If you have only one incident to support your “proof,” then it’s hard for me to take it seriously. Call me when you have a consistent pattern of behavior.
And Limbaugh is out to make himself look good. Put the two together, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Though I’ll give props to FAIR for providing citations for their criticisms of Rush’s errors.
Having heard and watched Limbaugh several times, I’ll just say that while I don’t think the guy goes out at night to burn crosses on lawns, it’s evident to me that he doesn’t have much respect for anyone who isn’t a white male. And I fear that the attitudes he encourages amopng his viewership causes far more damage than a single burning cross.
It’s misleading to imply that the Limbaugh critics have illustrated a “consistent pattern of behavior.” Actually they have some out-of-context quotes, selected from thousands of hours of broadcasts.
BTW, I find it hard to believe that a racist would select a Black person to officiate at his own wedding. Don’t you?
Let’s not turn this entirely into a Ruch Limbaugh thread. The key question is, supposing for the sake of argument that Limbaugh or others adopt attacks against a Democratic candidate like Conyers or Inouye based on their race rather than the issues, would it be successful?
Overt racism did not seem to work very well as a campaign tactic for George Wallace.
Not at all – in my experience, racists have nothing against minorities if they stay in their place. And many racists like to have one or two minority friends, just so they can say “I’m not a racist, some of my best friends are __________”.
I’d guess not. A few Black leaders made anti-Semitic attacks on Lieberman, but the G-L ticket got a huge Black vote nevertheless, so these attacks evidently failed.
However, I cannot imagine any main-stream person making overt racist attacks today. It just isn’t done.
I suppose it’s possible that a racist attack might be subtly made by alleging that a candidate has weaknesses that are stereotypically associated with his or her race. This technique was used by those Democratics who accused Clarence Thomas of sexual aggressiveness. Fortunately, their racist efforts failed.
december:A few Black leaders made anti-Semitic attacks on Lieberman
Hmm. Cite? I know that many people criticized Lieberman in various ways, but criticism does not necessarily imply “anti-Semitic attack.”
*I suppose it’s possible that a racist attack might be subtly made by alleging that a candidate has weaknesses that are stereotypically associated with his or her race. This technique was used by those Democratics [sic] who accused Clarence Thomas of sexual aggressiveness. *
Hmmm. Could you be more specific? Plenty of people who concluded that the Anita Hill testimony (and other evidence) indicated that Thomas was overly (and inappropriately) “sexually aggressive” were not racist or exploiting a racist stereotype (Hill herself, for starters). I’m sure you don’t mean to suggest that nobody should ever criticize a member of a minority group just because the criticism might be viewed as a racial stereotype; wouldn’t that be way too “PC”?
Actually it is for this reason that I think the opposite of rjung’s claim is true. People have to be very carefull when minorities are involved, lest they be accused of racism. There was nothing racist about the Horton ads and issue, but because he happened to be black, the opportunity presented itself for charges of racism to be flung.
It’s certainly plausible that AH may have been explointing this stereotype, because:
Her feminist politics were opposed to CT’s conservative ones.
Her accusations were probably false or exaggerated IMHO.
She orginally made the accusations in secret, having been assured that he would withdraw, so that she could remain anonymous.
Given her long-time friendship with CT and all the help he had given her over the years, one would have expected her not to go public with these accusations even if they had been true.
AH’s accusations harmed all Black men by focusing on this stereotype.
Kimstu, do you have a cite or support for the idea that AH was not seeking to exploit this particular stereotype?
Um, Maeglin, the article you linked to does not suggest that the tactic worked. Specifically, it says, ‘Bush’s poll numbers in 1988 didn’t budge during or after the Willie Horton ad controversy.’ Morin even quoted Clinton consultant Samuel Popkin: ‘There is no credible evidence showing that the Horton ad or the Boston Harbor ad affected the vote at all.’" While Media Watch clearly has an axe to grind, I hardly see how it confirms your belief that the Horton ads “worked.”
In any event, the Horton ads can at best be described as covert racism, not overt like Wallace’s. The overt issue was that Dukakis favored the furlough program that let Horton out to commit more crimes. It is apparently dogma today that this routine attempt to paint Dukakis as “soft on crime,” long a favorite issue of the Republican party, was merely cover for an appeal to racism. Even if this were true, it would be covert racism, not comparable to Wallace’s overtly racist appeals to put “pointy-headed” blacks back into their place with bayonets.
(Incidentally, my only exposure to Horton throughout that campaign was in a flyer that contained no picture of him. I was not even aware of his race until long after the election).
Thanks for the cite, Izzy: while I agree that the remarks by Alcorn and Farrakhan were (unsurprisingly) not defensible, by my count that’s just two instances of explicitly anti-Semitic attacks on Lieberman from blacks. (The unnamed columnist suggesting that Gore chose Lieberman to bolster his support from Jews, or the many blacks concerned about Lieberman’s commitment to affirmative action, don’t seem to me to fall into that category.)
december:Kimstu, do you have a cite or support for the idea that AH was not seeking to exploit this particular stereotype [of sexually aggressive black men]?
