The GOP Has Never, Ever Deployed a Racist Campaign Strategy in its Entire History
Atwater was a mentor to Karl Rove, the current President Bush’s longtime adviser, and the kinds of tough campaign tactics that have become common today are a key part of the late [GOP] strategist’s legacy.
[...]In one 1980 congressional race in South Carolina, a Democratic candidate named Tom Turnipseed later recalled, “Atwater’s antics included phony polls by ‘independent pollsters’ to ‘inform’ white suburbanites that I was a member of the NAACP, because my congressman opponent was afraid to publicly say so.â€Turnipseed was one of those to whom Atwater eventually apologized, as part of his outpouring of contrition (and embrace of religion) as his cancer spread.
[...]
Atwater recounted how, speaking of Dukakis during the ‘88 campaign, he promised to “strip the bark off the little bastard†and “make Willie Horton his running mate.â€
Then he said: “I am sorry for both statements . . . the first for its naked cruelty, the second because it makes me sound racist, which I am not.â€
.
Atwater likely was not, personally, a racist — much in his life would suggest that is so. But as a Republican campaign strategist, he knew the Southern Strategy and GOP appeals to white fears of blacks won elections. This is so, so not new or news. And Goldberg and Reynolds carry the legacy forward, notwithstanding whether either or both are themselves racists.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
January 5, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Not personally a racist? Well, goody for him. So much better to be impersonally a racist, I guess. And goody for Goldberg and Reynolds.
Comment by Mona —
January 5, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
Gsnorgathon: Karl Rove, by many credible reports, is a non-theist. But he is quite happy to exploit the social issues that get the RR going, and to encourage god talk in GOP candidates. Atwater may really have been a blues-loving aficionado of black culture, but when election time rolled around, he would merrily tap into white racism (that he did not necessarily share) to win.
Comment by Leonard —
January 5, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Don’t racist voters count in democracy? Just as much as any other voter? One racist one vote? I’m pretty sure they do count! And they are supposed to! Is not then the case that democracy is supposed to represent them? That if racists are not represented and they form a large minority or a majority, then something is wrong?
OK, now that you’ve answered that: does your answer change if you substitute the word “black” for “racist”?
Comment by Mona —
January 5, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Leonard: Yes, racists get to vote. This is news? And those who exploit their racism — while indignantly denying it — are properly exposed for doing so.
What’s your point?
Comment by Stu —
January 5, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
Christ, but Glenn Reynolds is a schmuck. As for Jonah Goldberg, he ain’t even worth an ad hominem.
Comment by Leonard —
January 5, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
I believe I stated my point, but let me reiterate it for more clarity. I believe that according to democratic ideology, everyone is supposed to be represented, at least everyone who can gin up a majority (or near enough). And therefore, that if racists have that sacred majority (or near enough), they both can and should be represented. In democracy, that is.
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, on what basis?
Comment by Mona —
January 5, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Leonard, my answer is very simple: yes, racists should be represented and be allowed to enact whatever they wish that the Constitution does not forbid. But at the same time, it is perfectly acceptable to deploy ostracism, shunning, shame, exposure & etc. at racist panderers and voters.
(And btw, I do not find democracy to be “sacred.” It can be virulent, absent a rule of law and proper Constitution that protects the individual from the state.)
Comment by Leonard —
January 5, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Fair enough. (Though I suspect you did not mean to suggest that “it is perfectly acceptable to deploy ostracism, shunning, shame, exposure &c. at black panderers and voters”, even though I did ask you to consider that substitution.
Let us follow this a bit further. You claim that racists should be represented. Then is it not the case that campaigns should make racist arguments to court them? If they don’t, how is a racist to know who to vote for? Is it logically consistent to say that racists should be represented but that they should be denied the information they need to vote according to their own perception of their best interest?
BTW, I don’t think democracy is sacred, either, and did not say so. (In fact I think rather the opposite.) However, if one accepts the premise of it — that a majority of the people have a right to rule everyone, consenting or not — then a majority starts to look pretty important to me. Thus I mentioned a “sacred majority”. I don’t want to be ruled, but given a either-or choice between being a ruler or being ruled, I’d take the former. Of course there is a gap between “important” and “sacred”, but I don’t think that gap is considered perceptible in Washington.
Comment by Avram —
January 5, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
I think this is one of those areas where the more intelligent Christians have a useful approach. I’m talking about the people who don’t go on about who is or isn’t a sinner, but just figure we’re all sinners and then try to figure out what actual actions are sinful.
Same for Atwater. Drop the existential question of whether he was or wasn’t a racist, and focus on the more practical matter of whether his tactics constituted racism. (My answer: Yes!)
