"See No Evil" Conservatives
I'm always amazed by the complete and total obliviousness displayed by otherwise intelligent and perceptive conservative thinkers when the discussion turns to the use of racially-charged rhetoric in political campaigns. In the Lee Atwater era, for instance, legions of non-racist conservatives managed to convince themselves that there was no racial subtext whatsoever to anything Republicans were saying or doing, even though Atwater and others later admitted that this was exactly what they were doing.
The same "see no evil" phenomenon is alive and well today. In a post over at TNR, John Judis echoes a point I've been making here:
This memo from their own internal pollster, published yesterday, shows that they believe the key swing demographic to be downscale white voters. And the key swing states include places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, places with a long history of racial tension.
Furthermore, if you take the racial element out of the equation, McCain's rhetoric makes very little sense. Obama is not offering policies that are any more "socialist" or "redistributivist" than any other recent Democratic nominee, none of whom were attacked with this sort of rhetoric. Moreover, the argument is especially incoherent this year, as a Republican administration (pursuant to a plan McCain voted for) is currently nationalizing banks and insurance companies, and McCain's two biggest economic policy proposals--a mortgage buyout program and a $5000 health care tax credit--are every bit as "redistributivist" (probably more so) than Obama's tax plan. And McCain routinely talks about sticking it to the "Wall Street fat cats" and helping out Main Street. Populist policies--under which the government "spreads the wealth" to the middle class--are incredibly popular in this political climate and are being proposed by both sides.
The only reason McCain's strategists think this rhetoric might hurt Obama is because they think some people will hear the phrase "spread the wealth" differently when its coming from a black candidate, that instead of imagining a transfer of wealth from the well-off to the middle class, they'll imagine a transfer of wealth from the middle class to poor minorities. That's why they keep referring to Obama's tax plan as "welfare." That's why they keep talking about Obama's time as a community organizer in inner city Chicago. That's why they release radio commercials accusing Obama of wanting to take taxpayer money and "give it to his friends." That's why they went out of their way to emphasize the "civil rights" aspect of Obama's 2001 remarks. That's why McCain says that Obama wants to "take from one group of Americans and give to another."
This isn't particularly subtle stuff. The other day, as I was driving home from work, NPR was discussing the election with a group of voters in a swing state (I can't remember which one). One of the voters, who was undecided, expressed her concerns with Barack Obama thusly (and I paraphrase from memory): "I'm not a racist, but I'm worried that if we elect a black president, it will be payback time." She went on to explain that because black people have been so unfairly treated historically, she was worried that an Obama administration would be focused primarily on advancing the interests of black people.
It's this kind of sentiment that the McCain campaign is playing to. They're trying to suggest--without directly saying so--that Obama wants to redistribute wealth across racial lines. That's the whole point of the "spreading the wealth" charge. That's why Obama is being called a "socialist" and a "marxist," words which were never used to describe John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bill Clinton. That's why tax credits (a favorite tool of every modern Republican, including Ronald Reagan and John McCain himself) are suddenly being described as "welfare."
It is beyond naive to believe that these words are not carefully chosen or that McCain's strategists aren't discussing the racial subtext of this rhetoric behind the scenes. Of course they are.
The same "see no evil" phenomenon is alive and well today. In a post over at TNR, John Judis echoes a point I've been making here:
I think, too, that McCain and Sarah Palin's attack against Obama for advocating "spreading the wealth" and for "socialism" and for pronouncing the civil rights revolution a "tragedy" because it didn't deal with the distribution of wealth is aimed ultimately at white working class undecided voters who would construe "spreading the wealth" as giving their money to blacks. It's the latest version of Reagan's "welfare queen" argument from 1980. It if it works, it won't be because most white Americans actually oppose a progressive income tax, but because they fear that Obama will inordinately favor blacks over them.In response, Ross Douthat, a smart conservative and by no means a Kool-Aid drinker, writes:
I'm sure I'm displaying my immense naivete about the sinister machinations of Steve Schmidt and company here, but if I had John McCain's disposable income I'd happily put up tens of thousands of dollars betting that the "don't let Obama spread your wealth to shiftless blacks" ploy that Judis is describing has not once been a topic of conversation in any McCain strategy session throughout the whole "Joe the Plumber" phase of the campaign. (Though maybe it's such a subtle strategy that even the strategists themselves don't realize they're employing it!)Sorry, Ross, but that is profoundly naive. Race is an inescapable reality of this election. As post-mortems of the Clinton campaign reveal, race was a constant topic of conversation amongst her chief strategists, and those folks were all die-hard Democrats. Are we really supposed to believe that the McCain strategists aren't discussing how their messages will resonate along racial lines?
