Yo, Hillary!

[Daniel Drezner]

Following up on Jon's post below: it's nice that the Matts have super-sensitive antennae to John McCain's coded racial appeals (so coded, only .00001% of the population gets the subliminal message!). To return the favor, however, didn't Hillary Clinton make the most obvious racial appeal of the past 48 hours when she compared herself to Rocky Balboa? A white underdog challenging a flashy, well-spoken, African-American member of the overclass?

It would be entertaining to play this metaphor out to its logical conclusion, however. I think the following sequence of events would have to happen:

I) Obama narrowly defeats Clinton for the 2008 nomination, despite Clinton being perceived as the more deserving candidate;

II) Clinton narrowly defeats Obama for the 2012 nomination, despite suspending her campaign for a few months due to Bill Clinton's brief food coma;

III) Obama, now retired from politics, comes back as Hillary's campaign manager, teaches her to passably say, "Yes we can!" Hillary ultimately rejects this strategy, but still wins the presidency through the brilliant strategy of getting the GOP candidate to exhaust himself through negative campaigning;

IV) Clinton vanquishes Russia on behalf of the good old U.S. of A after Vladimir Putin brutally kills Obama in what was supposed to be a press conference.

V and VI) No one cares....

Comments

Here's how conservatives interrogate race, these days: in every specific instance where racism is alleged, take time to claim that of course, racism is a problem, of course, decent people in society are obligated to denounce it, etc. etc. etc.... And yet in every specific incident, deny that racism is involved. Constantly claim that you care about race, that you recognize that racism exists, and that you don't like it, but every single time the public is confronted with the question of racism, fall all over yourself to assert that no racism actually took place.

If you really took a principled stand against racism, surely, sooner or later, you'd find a single example of a politician saying or doing something that is racist. Surely, if you really believe that racism is still a problem in society, and that it's effects are pernicious, sooner or later, you'd see a specific example of racism, somewhere, in some context. But, no, never. When was the last time conservatives in this country rallied against a racist statement or action? I mean I'm constantly being told that conservatives hate and denounce racism. So where is it? Why does every actual allegation meet with knee-jerk denialism and ridicule (like this post)?

Posted by Freddie | April 2, 2008 9:29 AM

Is Hillary going to climb a mountain and scream, "Putin!"?

Posted by Matthew Struhar | April 2, 2008 9:30 AM

Hah, that great. I thought the Rocky comparisons were silly because...Rocky lost! Is she saying she's going to lose? What does she have to gain from this then? Unless, like you say, this isn't Rocky I. Maybe this is Rocky 3 and John McCain is Thunderlips...

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 9:33 AM

FreddieMac:
You are right. Most of the Philly papers are making fun of her because they assume(rightly so) that she's talking about the first Rocky movie. After all, she did not specify which movie she was talking about? She didn't compare Obama to Ivan Drago. And would she really compare Obama to Mr. T(aka Clubber Lang)?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 2, 2008 9:43 AM

Freddie,

Why does every actual allegation meet with knee-jerk denialism and ridicule (like this post)?

Because this allegation is pretty ridiculous, and when falsely accused of racism , "I didn't do what they're accusing me of, but I do think racism is a serious concern" is a genuinely better response than "Leave me alone, meanies! You're wrong!"

I don't feel responsible for all conservatives ever throughout history - hell, for that matter I don't even feel responsible for McCain. I probably won't even be voting for him. But I think this particular accusation against him is silly, and it's not made less silly by the racism of other people at other times.

You're not actually refuting the defense here - do you really believe that McCain is trying to incite racism by the selection of that city for his appearance? You're just claiming that by always defending themselves from accusations, "conservatives" are somehow doing something wrong. Well if someone accuses you of racism, and you feel the accusation is wrong, should we expect you to respond in some way other than defending yourself and asserting that you aren't racist?

Posted by Geoff | April 2, 2008 9:48 AM

Geoff:
Do you think Ray-gun was giving a racial appeal back in 79(or was it 1980) when he gave that states right speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 2, 2008 9:53 AM

You're not actually refuting the defense here - do you really believe that McCain is trying to incite racism by the selection of that city for his appearance?

Not really, no. I don't think he's trying to incite racism. I imagine that he's trying to make subtle connection to a Southern conservative tradition of racial discomfort, which is troubling, but hardly the worst thing that I've seen in politics. So, no, I don't really believe that.