Same for Goldberg’s and Reynolds’s projection onto white Democrats of their own fear of enraged black hordes.
Reynolds in particular has a history of this kind of projection. A few years back he posted about how the media had just better start reporting more good news from Iraq, otherwise there’d be an oh-so-regrettable public backlash.
Comment by Mona —
January 5, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
I have no use for the black Al Sharptons of racial politics. Expose and shun away.
Comment by Avram —
January 5, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
I hereby nominate Leonard for the Roman Hruska Mobocratic Representation Award.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
January 6, 2008 @ 1:24 am
“Though I suspect you did not mean to suggest that “it is perfectly acceptable to deploy ostracism, shunning, shame, exposure &c. at black panderers and votersâ€, even though I did ask you to consider that substitution.”
Being racist is immoral. Being black is not immoral.
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 7:22 am
Do you people ever read, or is it pure emotion you’re driven by? The passage suggesting a “fear of uppity negroes” is this:
At least Atwater was clever enough to be effective. This moronic, impervious to reality sort of spin just looks like what it is: hackery. There is nothing the least bit racist about that statement. But alas, if a conservativish sort says “black”, it must be racism. QED.
I’m with Leonard in looking forward to you to dissecting the actions and motivations of black race baiters and panderers. Not just the Sharptons, mind you, but perhaps America’s First Black President who, as we know is “blacker than Obama”. Because when you do, then we’ll know by your own (or is it only Gleen[s]‘) logic that you too are a racist.
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 7:37 am
Race baiting is immoral and the pigmentation of the baiter is irrelevant.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
January 6, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Atwater likely was not, personally, a racist — much in his life would suggest that is so.
Such as? Please don’t tell me you think liking the blues and being a racist are mutually exclusive, Mona.
Comment by Stu —
January 6, 2008 @ 9:41 am
Do you people ever read
Clearly, you don’t. Here’s the passage, which Greenwald helpfully blockquoted and everything:
Your point again, Pablo?
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Do you see “black” in there, Stu? “Certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged” refers to the same segments that came completely unhinged in 2000, renewed that unhingment in 2004 and remain largely unhinged to this day. Greenwald is a perfect example of such and he’s about as white as they come.
Where do you see racism in that statement, Stu? Do explain.
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Uncle Kvetch, Atwater did a bit more than simply like the blues. Note the friends in Lee Atwater and Friends. That’s a rather odd group of people for a racist to work with, don’t you think?
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
January 6, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Ah…so some of his best friends were black. That changes everything.
Comment by Stu —
January 6, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Do you see “black†in there, Stu?
Where I see “black” is where you see “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Since you’re either a troll or completely oblivious, that stands to reason.
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 11:24 am
One generally doesn’t pal around willingly with people one loathes.
Stu, nice absolute non-answer. I’m not a troll, just like you are not a debater. Twaddle on. Meanwhile, I see black…in the big empty space between your ears. You might want to see about getting some lights put in there. You see black where Greenwald and Mona told you to see it. Way to keep it simple, Stu.
Comment by Mona —
January 6, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Piffle. Pablo, did see Greenwald’s graphics of three of the first few commneters at Malkin’s Hot Air post about Golderbg’s post? Also, Instapundit got the point, as Greenwald observes:
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Mona, did you see where Greenwald quotes Goldberg saying absolutely nothing about race and then proves it was really about race by offering a 3 week old unrelated Reynolds quote while skipping right over this, to which he linked?
And did you see where you (and Greenwald) just tried to tie the thoughts of both men together by offering 3 quotes from a blog comment section?
No, of course you didn’t see any of that. None of that stoked the slightest bit of curiosity in you, and we all know why that is. The only question you’ve ever had for Gleen(s) is “How high?”
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
And while you’re perusing the comments at that Hot Air thread, feel free to tell us all about the motivation and meaning behind this one:
In fact, if you’re up for it, you might want to deliver your thesis to Baldilocks herself. That ought to be entertaining.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 6, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Leonard-
You’re raising two distinct issues: (1) catering to a constituency and (2) majoritarianism. You know as well as the rest of us that a republic can have free and open electoral processes without operating on the principle of unrestrained majoritarianism. There’s even a Constitution written on that principle.
Majoritarianism is not the point in what Mona’s bringing up. She’s critiquing the ethics of those who would seek the votes of racists. Racists should, of course, be free to vote, and those who want to should of course be free to seek their votes. But decent folks can and should eschew forming a coalition with them. Let the racists participate in the process, and the rest of us can form a coalition that doesn’t include them. That’s the point.
