,

stop trying to be 'balanced' - it makes you look stupid and naïve.

Actually stop and think, why are there two blond women who are perceived as sluts in an advert about a presidential nominee.

Nobody else - just two blonds, who have nothing in common, save being female, blond, and the rest.

Funny how they use a shot of Britney looking far better than she does now.

Posted by James | August 1, 2008 10:01 AM

Well folks I think the reality is that its "bait" in a more standard sense. That is they are trying to, and did to some degree, want to elicit a reaction from the Liberal blogosphpere and ,presumably, Obama.

I think the "white starlet" thing is a red herring. The more important subtext is the classic stereotype that black people are just good at being entertainers. It in no way says any of this explicitly but its more designed to elicit and outraged reaction. And then they play the race card card.

So if you're carrying on about it, you're falling for it.

Posted by AhYup | August 1, 2008 10:05 AM

what entertaining did Paris Hilton do, save in a porn film?

Posted by James | August 1, 2008 10:07 AM

First, a few general comments:

I agree the Obama Campaign has to be very careful in the way it calls out the McCain Campaign for race-related tactics, regardless of the merits of the charge. But since I am not part of the Obama Campaign, I'm just going to tell the truth as I see it.

Second, I think members of the media, bloggers included, have a responsibility to be vigilent. The people who use these tactics know that they are provided cover by the reluctance of the media to describe the tactics of mainstream political figures as race-related, and I can guaranteed they are paying close attention to whether or not a given effort results in any media backlash. So they will keep calibrating their ads in light of what happens in the media in an effort to use race-related tactics as much as possible, meaning to the point just short of actually triggering a widespread media backlash.

Finally, I think Josh Marshall makes an excellent point in his "Newton, Race and Karl Rove" post at TPM. It is crucial to understand that it is a standard tactic to create ads that could have a relatively benign interpretation, while nonetheless still achieving the race-related effect among the target subset of the audience. So, "is there a plausible non-race-related explanation for this ad?" is not the right question to be asking, because the people who make this sort of ad are deliberately trying to provide themselves with cover in exactly that way.

Anyway, Matt says:

"But both of these are lines of argument you could easily imagine being deployed against a white candidate and, indeed, they're fundamentally similar to arguments Republicans regularly make against Democrats."

Really?

I honestly wonder about this. Is it really true that white candidates in the past have been subject to such a constant refrain of people suggesting they are being "presumptuous"/"arrogant" simply for doing what in other contexts is often described as "acting presidential"? Is it really true white candidates in the past have been linked to oversexed starlets on the nominal grounds they are all "celebrities" in some extremely broad sense of the term? That is not my recollection, but I am open to Matt or anyone else showing me otherwise.

In fact, what I suspect is really going on here is Matt is getting a lot of work done by his "fundamentally similar" claim. And I suspect if he made what he was thinking explicit, it would trigger Josh Marshall's point: yes, there are undoubtedly aspects of these attacks that are much like attacks that have been used on white candidates. But it is crucial to understand that doesn't mean there is not a deliberate race-related element as well.

Posted by DTM | August 1, 2008 10:09 AM

"presumptuous"/"arrogant" simply for doing what in other contexts is often described as "acting presidential"

Well, Hillary Clinton comes to mind. A lot of these themes were pushed at Al Gore as well.

Posted by AhYup | August 1, 2008 10:14 AM

Matt,

I know your actual knowledge of McCain is very poor - you didn't even know two of his children were in active service when you slated the whole family - but do you even know how McCain lost the 2000 nomination?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

This was pure Rove - who is now involved running McCain. Please, drop some of the snark and get a fucking clue instead.

Posted by James | August 1, 2008 10:22 AM

stop trying to be 'balanced' - it makes you look stupid and naïve.

You can disagree with Matt about whether the ad has racist undertones, but I don't think it's simply an attempt to be balanced. I don't think this is a debate of the left sees racism and the right denies it, and Matt's just trying to be the contrarian liberal. Just from what I've read in the blogoshpere so far, there is hardly a liberal consensus about whether the ad is racist or not. Which I guess is my way of saying that I agree with Matt 100% (and not because it makes me feel good to side with racists every once in a while) and I don't like being called stupid and naive.

Posted by ibid | August 1, 2008 10:25 AM

Well, you fell for that one, Matt. Here's what happened:

1. McCain runs horrible, horrible ad, with racist undertones.
2. Obama criticizes ad, focusing on the whole ad; one sentence pertains remotely to race.
3. McCain responds to Obama's kee-razy focus on race.
4. Everybody talks about Obama playing race card.

