« Why I'm No Longer Donating to Obama (And Why It's A Good Thing) | chinabox's Blog | The Harriet Miersification of Sarah Palin »
What Exactly is 'The Race Card'?
It is nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about an object that is not clearly defined. When dueling parties are able to attach their own subjective definitions to fundamental vocabulary of a debate, the conversation is doomed for failure.
And that is why I ask this question: What exactly is 'The Race Card'? We know we're not supposed to "play" it. We know it's inherently bad and should be avoided by any self-respecting politician. We know it's a "game-changer."
But in spite of that, we don't seem to know what it is.
John McCain's campaign and a not-insignificant portion of the Republican Party seems to believe that The Race Card consists of any reference -- implied or otherwise -- to the issue of race in the campaign.
Is talking about The Race Card playing The Race Card?
Is talking about racial issues playing The Race Card?
Is talking about the historical dominance of white Christian male presidential candidates playing The Race Card?
It seems to be that we ought to be able to have more complex conversations about crucial issues like race, gender, and economic issues in this country. We (and the media, of course) do ourselves a great disservice when we speak in terms of Cards and not in terms of facts available to us. We spend more time talk about terms that we cannot define (such as 'The Race Card') than we do about the issues that the 'Card' implicitly represents.
Before we start making accusations of who played which card when, we should do ourselves (and our discourse) a favor and define the terms we're using. Using a catch-all term is intellectual lazy and ultimately, confusing for those folks participating in a meaningful debate.
And that is why I ask this question: What exactly is 'The Race Card'? We know we're not supposed to "play" it. We know it's inherently bad and should be avoided by any self-respecting politician. We know it's a "game-changer."
But in spite of that, we don't seem to know what it is.
John McCain's campaign and a not-insignificant portion of the Republican Party seems to believe that The Race Card consists of any reference -- implied or otherwise -- to the issue of race in the campaign.
Is talking about The Race Card playing The Race Card?
Is talking about racial issues playing The Race Card?
Is talking about the historical dominance of white Christian male presidential candidates playing The Race Card?
It seems to be that we ought to be able to have more complex conversations about crucial issues like race, gender, and economic issues in this country. We (and the media, of course) do ourselves a great disservice when we speak in terms of Cards and not in terms of facts available to us. We spend more time talk about terms that we cannot define (such as 'The Race Card') than we do about the issues that the 'Card' implicitly represents.
Before we start making accusations of who played which card when, we should do ourselves (and our discourse) a favor and define the terms we're using. Using a catch-all term is intellectual lazy and ultimately, confusing for those folks participating in a meaningful debate.
Advertisement
Here's my take from earlier this year.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/how-to-recognize-the-race-card.php
In the case of the dollar bill comment, Obama played it by tagging his critics with the charge that they're trying to make people afraid of him because of his race. The Progressive blogosphere and people like Josh Marshall are piling on with that meme. You're supposed to think of McCain as an old guy who hates Obama because he's black and uses Obama's race to scare people. Americans don't like racists. If Obama can convince them that McCain is a racist, he can hurt McCain.
August 2, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I pretty much agree with your other article on the race card definition, but I have a different take than you do here. You see, Obama did not just came out and say "they're trying to make you afraid of me because I don't look like other Presidents". He did so in the context of having had his character assaulted from every direction, and these comments were a ***RESPONSE*** to those attacks. I'll try to show you what I mean.
There is a undertone that had been playing out for a while, which is that Obama's character was being attacked from many different groups of people, but I am going to focus on what McCain has actually said himself instead of the Limbaughs, OReillys, blogs, emails etc.
Maybe he was not the first to do it, but it was McCain himself who has questioned Obama's patriotism through his ads, highlighted his unusual name, and yes highlighted the fact that Obama doesn't look like all those other Presidents. What do you think all these new attack ads are doing? They're trying to show Obama as weak, unfit to run the country, and a risky move for our country. In particular though - I hope you'll watch this older ad and think about all the implications McCain throws out there - including putting Obama's face on a bill (a doctored image that yellows his skin (symbolizing fearful and not yet ready to lead) and makes his eyes seem dazed as if he weren't quite sure what's going on) and if you watch closely - they actually depict a bomb going off at the very end - very disturbing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU&feature=related
This is the Ad Obama was responding to, watch it a few times. The words of the ad talk about what Obama would change, but all the images tell a completely different story line - one that really gets pretty close to the edge of whats appropriate, which is probably why McCain has let the ad sit on the internet as opposed to the other ads they've recently run (thought those too also have some disturbing undertones).
Do you see how the ad play directly to peoples fears on a much much deeper level? These are conscious manipulations of peoples emotions (if subversive), for ex: Why include all the explosions ( I counted eight in the 30 seconds)? To make people feel uncomfortable for sure, but on a deeper level these explosions associated with Obama's facial image also stand to reinforce the myths of Barack Hussein Obama as a terrorist Muslim.