This memo from their own internal pollster, published yesterday, shows that they believe the key swing demographic to be downscale white voters. And the key swing states include places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, places with a long history of racial tension.
Furthermore, if you take the racial element out of the equation, McCain's rhetoric makes very little sense. Obama is not offering policies that are any more "socialist" or "redistributivist" than any other recent Democratic nominee, none of whom were attacked with this sort of rhetoric. Moreover, the argument is especially incoherent this year, as a Republican administration (pursuant to a plan McCain voted for) is currently nationalizing banks and insurance companies, and McCain's two biggest economic policy proposals--a mortgage buyout program and a $5000 health care tax credit--are every bit as "redistributivist" (probably more so) than Obama's tax plan. And McCain routinely talks about sticking it to the "Wall Street fat cats" and helping out Main Street. Populist policies--under which the government "spreads the wealth" to the middle class--are incredibly popular in this political climate and are being proposed by both sides.
The only reason McCain's strategists think this rhetoric might hurt Obama is because they think some people will hear the phrase "spread the wealth" differently when its coming from a black candidate, that instead of imagining a transfer of wealth from the well-off to the middle class, they'll imagine a transfer of wealth from the middle class to poor minorities. That's why they keep referring to Obama's tax plan as "welfare." That's why they keep talking about Obama's time as a community organizer in inner city Chicago. That's why they release radio commercials accusing Obama of wanting to take taxpayer money and "give it to his friends." That's why they went out of their way to emphasize the "civil rights" aspect of Obama's 2001 remarks. That's why McCain says that Obama wants to "take from one group of Americans and give to another."
This isn't particularly subtle stuff. The other day, as I was driving home from work, NPR was discussing the election with a group of voters in a swing state (I can't remember which one). One of the voters, who was undecided, expressed her concerns with Barack Obama thusly (and I paraphrase from memory): "I'm not a racist, but I'm worried that if we elect a black president, it will be payback time." She went on to explain that because black people have been so unfairly treated historically, she was worried that an Obama administration would be focused primarily on advancing the interests of black people.
It's this kind of sentiment that the McCain campaign is playing to. They're trying to suggest--without directly saying so--that Obama wants to redistribute wealth across racial lines. That's the whole point of the "spreading the wealth" charge. That's why Obama is being called a "socialist" and a "marxist," words which were never used to describe John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bill Clinton. That's why tax credits (a favorite tool of every modern Republican, including Ronald Reagan and John McCain himself) are suddenly being described as "welfare."
It is beyond naive to believe that these words are not carefully chosen or that McCain's strategists aren't discussing the racial subtext of this rhetoric behind the scenes. Of course they are.
posted by A.L. at 12:01 PM
17 Comments:
'"I'm not a racist, but I'm worried that if we elect a black president, it will be payback time." She went on to explain that because black people have been so unfairly treated historically, she was worried that an Obama administration would be focused primarily on advancing the interests of black people.'
And we can't let the Uighers out of Gitmo because even if they weren't planning to attack America before we illegally imprisoned and tortured them, they damn well want to attack America now that we actually have illegally imprisoned and tortured them.
NPR was discussing the election with a group of voters in a swing state (I can't remember which)
I'm pretty sure it was York, PA. I grew up near there, and the scary thing is that this woman really thinks she isn't a racist.
This is one of the strange things about Pennsylvania. James Carville was wrong to characterize the state is "two cities with Alabama in between," because, like the rest of the South, Alabama has been forced to come to terms with racism to some extent. Pennsylvania didn't seem the same level of activism during the Civil Rights era that Southern states did; racism there instead went deep underground, where it has festered. (The same is probably true other places as well, but I can't say for sure because I only grew up in Pennsylvania.)