Except Obama never PLAYED the race card. His actual criticism of the ad is far more holistic. BUT our awful, evil pundit class (champing at the bit to play WITH the race card) will try to make the whole thing about Obama.

So McCain will have made THE MOST DESPICABLE AD in American politics, THE LOW POINT OF OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE, and not only get away without punishment but will have shifted the debate to EXACTLY the topic that the commercial addresses.

Seriously, Burr shooting Hamilton is a prouder national moment than this week.

Posted by Luke | August 1, 2008 10:31 AM

From what I know of Hamilton, I think Burr shooting him should be a proud moment.

And anyway, Hamilton agreed to the duel, and it was Hamilton who didn't play by the rules.

given what a poor shot Cheney is, shame we can't bring them back.

Posted by James | August 1, 2008 10:49 AM

Let's say I'm running for Congress against an incumbent politician who gets a lot of campaign contributions from the financial services industry. He's also voted for a few favorable tax breaks and regulations for the industry, but nothing that was particularly controversial. I want to make an ad talking about these donations and his relationship to the industry.

My ad shows:

1. Rep. So-and-so in a black and white photo.

2. Names and pictures of some of the donors.

3. Big piles of cash or gold, with Rep. So-and-so's picture.

4. It ends with a question: "Do we really want Rep. So-and-so's banker friends running the country?"

A fair, yet hard-hitting ad, right? One you'd make against any politician, right? Seriously, the fact that Rep. So-and-so is Jewish never even occured to me. I don't judge people by their religion, after all.

Now can you smell the racism?

Posted by Matt | August 1, 2008 10:54 AM

AhYup,

You write:

"Well, Hillary Clinton comes to mind. A lot of these themes were pushed at Al Gore as well."

Can you give me some examples? Remember I'm not asking for examples of them being called arrogant, but specifically asking for example of being called arrogant for doing similar things (e.g., merely for giving speeches abroad, talking to foreign leaders, etc.).

Posted by DTM | August 1, 2008 11:06 AM

Golly, let's see now: the first campaign ad in US political history to juxtapose the opposing candidate with two young, blond, white women who have no connection whatsoever to the candidate. And the candidate ... just ... happens ... to be a black man and the first black presidential nominee in our history. Hey, that's some coinky-dink!!

Matt, if you've got some money you're looking to invest, can we talk swampland?

Posted by Gator90 | August 1, 2008 12:06 PM

Billmon is right on this one. The McCain campaign selected Britney and Paris for the ad, not Oprah or Tiger Woods or other, much bigger, celebrities. That alone should tell us all we need to know.

That said, approaching this ad from a race standpoint--even though it is racist--would be counterproductive for Obama. The simple fact that there is reasonable disagreement regarding the presence of racism is indication enough that he shouldn't raise the point; many people would see such a response as paranoid and/or Jesse Jackson-esque.

His measured response was entirely appropriate, though I'd rather see him working the irrelevance-of-the-ad/I-want-to-actually-solve-America's-problems angle much more strongly.

Posted by Saucy Sauce | August 1, 2008 12:11 PM

Just to add, I don't think the debate here is whether the ad has racist undertones, or whether those undertones are intentional or not. I didn't pick it up right away, but that doesn't mean it's not there or that that wasn't their intent. The point is that not everyone is going to immediately think of interracial sex when they see Obama compared to Paris Hilton, particularly in the context of an ad that is ostensibly about celebrity for the sake of celebrity rather than accomplishment. So when you tell them that it's racist, or at least racially insensitive, to think that the ad is plausibly about vacuous celebrities and not a black man preying on young, slutty white women, they might take offense. Perhaps the McCain campaign was diabolical in choosing racist dogwhistles that fit in perfectly with non-racist themes (Obama sleeping with Britney vs. Obama being like Britney -- and I'm not the first to point this out, but choosing Britney and Paris make sense compared Tiger and Oprah because the former are famous for being vacuous and the latter are generally seen as being truly accomplished), but that doesn't mean it's productive to make a big outcry about how the ad is obviously racist and you don't understand race if you disagree. I'm not saying this shouldn't be discussed and McCain shouldn't be called out on it if that's how you see things, but there is enough ambiguity that makes a bit of restraint prudent, lest you offend otherwise well-meaning people.

Posted by ibid | August 1, 2008 12:22 PM

It's hilarious to see Matthew, of all people, write this.

After all, Matthew was very quick to call Ohio Democrats who voted for Hillary racists.

So, now he's telling people they need to be careful about calling people racists? Really???