That question seems to me rather evasive. You opened with a statement positively asserting that unnamed “Democratics” (I’m not sure whether you were referring specifically to Democratic congressmen or other Democrats) deliberately used racist stereotypes in accusing Thomas of sexual harassment on the basis of Hill’s testimony. I asked you to be more specific about supporting that statement, pointing out that accusing a black man of sexual harassment is not per se equivalent to deliberately exploiting a racist stereotype of sexually aggressive black men. You responded with some psychological guesswork suggesting why you think Hill’s testimony itself “may have been” deliberately exploiting this stereotype, even though Hill herself is black. Then you asked me to provide evidence that your psychological guesswork isn’t true.
That’s a pretty weak excuse for an argument, IMHO. Once again, I ask you either to support factually or to retract your original flat assertion that certain “Democratics” deliberately used racial stereotypes of sexually aggressive black males in a racist attack on Thomas.
Certain Democrats (namely AH and her recruiters and supporters)
deliberately made a huge fuss
by accusing CT of sexual aggressiveness,
which has been a common racial stereotype used against black males
by racists for many decades.
I assume you agree with these 5 points.
So, what’s in dispute? Do you question whether the perps noticed that they were promoting an ugly stereotype? I admit that I can’t prove what was in their minds. Maybe they commited accidental racism.
Actually, they accused Thomas of sexual harassment, which is a prohibited workplace practice. Nobody was objecting to his personal private sex life (and in fact, when there was an opportunity to pick up on a newspaper story about Thomas’s home video porn rentals sparked by the Hill allegations, Democratic senators on the committee chose not to pursue it because it was considered an inappropriate invasion of privacy). Thomas wasn’t being accused of being some kind of “Jungle Fever” savage stud, he was being accused of behaving inappropriately towards an employee. I didn’t think of that as “promoting an ugly stereotype” of oversexed black males at the time, and I don’t now.
In any case, we seem to be agreed that the hearings raised the accusation of sexual harassment against Thomas, and that we don’t have any factual evidence that it was done for racist reasons or in order to exploit a racist stereotype. Speculation about hidden motives, as always, is free.
The types of the harassment alleged – pubic hairs, Long Dong Silver, etc. – were accusations of sexual aggressiveness and crudeness IMHO. This element was an integral part of the smear campaign. If AH had simply claimed that CT asked her out several times, there would have been no scandal.
december:If AH had simply claimed that CT asked her out several times, there would have been no scandal.
But if Thomas actually did make the comments to Hill that she claimed he did, and she “simply claimed that he asked her out several times”, she would have been overlooking most of the actual evidence of sexual harassment. If Thomas actually did make those remarks to Hill, I cannot imagine why you would object to having them discussed during the hearings, or would consider that automatically equivalent to a racist attack. Again, are you trying to argue that it’s automatically racist to say anything about a member of a racial minority group that might be viewed as lending credence to a racist stereotype? Isn’t that the sort of view you usually deplore as “PC”?
A while back here, december suggested that a black Democratic presidential candidate might be victimized by a subtle racist attack, not focusing on his actual skin color but rather on some attribute that racists consider correlated with his skin color. He suggested Clarence Thomas as a victim of such an attack.
Kimstu correctly suggests that Anita Hill and the Senate investigating committee may have had sincere, non-racist motives for their allegations. I see nothing, however, to refute the idea that these allegations, however sincere, would be likelier to be believed by a racist because they match with a racist’s stereotyped view of blacks. If a racist believes that blacks are sexually aggressive, he is likelier to believe Anita Hill’s allegation that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her. An allegation against a black presidential candidate, be it true or false, is also likelier to be believed by a racist if it matches with his preconceptions.
If the Hill-Thomas affair has any relevance to this topic, it is this: Democrats as well as Republicans are capable of launching accusations that appeal to racist motives, even if the accusation itself is sincere or well-founded. Therefore, it is hard to explain the fact that the Republicans have more realistic black presidential hopefuls than the Democrats do by saying that the Democratic candidates are more vulnerable to racist attacks (as rjung was suggesting earlier).
Danimal:I see nothing, however, to refute the idea that these allegations, however sincere, would be likelier to be believed by a racist because they match with a racist’s stereotyped view of blacks.
Absolutely. I completely agree with the proposition that members of racial minorities are more vulnerable to racist stereotyping, and also to racist interpretations of criticisms that aren’t originally meant as racist stereotyping. What I called december on was just his speaking about the Thomas hearings as though there was factual evidence that they involved a deliberate racist attack. I think we’ve got that cleared up now, and I apologize for the hijack.
Danimal:Therefore, it is hard to explain the fact that the Republicans have more realistic black presidential hopefuls than the Democrats do by saying that the Democratic candidates are more vulnerable to racist attacks
That part I’m not so sure about. If there tends to be more racism on the conservative end of the political spectrum than on the liberal end, then it would make sense that black liberals would be more vulnerable to it than black conservatives. Racist conservatives’ disapproval of a black conservative’s being black would be somewhat tempered by their approval of his being conservative. A black liberal, on the other hand, wouldn’t have that redeeming feature in their eyes, so it would be open season on him.