This is why McCain is throwing his Hail Mary pass in PA. This is why Rendell is nervous. This is why I don't trust the polls in Pennsylvania. People in the "T" (outside Philly and Pittsburgh) don't have to lie to pollsters for a Bradley effect to happen; the only have to lie to themselves.
I have to always catch myself when I start thinking that an election is anywhere near an exercise in rational, above board thinking. Of course, the term "spread the wealth" is more tied to (unconscious) racism than any sort of true fear of a progressive tax system. Of all the patently false ideas McCain has come up with during this election, this has been the most annoying because it is the most purely hypocritical. Anyhow, good post and thanks for reframing the spread the wealth idea.
I disagree with this post. I must admit that race may play a role in the thinking behind the McCain "redistribution" accusations. But I believe that the "tax and spend" accusation can in itself (without any racial overtones) be devastatingly effective against any Democrat. Of course this makes no sense, after Bush has increased the national debt by several trillion, for example. But it is very IMPORTANT to understand that much of America is "conservative" in the sense that we are deeply skeptical of any politician who is eager to redistribute wealth, raise taxes on anyone, or who even thinks very highly of government's ability to do good. I'm not sure I agree with these sentiments myself, but many Americans will not vote for Obama ***IF*** they think he wants to raise their taxes or get government too involved in trying to do good. This "conservative" suspicion of government should not be underestimated!!!
I think you are right on target with this post. They are using every code word from the past and inventing a few new ones. It is not even remotely subtle.
Its the new Ronald Reagan tribute season:
RETURN OF THE WELFARE QUEEN
Starring John McCain & Sarah Palin.
An exciting political drama, directed by Steve Schmidt.
Shiftless black people are conspiring to spend your hard-earned tax dollars. Can the unlikely duo at the heart of this drama expose the conspiracy and save America? A combination of "Invasion of Body Snatchers" and "The Parallax View", this movie contains sequences designed to nauseate and delight the viewer.
Release Date: Nov. 4th 2008.
Zero black Republican Senators
Zero black Republican House members
Zero black Republican Governors
36 black delegates of 2,380 total at the 2008 Republican national convention.
There are reasonable "explanations" for these numbers, e.g. black people vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and white people tend Republican.
But one might understand why people might assume racism when they see a tactic by a party with these numbers that looks racist.
Slightly off topic.
Not all conservatives think that McCain is their man. For many McCain is simply too liberal. See here for an example.
I'd have to say I also disagree with this post. I'm not saying that the attacks are completely devoid of any racial implications, but I just don't think that race has been the main motivator behind this tactic.
It's true that Obama's economic plans aren't much more progressive than other Democratic candidates of the past two decades, but there is one key difference between those elections and the current one: Never before has the conservative economic approach been so spectacularly discredited by current events and in the minds of average Americans. In the past, Republicans could at least try to make a positive case for their economic plans. Bush was able to point to a rising Dow in 2004 and high rates of home ownership (heh) to help make his case. For all the obvious negatives of their policies, they were still able to make some reasonably sane arguments in favor of their policies, and the idea of higher taxes was enough to scare a lot of people who were in decent economic shape. Fast forward to 2008 and the colossal failure of Republican economic policy is undeniable. Even the financial sector and the wealthiest Americans, which often provided positive examples for Republican arguments, are getting hit hard.
Basically I think the reason McCain has gone all in with this ridiculous socialist argument is that there's almost no way to make a positive case for his positions and the idea of taxes going up a little bit for the richest Americans doesn't exactly scare people much when much bigger problems are at the forefront. He pretty much has no choice but to paint Obama's plans in the scariest and most extreme way possible. I think the strategy is also aided by the fact that Obama has made the idea of "change" the centerpiece of his campaign and emphasized it exponentially more than past candidates did. A lot of low information voters may not know much about Obama past his constant emphasis on changing the way things work, so I don't think its a stretch to think the McCain campaign is betting that they can fill in the blanks for some of these people with the idea that big change Obama talks about is a move towards socialism.
I'm actually pretty sure that Clinton was labeled a socialist in the 1990s.
I believe you are so right. My daughter mentioned on her blog that it is interesting that you see very few McCain bumper stickers in Georgia, no McCain T- shirts and depending on the neighborhood (gated or not, very wealthy or not) not that many yard signs. It is really because of an innate fear that the uneducated have for Blacks. I don't actually know what they possibly think will happen if a black person sees them in a McCain shirt. Probably just a sneer.....and rightly so.
