Posted by: McQ on Friday, May 09, 2008 I have been fascinated watching the reaction to Hillary Clinton's words about how the vote seems to be breaking down in the Democratic primary. Apparently noting the race of those she seems to be attracting and noting, simply by their number, they constitute a broader demographic, apparently has racist overtones if you listen to the likes of Joe Conason in Salon. But this time she violated the rhetorical rules, no doubt by mistake. It was her offhand reference to "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" that raises the specter of old Dixie demagogues like Wallace and Lester Maddox. Was she dog-whistling to the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia?My goodness, in racial terms, can you draw upon two worse stereotypical bogey men than George Wallace and Lester Maddox (both solid Democrats at the time)? And invoking Richard Nixon's name is an obvious attempt to drag the racial implications over to the right side of the spectrum. The fact remains that the class of voter Hillary Clinton is talking about, or at least a solid portion of that class, has always been Democrat. Its not like she's talking about stealing them from the Republicans. It is, in fact, the Republicans who've managed to steal them, at times, from the Democrats. They were called "Reagan Democrats" for a reason. Whether or not the appeal by both Reagan and Nixon was along racial lines is debatable. What isn't debatable is these voters are and always have been traditionally Democrats. Black voters make up 25% of the Democratic voter base and 14% of the population. That obviously isn't enough to win an election. So the candidate who appeals to the broadest coalition of voters, one assumes, would be the best candidate for the party. What Clinton often leaves out of her pitch is the 90% support Obama enjoys among blacks. However, when he or his staff note that, no one thinks they're engaging in racial politics. It's a statistic, a way of analyzing how the vote breaks down for the candidate. It's in every exit poll we see. So why is it, when Clinton does a similar analysis in a pitch to the party to be it's nominee, her noting the race of the supporters generates comments like this: What she should not ignore, however, is the damage that her increasingly reckless behavior is inflicting on her reputation and that of her husband — especially when she starts to sound like a reincarnation of the late George Wallace.What an absurd comparison, but at the same time a perfect example of how unable we are to talk about race and its role in politics. If Clinton's discussion is akin to that of George Wallace, then I must not remember the Wallace era as it actually happened. While some may not like the implication that "white" workers are the "hard-working" Americans, I'm pretty sure that wasn't her intent, and even Conason acknowledges that. But it doesn't stop him from taking her to task for even suggesting some of the voting may be race based - on both sides. Voters vote for a candidate for a variety of reasons. Noting that a particular group of a particular race and background have a tendency to vote for one Democrat over another doesn't mean that group is doings so based solely on race. Certainly some will. But then with 90% backing by black voters the same can be said in Obama's case, can't it? Why no discussion of "dog whistles" and "reputations" when that stat is thrown around? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