I'm more responding to the thread last night, where we were told over and over again that conservatives hate racism, but that this wasn't racist. And it has just been occurring to me that every time-- every single time-- something like this comes up, you see the identical thing. And I'm just waiting for an incident where conservatives say "You know what? That's racist, and we should make efforts to change it/denounce the person who said it." But it keeps not happening.

Let me say also that I'm someone who doesn't believe that racial dialogue is improved by disqualifying people who say or do racist things. It's unfortunate that, in this country, saying "You said something racist" is taken to mean "You said something racist, so you're a racist, and you need to be ostracized." I want this country to get to the point where we say "That's racist, because of this reason; I think you should rethink that". Or something similar. We as a society (non-coercively) correct behaviors we don't like all the time; but unfortunately, the racial conversation only has the nuclear option. If John McCain is making subtle appeals to racism, the point isn't "Let's get rid of John McCain"; it's "John McCain should rethink this."

Posted by Freddie | April 2, 2008 9:56 AM

3 more days before Megan comes back and finds that her guest bloggers have driven the audience to other blogs.

That leaves the guest bloggers just enough time to convert this to a porn site to get the readership back up.

But then, by Saturday, the future of this blog may be kind of like its guest bloggers.... academic.

Posted by D | April 2, 2008 10:11 AM

There was a daily kos post making this point about Rocky yesterday. So it's at least hit some places.

Posted by Justin | April 2, 2008 10:21 AM

In that case, a more apt title for this post would be, "Yo, Bill!"

Each episode would have to involve a scene were Bill tries to convince Hillary that she can't win.

Posted by JohnMcG | April 2, 2008 10:45 AM

So here's how leftists interrogate race: take the dozens to scores of data points in any given set of circumstances and analyze. If one single result of the thousands of permutations can be claimed as racist, conclude that not only was the effect racist but the intent was as well. Continue said claim even after results thousands of times more likely are identified. Claim evidentiary and reasonableness standards do not apply and are attempts to support / minimize racism.

Reverse process when circumstances apply to left-politics instead of right. Then all possibilities must result in racism and all standards apply.

Posted by mj | April 2, 2008 10:49 AM

Freddie,

Ah okay, then I'm actually on the same page with you, for the most part.

I think the whole "Democrats were the party of racism!" thing is fairly ridiculous, but the reason I think that is that I believe we waste far too much time labeling our opponents into groups and then blaming them for the sins of that group label.

I'm not a Republican, or a Democrat, or even much of a libertarian, so I don't feel the need to defend all historic instances of "conservative" or "liberal" or Party X and Party Y behavior. If we want to accuse McCain or Hillary or Obama of something specific, great. That's interesting; it might provide useful information when voting time rolls around. But it's not helpful for me in evaluating McCain to argue about how Democrats supported slavery or how Republicans called people welfare queens. (this means you, JKc - I wasn't even alive in 79, I don't hold McCain responsible for whatever Reagan did)

I do agree with you that "racism" seems to be "the nuclear option" these days, with little room for calm and rational discussion. It always makes me nervous to see that sort of intense knee-jerk reaction, even on things that seem clearly bad. I rather liked Obama's speech, since it seemed to actually acknowledge and discuss some racism on both sides, rather than avoiding it altogether or just labeling and dismissing one side.

Posted by Geoff | April 2, 2008 11:11 AM

And I'm just waiting for an incident where conservatives say "You know what? That's racist, and we should make efforts to change it/denounce the person who said it." But it keeps not happening.

Yeah, why couldn't they do to Trent Lott what the Dems did to Robert Byrd.

Posted by Dylan | April 2, 2008 11:19 AM

I mean I'm constantly being told that conservatives hate and denounce racism. So where is it?

You could check the January 2008 archives for this very blog, or search it for "ron paul". Then you can come back and grovel a bit.

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | April 2, 2008 12:12 PM

"Rocky Balboa" (a.k.a. "Rocky VI") was a damned good movie. I cared.

Posted by Brian | April 2, 2008 1:54 PM

Yes, because a handful of posts on a single libertarian blog represents something close to the national outrage and hand-wringing surrounding the Reverend Wright scandal.

Posted by Freddie | April 2, 2008 2:44 PM

Freddie, the backquoted text in my message was a question from you, answered by me. (And by Dylan, who got crickets.wav as a response.) Please don't waste people's time asking questions if you're not interested in the answers. And don't go around saying things like "no, never" unless you mean "no, never"; you risk looking like a weasel.