Posted by Al | August 1, 2008 1:51 PM

Slightly OT: Does Bridget make appearances at campaign events? Or do they hide her under the sofa?

Posted by Persia | August 1, 2008 1:53 PM

I like Matt's writing a lot, but sometimes his naivete is stunning. I think this is clearly appealing to a racist element in the electorate. 2 young white women juxtaposed with a black man. Please. Now, there are other unsavory aspects of the ad as well, but racism is clearly one of them. Also, I suppose there may be a point to not harping on it too much. But, if the ground is ceded to the purveyors of this kind of smut, then they'll just keep pushing the narrative that depicts Obama as the uppity black man who wants to bang our white women. Which, given the direction of the McCain campaign has taken the last week or so seems to be, at least, the subtext of how they want to paint Obama.

Posted by Vince | August 1, 2008 2:28 PM

I like Matt's writing a lot, but sometimes his naivete is stunning. I think this is clearly appealing to a racist element in the electorate. 2 young white women juxtaposed with a black man. Please. Now, there are other unsavory aspects of the ad as well, but racism is clearly one of them. Also, I suppose there may be a point to not harping on it too much. But, if the ground is ceded to the purveyors of this kind of smut, then they'll just keep pushing the narrative that depicts Obama as the uppity black man who wants to bang our white women. Which, given the direction the McCain campaign has taken the last week or so seems to be, at least, the subtext of how they want to portray Obama.

Posted by Vince | August 1, 2008 2:34 PM

I don't think this is a useful metric:

both of these are lines of argument you could easily imagine being deployed against a white candidate

Could you see an add targeting a white politician with a blonde bimbo mouthing the words "call me?" Sure, you could, but it's still racist if used against Harold Ford Jr.? The context matters, and DTM stated above the plausible deniability is an important part of the writer's craft for these attacks.

But this ad was less a "dog whistle" for the racists, none of whom will vote for Obama anyway. This was a way to get the issue of race into the mainstream of the campaign. Keep in mind what McCain's campaign manager said in response to Obama's response. As Luke wrote, only one small part of Obama's response was even interpretable as pertaining to race, yet Rick Davis' response was swift and focused on race. It's hard to imagine that wasn't gamed out ahead of time.

Make no mistake -- the McCain campaign wants to talk about race, but leave no fingerprints. The "celebrity" ad was multi-layered, but their strategy was to use it as an excuse to raise race if they could plausibly blame Obama.

Posted by Jay | August 1, 2008 3:42 PM

If the two celebs MCCain chose had been Boy George and Harvey Fierstein, would you have deteced a subtext?

Two highly-sexed school-girlish blondes, and a black man? Everyone who grew up in the south knows what that means.

Posted by Alan in SF | August 1, 2008 4:49 PM

Nothing is left to chance in this type of ad. If you think two young, attractive white girls just happened to be chosen from the list of "celebrities", you are being incredibly naive.

Posted by sc | August 1, 2008 5:11 PM

In regards to Barack's statement that he did not look like those on the other dollar bills, I believe Barack was respondong to an ad The McCain Camp ran with Obama's face on the dollar bill; his face on the statue of liberty; and on all four faces of Mt. Rushmore!

It was depicted when the Ben Franklin and George Washington faces fade to show Obama's on the currency; Miss Liberty' face fades to Obama's and the four faces on Mt. Rushmore fade to Obama's! How come the Media is not reporting the WHOLE story?

Posted by angellight | August 1, 2008 5:14 PM

McCain's new campaign theme song:

Posted by nirad | August 1, 2008 5:15 PM

McCain's new campaign theme song:

Posted by nirad | August 1, 2008 5:16 PM

"I like Matt's writing a lot, but sometimes his naivete is stunning."

How many fucking times have I said just that here?

How many fucking times?

This is another one of Matt's "I'm a dumb college kid four years out of college with a philosophy degree and I know nothing from nothing" posts.

And it ain't gonna change when he moves to the new blog.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 1, 2008 6:11 PM

Personally, I think Obama's record on getting police to videotape interrogations speaks extremely well of him.

Oh, come on. Don't be an idiot. Videotaped interrogations was Ricky Hendon's project and he did all the work on it. Emil Jones took it away from Hendon and gave it to Obama when Obama wanted an accomplishment he could point to in running for Senate.

So if "speaking well of him" means "getting power players to help you crawl over others to get to the next election", then yes, that legislation speaks well of him.

But the only thing Obama accomplished in that incident was getting Jones to put his name on it. Hendon did the rest of the work.

Posted by Cal | August 1, 2008 6:45 PM