No one can prove this and certainly John
McCain would never admit this, but a picture tells a thousand words and playing off peoples fears IS the easiest way to manipulate their thought. Showing Obama's face on the some of the most grandiose symbols of America - the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, and our currency is also a subversive way to tell people - Barack Obama doesn't belong here with these historical symbols of America.
McCain is accenting his differences from the tradional past, and yes - also subliminally playing on the fact that we've never had a black President. These things aren't said, but when people view the ad - they are perceived!!! So Obama can't come right out and detail the undertones of the ad, because the words tell a different story and McCain would obviously deny the undertones are even present...but we now KNOW Obama was responding to these perceptions.
I realize that some of undertones I've listed about the ads may be a stretch to some people (say the explosions -> terrorism links), but I'm convinced there's a direct reason McCains ad team made the ads how they did, it was a conscious decision to do so, as are thier other ads (a good analysis here):
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/70387.
Still, what I'm asking of you is not to necessarily go into that side of it, but just to look at the fact that Obamas comments were a response to something McCain did (i.e. putting Obama's face on the bill). Obama used the idea as a shield, and his words were a DEFENSE.
We all know what happens if a candidate does not acknowledge. You get swiftboated ala John Kerry. Then the facts come out after the fact and its too late.
It is a fact that John McCain put Barack Obamas face on a piece of US Currency in this ad - that dates at least back to June 27th. Given this, I think it is okay for Obama to bring up the dollar bill commentary, as a defense for all the images McCain is hitting people with. And when McCain said "Obama pulled the race card" what he was really saying is - we don't want you [Obama] talking about that. I say, if McCain brings it up, then its okay to talk about - no race card played by Obama.
So did McCain play the race card? I think one could argue he did, but I don't think he did. In fact, remember back to when McCain defended Obama's name after the introduction from the guy who really kept hammering away "Barack Hussein Obama"? I could be wrong, but I don't think McCain is a racist. I think he just wants to win. If Obama is not allowed to defend himself from the subtle perceptions introduced by McCain's ads then Obama loses points and McCain gains them. That isn't right because clearly Obama was trying to take the high road, and he shouldn't be faulted for keeping it on issue. Obama has said that of course there is an element of race in there, but that doesn't "concede" anything as some articles point out. I think why this is so complicated is that neither candidate is really touching it, they're letting society - the journalists and us bloggers define what all this means becuase its history in the making.
I'm sure Hillary would be able to offer some great strategy tips for Barack on defending himself but in a way that concessional or let McCain contol the topic. I voted for Obama in the Primary, but I do hope they are able to put Hillary to work somehow because I don't think she would tolerate this debate.
To sum up - Obama did NOT play the race card because he was attacked first and when the other guy paints you as a risky candidate then you should be able to defend that. The words of this ad don't really get to the crux of what it actually conveys on a subliminal level. It reaches deep into peoples minute perceptions and tries to plant the seed that Obama is not ready to be President, electing him is a huge risk.
Watch the ad a few times and you'll see why Obama really felt the need to defend himself from those images.
Obama does not want to be swiftboated here, nor should sit there and let it happen.
Why the mainstream media has not picked this up yet bewilders and saddens me.
August 3, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The race card" is one of those totally bogus terms that is supposed to make people feel guilty. Apparently any mention of race, or any mention of any person who is of another race than the speaker (especially any mention of anyone "black")is playing the race card. Ridiculous!
August 2, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The race card means the the default position is Caucasian and Christian. The gold standard for leadership is based on one color. McCain doesn't talk about race because his skin color represents the majority i the population..
If Obama says that he does not look like the people on the dollar bill, that statement of truth is playing the race card. McCain is free to say that Obama would deliberately lose a war to win an election. Treason is a valid charge for a political candidate to make. It does not lead to muli-day analysis or questioning. Any mention of race is just too harsh. skin color is verbotten. Obama plays the race card by mentioning that he is Black. We cannot talk about skin color.
There should be celebration of multi-hued, multi-ethnic political candidates, but political correctness, AKA the race card, limits us to just plain vanilla.
There are also gender and religion cards. Women have to prove that their hormones don't make them too unstable for leadership. The default position is male.
We also have a religion litmus test. GW Bush can openly state his Conservative Christian beliefs. John Fitzgerald Kennedy had to tell the American public that the Pope would not dictate his Presidential policies. Keith Ellison, a Muslim, could be asked by Glenn Beck if he (Ellison) is on "our side" given his faith. Mitt Romney had to give a speech stating that his Mormon faith would not impede his Presidency. Heaven help an atheist Presidential candidate.
In summary, the race card is just like the mythical snipe that gullible hunters are sent out to trap. The snipe provides humor to those sending the poor snipe hunter on his quest. The race card provides similar humor to those who send non-vanilla hued people out to chase down the mythical joker in the deck, the race card. It serves as a diversion to avoid discussions on differences of opinion among different ethnic groups.
August 2, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink