A juicy account of the 2008 presidential race is generating lots of controversy and could spell political trouble for Harry Reid. According to the book by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin titled "Game Change", the Senate Majority Leader made remarks in private about Barack Obama's racial appeal, saying he believed that the country was:"ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one". The book goes on to say that Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.
When the book passage was publicized on Saturday, Reid apologized and Obama accepted. However some have cried foul, including RNC chairman Michael Steele. On the 1/10/10 edition of Meet the Press, Steele called the president's apology acceptance a double standard, citing the reaction to the 2002 incident in which then-Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said the following at the 100th birthday celebration for Sen. Strom Thurmond:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
According to a 12/11/02 article in the Washington Post, Lott made similar comments in 1980 about Thurmond's candidacy. As you may know, Thurmond ran for POTUS in 1948 on the Dixiecrat ticket and largely based his campaign on a racial segregationist platform. According to an interview published in the 12/12/02 issue of The Chicago Defender, then-state senator Obama said that Lott ought to be ousted as majority leader. Lott later apologized and issued a statement saying, "My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life." In the wake of the controversy, Lott resigned as Senate Republican Leader on 12/22/02.
During his appearance on Meet the Press, Steele added that when Democrats get caught saying racist things, an apology is enough. He went on to say that if the standard is the one that was set in 2002 with Trent Lott, then Reid should step down as Senate Majority Leader. You can read the full transcript of the 1/10/10 edition of Meet the Press here.
I think the comparison of Harry Reid's comments about Barack Obama to what Trent Lott said regarding Strom Thurmond is pretty weak. I don't feel Reid was saying it was wrong or right that a black presidential candidate with the qualities of Obama had a better chance at being elected. The term "Negro dialect" is questionable, but in my eyes, Reid was being a political realist. Ask yourself this. What would Barack Obama's chances of becoming POTUS had been if he was dark skinned and spoke like J.J. Evans? On the other hand, Lott's remarks seemed to validate Strom Thurmond's stance on segregation. Although Thurmond's views on race changed over the years (including support of the extension of The Voting Rights Act and being the first Southern senator to appoint a black aide), Lott never made the distinction between Thurmond circa 1948 and Thurmond post-1964.
What are your thoughts?
10 comments:
As a white man I cannot say my opinions can be entirely accurate when it comes to making a statement about minorities.
That said, and keeping this short, I believe the country was ready for a change and Obama would have been elected no matter how dark his skin.
What troubles me more than anything is the type of logic (or lack thereof) being applied to these incidents. Calling someone light-skinned and saying they don't speak with a Negro dialect Vs the embrace of a man whose reputation was built upon being a segregationist . . . Come on! There's really little to compare.
Furthermore, let's look at the truth behind the two statements. Would the country and race relations have been better off with more folks like Strom Thurmond in positions of leadership? Even with his background and education, had Barack Obama looked like James Baldwin and sounded like Biggie Smalls would he currently be POTUS? I don't think so. (If you don't know these references, Google them).
Personally, I think ALL that makes Barack Obama, Barack Obama is what helped him land the position of POTUS, including the fact that he is biracial.
To denounce Reid for making the statement is to shoot the messenger. He didn't say he thought Barack would make a better president because he was light-skinned and lacked a Negro dialect, he said he thought the country would be more open to Black candidate who owned those characteristics.
Talking about race or pointing out racial differences does not make one a racist. Denying folks access to jobs, education, and all of the various freedoms laid out by the Constitution, (including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) because of race and/or racial differences makes one a racist.
Harry Reid was in the process of getting President Obama elected, not trying to discredit or defeat him. Using an old or disregarded word may say more about an isolated social circle than his personal values. I appreciate that he didn't try to spin it. He acknowledged what he said and apologized if it offended President Obama. Citing Lott and Thurmond is a reach, at best.
I agree that there is no comparison to that crazy birthday toast to Strom Thurmond and what Reid said. He was being more condescending about the American people (as is typical of the left) than racist (though assuming that everyone in America is a racist is a bit weird).
My problem with this whole thing is that Joe Wilson got accused of being a racist for saying "You lie!" to a president who was, at that moment, lying. Didn't Dowd (or was it Maddow?) say that she "heard" the word "boy" hanging in the air? And didn't Wilson apologize immediately to the president and receive his acceptance of said apology, and didn't Pelosi herself even accept that apology . . . before she didn't? Reid and Wilson both apologized their butts off and both said that they regretted their words, but who is forgiven? I doubt that Reid will be sanctioned by Congress if he doesn't appear before them and apologize . . . yet again.
