On Jesse Jackson, Malcom X, Pookie, and Ray-Ray

The fact that Bill Clinton went in front of cameras and pointed out that Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary twice has generated an awful lot of consternation.

Before the race issue gets out of hand yet again, I think this is a situation where everyone needs apply Occam's Razor. Bill Clinton, gifted politician as he is, is not some supernatural figure guaranteed to produce perfect political calculations at all times. With the constant presence of media, not everything he says in front of a camera is necessarily part of some Karl Rove-esque triple backflip twist Jedi mindtrick to spin the media in a pro-HRC direction and/or lower expectations. Sometimes he's just answering a question. And as much as I haven't been a fan of the way Bill Clinton's injected himself into the primaries over the past three weeks, I think we have to give him a pass on this one; after all, if he's not allowed to point out that other African-American candidates have won South Carolina (and at times, Jackson appeared to have a plausible path to the nomination), he's almost not allowed to handicap the race at all.

Let me offer a couple of mirror image situations. At one point during the last week, Barack Obama told a mostly African-American audience not to fall for false rumors that he was a Manchurian Muslim candidate, or to people saying he wasn't electable nationwide, or that he revered Reagan, or whathaveyou. Obama specifically used the words 'hoodwinked' and 'bamboozled' to describe these tactics; words straight out of a speech that appeared in the film Malcom X [I'm having a hard time verifying whether or not this was taken from historical materal; help would be appreciated]. In addition, he would also tell his audience "I need you not only to vote, but I need you to get cousin Pookie to vote. I need Ray-Ray to vote", which to me is a shout out to Sportscenter's Stuart Scott, but maybe there's some deeper origin I'm unaware of. Given the degree of scrutiny placed on Bill Clinton, it seems the press would have been well within its rights to write critical pieces of the Obama campaign for relying on "divisive" rhetoric centered around Malcolm X or unfavorable stereotypes of African Americans. After all, if anyone else had written about Barack Obama's lazy cousin, or friend, or guy who shined his shoes once, or anything, they would be fired within nanoseconds. But no such articles were written; no Clinton surrogates decided to criticize the Obama campaign in a situation where they might have had an opening (the hoodwinked/bamboozled line). If we're going to cut Obama some slack in this department, it seems reasonable to cut the Clintons and their surrogates at least a little bit of slack in the other direction, especially in cases where there's no clear, overt intent to unnecessarily frighten white voters.

In addition, from a strictly tactical point from Team Obama's perspective, every day spent talking about race is a day the Obama campaign is off message. It might be to their advantage given the current rope-a-dope strategy, but it just as easily might now. So, if you're a not-Clinton partisan, I think it's worth letting a few statements that fall in the gray area slide (cf. Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive", where he meant "bob and weave" and couldn't think of the correct phrase on the spot). Just relax, take a deep breath, and count to ten, before writing any race-based critique.

Comments

[DivGuy]

I think it's worth letting a few statements that fall in the gray area slide (cf. Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive", where he meant "bob and weave" and couldn't think of the correct phrase on the spot). Just relax, take a deep breath, and count to ten, before writing any race-based critique.

And why did Cuomo come up with the term "shuck and jive"? Because he was talking about a black man. This is how racism functions in America - not through intentionality so much as through all those unconscious connections that we draw. To demand that, in the face of racism, we "take a deep breath" is not acceptable to me.

See also the Clinton campaign's post-SC statement:

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

You're suggesting in your reading of Bill's statement that the Clinton campaign is not attempting to marginalize Obama by using his race against him. We have in this article a clear case of the Clinton campaign attempting to marginalize Obama by using his race against him.

I dunno. I'll vote for Hillary if it comes to that. But I think that the attempt to deny that she's been playing racial politics (or standing by while her surrogates do) is profoundly troubling.

[DivGuy]

To address the "Ray-Ray" paragraph - there's a huge difference between using racial themes to mobilize black voters, and using racial themes to marginalize a black candidate.

[DivGuy]

To address the "Ray-Ray" paragraph - there's a huge difference between using racial themes to mobilize black voters, and using racial themes to marginalize a black candidate.

[FearItself]

DivGuy says: This is how racism functions in America - not through intentionality so much as through all those unconscious connections that we draw.

Well, there's a lot of intentional racism out there, too.

If Bill Clinton's comments indicate that he's a racist, then we are pretty much all racists. They do, and we are, because American culture, by and large, is racist.