Comment by Stu —
January 6, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
As Greenwald noted in the article that has Pablo melting down, the best example of an actual deranged hissy fit since 2000 would have been the
Douchebag UprisingBrooks Brothers Riot by Republican operatives in Florida.I suppose I could concern troll like Goldberg and worry that the impact of a Democratic victory will cause “certain segments of American political life” to “become completely unhinged,” but really, can anyone imagine modern conservatism becoming more unhinged?
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Thanks for yet another non-response, Stu. If you ever get around to addressing the argument at hand, be sure to let me know, won’t you?
BTW, conservatives don’t really have a reason to become unhinged as they’re pretty much in charge of policy these days. Unless you think Pelosi, Reid and their Democrat colleagues have been effective, in which case, Aaaahahahahaha!
The people who are snarling are the people who find themselves and their ideas rendered impotent.
Comment by Mona —
January 6, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Pablo, as you point out, even Baldilocks sees right-wingers getting the message that Goldberg meant blacks. Reynolds got it as well, as his commentary on the Goldberg post shows via links to his own prior posts.
None of these needed either me or Greenwald to “make them see it.”
Comment by Stu —
January 6, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
If you ever get around to addressing the argument at hand, be sure to let me know, won’t you?
I’ve already addressed it. I agree with Greenwald and Mona that what Goldberg’s referring to and Reynolds is “hehindeeding” are those darned uppity African-Americans. You do not, and you’ve made your case. I find it unconvincing, as you may have guessed, being stricken with a severe case of BDS.
BTW, conservatives don’t really have a reason to become unhinged as they’re pretty much in charge of policy these days.
I agree that they don’t have a reason to be unhinged. Yet here we are.
Football beckons.
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
And yet she thinks he didn’t, which is the point of your thesis. You can find anyone to think any ridiculous thing you might imagine. And your monolithic “right-wingers” spiel falls apart upon a glance at the evidence.
And he also thinks Goldberg didn’t mean that, but you just go ahead and pretend otherwise. It is, after all, your stock in trade.
Comment by Pablo —
January 6, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
But then, they don’t “see it” and have directly stated as much in response to those who do.
Again, it’s your story. Tell it the way you want it to come out. And try not to be surprised when the rest of the world lumps you into the “unhinged” class.
Comment by Mona —
January 6, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
But then, they don’t “see it†and have directly stated as much in response to those who do.
And those who do include a great deal more than me and Glenn Greenweald; they include other bloggers as well as Hot Air commenters — do note that The Corner and Instapundit do not allow comments, but Hot Air is a popular, high-profile right-wing blog that does. And a good number of the commneters there heard the dog whistle blowing.
Jonah and Reynolds deny they were blowing the whistle? Oh well then. That settles that. (Atwater denied it up until his untimely death, too.)
Comment by Mona —
January 6, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
Oh, and Pablo, this that you wrote is pretty revolting:
That’s all you have to say about the GOP campaign strategist’s rancid, racist tactics he atoned for while dying?
It figures.
Comment by joe —
January 6, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
The people who are snarling are the people who find themselves and their ideas rendered impotent.
Yes, Pablo, I saw the Republican debate last night, too.
Comment by joe —
January 6, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Let’s go back to something upthread: don’t racists have a right to be represented?
Racists are not unthinking machines programmed only to think and care about hating racial minorities. Racists – or, to be more charitable, people who have racist ideas or prejudices – are people with kids to send to school, jobs they worry about, and lives and concerns as rich and varied as yours and mine.
A politician running for office in an area witch racist voters can talk about defending the country. He can talk about the environment. He can talk about taxes. He could even talk about crime, welfare, or urban revitalization in a non-racist manner.
Comment by Cala —
January 7, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
If I wrote a post about the fear Americans have of young, college-educated supporters of Obama rioting if he didn’t get elected, but I wrote poorly using the same sort of allusions historically meant to incite a little race-based fear, and someone accused me of making a thinly-veiled slur on American blacks, I would not hesitate to clarify what I had meant, not hide behind some clever wink-and-nudge rhetoric like ‘the only reason you thought I was talking about blacks was cuz you are the racist!’
I’d be pretty quick to spell out exactly what I meant.
Surely if Goldberg and Reynolds had meant something else, and it was such a slur on the characters to be called on it, it would have been the work of a minute to clarify their position.
Comment by Barry —
January 7, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Comment by joe —
“A politician running for office in an area witch racist voters can talk about defending the country. He can talk about the environment. He can talk about taxes. He could even talk about crime, welfare, or urban revitalization in a non-racist manner.”
Yes, he could. And if another politician discussed such things in a racial manner (coded appropriately for social context), which politician do you think would win?