The Clintons, Race, and the 50-year-old Calculation

The Clintons, Race, and the 50-year-old Calculation

By Selwyn Duke

Since I think the Clintons would probably sell their souls and
firstborn for another White House tenure, the idea they would play the
race card raises no eyebrow here. They are political creatures first,
everything else second and statesmen last. For this to elude one, he
must have his head planted firmly in a particularly dense grade of
sand.


Man of letters Christopher Hitchens understands this; while by no
means a member of the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy," he writes
eloquently about the Clintons' long history of racial "thuggery and
opportunism." Even more significant are the pronouncements of ***
Morris, Bill's erstwhile propaganda minister. His thesis is that
Hillary wanted the black vote in South Carolina to coalesce for Obama
so that she'd lose the state big, and she wanted this electoral shift
to be visible and much ballyhooed in the media. Witnessing this, the
white vote in other states would then circle the wagons around her,
and, with their numerical superiority, the nomination would be hers.


Or so the theory goes.


Although Morris' political prognostications leave much to be desired
(he specializes in stating as fact predictions that never come to
pass), I believe he understands the Clintons' character almost as well
as anyone. This is a man who knew them intimately enough to, as he
relates the story, be physically tackled by an enraged Bill in the
Arkansas governor's mansion and then told by Hillary, "He only does
this to people he loves." So if he swears the Clintons were playing
the race card, I take it seriously.


What I am doubtful of is that it would work.


This strategy rests on the assumption that whites feel such a sense of
racial patriotism -- or such fear of black political power -- that any
candidate seen as a guarantor of black interests will send them
running into the arms of the best great white hope. This is the
liberal view of the world.


It's also not reality.


I ask you, how many whites do you know who fit that profile? Sure,
there are bigots in every group, but my experience with fellow whites
tells me they're the exception, not the rule. In fact, when I think
of all the people I have ever known, I remember precious few who I
believe would have voted based on racial considerations. Even more to
the point, a groundswell of black support isn't necessary to alienate
such individuals from a black candidate. His skin color is more than
enough.


This isn't to say that whites won't be swayed by the injection of a
racial element; it is to say that I don't think they would all sway in
Clinton's direction. And those who don't understand why, well,
perhaps they've missed the last 50 years of societal evolution.


History tells us that man does indeed exhibit great ethnic and racial
patriotism and that whites were no exception.


But the operative word is "were."

For many decades now whites have been inculcated with multiculturalism
and a good dose of self-loathing (ever hear of white guilt?). Many
white children are raised with the idea that the worst thing one can
be is a bigot; in fact, they are taught that even contemplating the
existence of racial differences is a deadly sin (even when those
differences might be real).


Also consider the exaltation of gansta' culture. Millions of white
youths listen to rap music, and no small number of them parade around
small white-picket-fence towns dressed like gang-bangers. It's even
said that in certain parts of California it's no longer "cool" to be
white. Now, to such a mind, what kind of candidate would be more
appealing, a white or black one? This, by the way, partially explains
Obama's popularity among young voters.


Thus, while bigotry has some place in every community -- as do all
sins -- in the white one a greater place is occupied by an even
greater sin: Political correctness. There are whites -- especially in
the ranks of the Democrats -- who will vote for a black man simply
because of his skin color. To them it is a matter of practicing what
they preach, of electoral activism, of feeling open-minded and
tolerant. It does wonders for their self-image.


So the truth is that the George Wallace routine -- even when done with
subtlety -- no longer plays in Peoria. Yet this fact eludes ***
Morris, the Clintons and most of the media for a simple reason: Their
own prejudices.


To liberals, the terra firma between New York and Los Angeles is
merely an impediment to travel between those two locales and to
electing a purebred socialist to office. It's a land inhabited by
people who not only own guns, but also still load them from the barrel
end, a place where every sheriff is a Bull Connor.


I'll illustrate this attitude with a little anecdote. About 20 years
ago I found myself in a political discussion with a very liberal young
gal in rural upstate New York. It didn't take long to ascertain that
marriage was not in the offing. Among the many inanities she
assaulted me with was the idea that those northern reaches of the
Empire State were a veritable hotbed of Klan activity.


Yes, that would be the Ku Klux Klan.


Now, as a native New Yorker, I can assure you that the only place you
find white sheets in said area is on beds. You'll see orthodox Jews
with beards and yarmulkes there, but never burning crosses. Yet
little miss was sure of her impression. She could not be disabused.


This is the standard liberal view of the world. When former Democrat
mayor of Atlanta Bill Campbell (who was later indicted and charged
with fraud) called conservative legal groups "a homogenized version of
the Klan" and said, "They may have traded in their sheets for suits,
but it's the same old racism," don't think it was just political
rhetoric. In some measure, this is what most liberals believe.


So I can't say for sure the Clintons played on race, although ***
Morris may very well be right. What they're all wrong about is
thinking it would work, for these aren't the days of yore; there isn't
really a white hood around every corner. Theirs is a 50-year-old
calculation.


Now here is my more contemporary one. It doesn't take racial games to
make bigots and the irredeemably politically correct vote their
passions, but what of those in-between who could be swayed? After
all, as is so often the case in elections, it's the "swing voter" who
breaks the deadlock between intransigent extremes. My sense is that
if a white candidate is perceived as exploiting race, it's probable
that he will alienate more people than he will attract.


We should also remember that it was the voters of Iowa - a state 94.5
percent white - who resurrected Barack Obama's flagging campaign,
favoring him over two white opponents. And if liberals believe the
outcome would have been different had the race card been pulled, they
dream.


Of course, this is where many will point out that Iowa isn't middle
America.


But 2008 isn't 1958, either.


Maybe it's time for the left to step into the 21st century.


Contact Selwyn Duke
.

Quantcast