Given that, it may not seem fair to pillory Bill, or anybody else, for reflecting that broadly shared cultural racism. I think that's what Nick's saying: that we should focus on noticing and opposing intentional racism, and let the more subtle, implicit, broadly shared racism slide (at least in the political arena). I disagree with him about this.

I see some value in Nick's point; if we obsess over every racist thing anyone says, we won't have time for anything else, and lots of other important concerns also demand our attention. On the other hand, we have to pay attention to cultural racism and oppose it because that's the only peaceful way to change it (to change ourselves), and that kind of cultural change is "the slow boring of hard boards." Letting it slide in high-profile discourse like political speeches is especially costly, because the more people who see racist attitudes pass unchallenged, the more those attitudes are validated.

Everyone should pay attention to the racism hidden away in their language and thought. Does that mean Barack Obama has an unfair advantage because he can talk more freely about race than his white opponents can? Well, yes. But that's better than him facing an unfair disadvantage because he's less pale than they are.

[Stephen]

The bigger problem is that invoking Jesse Jackson's name is automatically an attack, a smear, a weapon to use against an opponent.

Why is Jackson so bad, again?

To answer my own rhetorical question, Jesse Jackson is a negative reference because he hasn't stopped fighting civil rights battles. Once civil rights legislation was passed, the white power structure decided that we no longer needed to worry or indeed even talk about the issue of racism again. It was a unilaterally decided agreement between two sides, as it were.

So is Bill Clinton using Jesse Jackson as a weapon against Obama? Maybe - well, probably. But Democratic primary voters would do well to wonder just whose script they're following when they accept such rhetoric as an attack.

[DivGuy]

So is Bill Clinton using Jesse Jackson as a weapon against Obama? Maybe - well, probably. But Democratic primary voters would do well to wonder just whose script they're following when they accept such rhetoric as an attack.

They're following Bill Clinton's script!

You acknowledged that in the sentence directly previous. If there is blame to be doled out for reading the citation of Jackson as an attack, that blame goes to Bill Clinton first and foremost, who reads the citation of Jackson as an attack so clearly that he used it as such.

Further, I think you're missing the point here. It's not that a comparison to Jesse Jackson is an attack because Jesse Jackson is bad. The point was made, quite directly, by Clinton's own staffers:

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

The point is that Obama is a marginal candidate because of his race. The Clinton campaign is marginalizing Obama by comparing him to another black candidate to whom he is not meaningfully comparable, with the plain goal of marginalizing him and downplaying his successes.

Jesse Jackson isn't like Barack Obama at all, except for their race. The comparison only exists to marginalize Obama by comparison to another black candidate, one who didn't win. The comparison only works because the two men are of the same race.

[ikl]

Did you see the talking points about Obama being "the black candidate" distributed to the press? Bill is just giving a version of the Clinton campaign's talking points. You have to view the Clinton comments in context and the context isn't pretty. I think that it is pretty naive not to see this - it is not an isolated incident. Josh Marshall is pretty fond of the Clintons and he had big problems with this as well.

I agree that Obama's campaign should't touch this with the 10 foot pole, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't reek to high hell. You wouldn't give Republicans a pass for this sort of thing and you shouldn't give one to the Clintons.

Also, when exactly did Jackson have a plausible path to the nomination? The SC caucuses weren't came after Super Tuesday and weren't pivital. Yes, Jackson won some other stuff (mostly in the South), but he never had a win like Obama had in Iowa. Some of his wins came when things it was pretty clear that Mondale or Dukakis was going to be the nominee. Maybe you know 1980s primary history better than I do - if so tell me where I'm wrong.

[ikl]

Do be clear, I'm not saying that what Bill said was premeditated. How would I know? What I am saying is that whether it was premeditated or spur-of-the-moment, it sure looks like part of a larger strategy.

[ikl]

Um, Clinton supporter (or maybe now ex-Clinton supporter) Kevin Drum just had some pretty choice words about this. The post is titled "Off the bus." You can probably fill in the rest.

[Amanda Marcotte]

I wouldn't make anything of it. The references aren't to movies specifically---the movies they make you think of are making references to Black culture. What he's doing is no different than a white Southerner saying, "I need you to get cousin Bubba to vote. And Joe Bob at the shop."

[Stephen]

They're following Bill Clinton's script!

No, they aren't. Clinton is exploiting a script already written for all of us by conservative whites.

I'd like Clinton to stop, but I'd like even more for all of us to stop predictably responding to things like this.