Even it if were "payback time" (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing) what do these people thing the president, without the help of Congress, can actually do?
This is a hideous example of a liberal projecting liberal tendencies on conservatives:
As post-mortems of the Clinton campaign reveal, race was a constant topic of conversation amongst her chief strategists, and those folks were all die-hard Democrats. Are we really supposed to believe that the McCain strategists aren't discussing how their messages will resonate along racial lines?
Just read that. Allegedly, race was a constant topic of conversation amongst liberal Democrats. Even though McCain is the opposite of a liberal Democrat, somehow he must be doing the same thing. This is the "analysis" from a race-obsessed liberal with blinders on who only sees things through race.
That's why Obama is being called a "socialist" and a "marxist," words which were never used to describe John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bill Clinton.
I think you need to read conservatives more. I've called Kerry and Gore a socialist frequently, along with Hillary Clinton, and every other socialist Democrat who hides under the term "liberal".
If there is a problem of racism, it's with those who vote for Democrats. Especially with liberals.
Just for you, Steveil, here's a lesson in synonyms: "Die-hard Democrat" is not a synonym of "liberal". Especially in the Clinton camp. "Liberal" is not a synonym of "socialist", and even less one of "marxist" or "communist". You don't have to believe me: go look in Roget's Thesaurus.
Now, from where you sit, in your paranoia and self-imposed ignorance, it may be hard to distinguish all these concepts from one another, like reading a newspaper from a hundred yards away, but people within 20 yards of the normal political spectrum have no difficulty, even though they may be of a conservative ideology.
Perhaps this is the key to understanding "hear no evil" conservatives -- they're so far from the political action they can't hear the conversation.
Whether the voters are racist or not is immaterial, or at least not an issue that can be cured by argument. It takes longer to educate some people about some things than their remaining life expectancy, so the best course is to simply wait them out. It is, however, extremely worthwhile to point out, to the people who are capable of education, what a dishonest, racist strategy the McCain campaign is following.
It is extremely difficult to believe that the people operating McCain's campaign, who learned their craft from Karl Rove, who studied under Atwater, and who participated first in politics in Nixon's time, are unaware of the racist subtexts of their messages. We would need to believe that they were dumb as dirt, and I, for one, do not believe that.
i would hardly say a sample of one crank calling a few democrats socialists disproves A.L.'s assettion.
In any event, "tax and spend" is not the same as changing the distribution of where federal revenue comes from, but the target audience of McCain's "share the wealth" attacks is the low information (aka, undecided) voter who does not know the details of Obama's tax plan. Thus, they can be persuaded by such attacks if they're predisposed to think as A.L. described. This comes from experience as retired union construction worker friend who has never voted for a republican in his life was until recently considering voting for McCain because he does indeed think that Obama will take his money and give it to black people. Thankfully, his disgust with eight years of Bush has overcome his racism as we approach election day.
As described above, the people running McCain's campaign have been raised on this stuff - you can be sure they're trying to wring every last vote out of it.
My friends and I have been living with this type of double talk and obtuseness all of our lives, personally and professionally.
Welcome to my world, AL.
c2h50h,
You call yourselves liberals, and I go along with convention, but you aren't really liberal, at least not by any definition you'd find in Webster's Dictionary.
Perhaps this is the key to understanding "hear no evil" conservatives -- they're so far from the political action they can't hear the conversation.
That's funny. I always hear liberals talking about having conversations on this and that, but they never do. How about Obama's speech on starting a conversation with race? Yet whenever he got down in the polls, he attempted to call conservatives, Republicans, and McCain (by name) racists, and all without any basis in fact or justification, since nobody I just mentioned were doing it. So if a liberal's idea of starting a "conversation" is by calling the other guy a racist without any basis to it, then I think liberals are trying to re-define the word "conversation" just like they've redefined the words "liberal" and "progressive".
Bill Ayers is a "liberal" and a "progressive". That piece of trash refers to Sherman's March during the Civil War as an act of terrorism. (hell, he can't even spell "Sherman" correctly as he spelled it "Shernan's March"; guess he's teaching teachers to be stupid). I guess redefining words isn't too much of a problem for liberals, just like their revisionist history.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home