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | April 2, 2008 3:01 PM

It takes a truly inspired act of intellectual dishonesty to suggest that a single instance from a single blogger answers my quest for an instance where, quote, "conservatives in this country rallied against a racist statement or action". (I'm trying to imagine what a single person rallying looks like.) Clearly, that doesn't pass muster, and you know it doesn't.

Posted by Freddie | April 2, 2008 3:21 PM

Freddie,

Trent Lott made a dumb comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, and he was removed as Majority Leader. There was plenty of outrage on conservative blogs about it. No one cares at all about Sen. Byrd's racist past, though.

Posted by John Thacker | April 2, 2008 3:29 PM

Now there's sound thinking for you: Zrimsek mentions only one blog, therefore only one blogger complained. (Citing everybody would have... taken a while. You could try NRO or Instapundit; not that one with a finger so firmly on the pulse of conservatism would need a pointer!)

Thanks for the reminder about Jeremiah Wright, though. You did, after all, ask for the last time that conservatives rallied against a racist.

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | April 2, 2008 5:08 PM

Bill is Paulie, right?

I look forward to the scene at home in Chappaqua where he can't figure out the crazy robot friend Hillary gave him.

Posted by tom | April 2, 2008 6:36 PM

And I'm just waiting for an incident where conservatives say "You know what? That's racist, and we should make efforts to change it/denounce the person who said it." But it keeps not happening.

Isn't this exactly what happened to Trent Lott after he belatedly endorsed Strom Thurmond for President in 1948?

Posted by matt foley | April 2, 2008 10:22 PM

Oops, a few of you beat me to it. I would take the time to read the entire thread, but I'm living in a van down by the river.

Posted by matt foley | April 2, 2008 10:35 PM

Yeah, Trent Lott has been mentioned a few times, but he probably doesn't count, since we didn't literally converge on his house waving torches and pitchforks. (I'm necessarily guessing at where the goalposts are located now; they were last seen being loaded onto a container ship in Long Beach.)

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | April 2, 2008 11:13 PM

You want to talk about shifting goalposts? You attack Democrats and liberals for their history on race, when the fact is that every shred of historical evidence tells us that conservatives and Republicans have a far worse record. You say that you shouldn't judge the Republicans by their racial history, because it's the present that counts, yet you trot out the Progressives of the 1920s to achieve your ends. You complain that Democrats and liberals constantly play identity politics, while conceding that McCain is playing identity politics here! Whether he's appealing to a subtly racist history, or merely appealing to Southern military tradition, those are both identity politics. Appealing to military tradition satisfies every criteria of identity politics. The truth is, you love identity politics. You certainly enjoyed playing them during the Republican revolution, or when gay marriage initiatives drove voters to the polls in 2004. You just don't like identity politics when it's black people or women or homosexuals play them.

The fact of the matter is, every single time the question of race is mentioned in this country, conservatives fall all over themselves asserting that no racism took place, while still claiming that they are principled opponents of racism. But if you're a principled opponent of racism, you don't look for every possible explanation other than racism first. You don't have such incredible zest and passion for looking for other explanations. You don't demonstrated again and again how invested you are in disproving racism.

Posted by Freddie | April 2, 2008 11:22 PM

Freddie, quit now while you're still only a buffoon. You're rapidly turning into something worse.

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | April 2, 2008 11:51 PM

No one cares at all about Sen. Byrd's racist past, though.
Posted by John Thacker

I can name at least one prominent Democratic Senator who I personally heard condemn Byrd's past - Robert Byrd.

Posted by Njorl | April 3, 2008 5:04 PM

The biggest unanswered question surrounding this supposed racist dogwhistling is why McCain would even bother sending coded messages to racists.

Yeah, I'm sure he's really worried about losing the white racist vote to a black man. Boy, that's going to be a swing group unless he gets some code words out there.

Posted by Mike | April 4, 2008 12:59 AM

Obama is the answer to Bushism and the idiocracy of the Administration's disastrous policies of past 8 years that governed America. He will be able to restore the true image, reputation once America enjoyed in the world as a champion of Democracy and Freedom. Obama is truly a visionary leader, a virtuous man who is able to deliver the promise and bring much needed change. We are fighting two wars, have not even captured Osama Bin Laden, economy is in crisis, gas prices are going up on a daily basis and only large oil corporations seem to be doing very well. Americans need a new start and re-think of foreign, domestic, economic and energy policies. Obama represents the change, the new force that will fight for every American and defend the small guy.

Posted by David Dzidzikashvili | June 17, 2008 11:39 AM