It's just . . . um, peculiar that racism is heard in things that aren't even said but not in things that are. I find this to be one of the more divisive tactics of the left, actually, but it's helpful to them to paint the right as racists. I guess. Not sure how it helps the country, though.
Hey Malcolm,
I was actually going to post on this myself, but you beat me to it ;-D Senator Reid (Nevada) has made comments suggesting that Obama won the presidency because his light skin and the fact that he does not speak with a “Negro dialect”. The senator has apologized for his remarks, but I am not so sure he should have. “Light skinned” versus “dark skinned” has been a long standing issue within the African American community, something that dates back to slavery times. Darker skinned African American toiled in the fields from sun up to sunset, while their fair skinned counterparts worked inside the home, hence the terminology, house Negro and field Negro.
Lighter African Americans have been deemed less threatening and more attractive than darker African Americans because the lighter the skin, the more closely the identification to the European standard of beauty. It is sad but this sentiment still rings true today. Spike Lee illuminated the phenomenon in his film “School Daze” and Lori Johnson even incorporated the color theme in her latest novel “Natural Women”. I am with Lori, why shoot the messenger? America has been a place where these types of attitudes have been allowed to fester, both between the races, but especially and more importantly, within the race. So I am not even tripping about Senator Reid’s statements. The truth does hurt!
Miles Per Hour: Thanks for stopping by. The change factor may have earned a darker skinned Obama some of the same votes, but I don't know if it would have been enough to put him over. It is interesting to ponder because I could be wrong about that.
Lori: The Reid vs. Lott comparison just shows how out of it some people are and that they will grasp at anything and distort it in order to rationalize their viewpoint.
You are also right on about how pointing out racial differences doesn't make someone a racist. While watching the ticker on a cable news channel, it referred to Harry Reid's remarks as "racial". That's an apt way to describe what Harry said.
Judi: I too am glad that Harry stood up and owned what he said. I just realized something that I haven't heard mentioned. Along with the term "Negro dialect", Harry also used the much more modern "African American". Maybe Harry isn't as anachronistic as we think. By the way, the calves and arm muscles for those using the Lott/Thurmond comparison must be getting a good workout because these people are really reaching.
Fuzzy: It was Maureen Dowd who said she heard the word "boy" in the air after what Joe Wilson said. I won't go that far, but Joe's comments are open to interpretation.
One of the differences between Harry Reid's remarks and Joe Wilson saying "You lie!" is that the former's comments were said privately while the latter's outburst were made during the president's address to Congress.
You say that condescending comments are typical of the left? I think it's time you make a trip to the hardware store. The bristles on the broad brush you like to paint liberals with must be pretty worn out. :-)
As has already been mentioned by me and others in the comments section, making a racial remark is not the same as making a racist remark. I don't know if the people calling Harry Reid a racist are doing so out of payback or if they really cannot see the difference between simply commenting on race and making racist remarks. If it's the former, it's childish. If it's the latter, it's disappointing.
Pjazzy: As I was writing this Sunday night, I was wondering if another DI member had the same idea. :-)
The other day I too was thinking whether or not Harry Reid needed to apologize because his main point has more than a ring of truth... whether people want to own up to that or not.
The basic idea of what Harry said (that a non-white candidate has a better chance of winning if they are more mainstream and non-threatening) can be also be applied to other ethnicities, women, and LGBT people.
You make some good points about the way lighter skinned blacks are treated vs. those with darker complexions. "School Daze" was an important movie because people outside the black community may not even know about the light skin/good hair vs. dark skin/nappy hair dynamic.
I can only imagine if Palin said this.
Josh: Welcome back. If Palin had made the comments instead of Reid, a lot of people unfortunately would have changed their tunes (on both sides) based on party lines.
Oh yes. Such is politics. I've grown tired of ranting about the crap :P
Personally, I think Reid's an elitist azzhat who feels he's better than the regular folks of America. But I don't see this comment as even close to being racist. Racial? Not in my opinion.
It's still a wideheld belief in some circles that America is racist. I'm personally offended that Reid claims such -- and it's certainly not the first time. Healthcare opponents are slave owners, or whatever he called them.
I think Reid and others with that belief would be pleasantly surprised to learn that, to the vast majority of non-liberals, it's about the issues.
And if propaganda news would stop showcasing the "Obama is Hitler" and the "Go back to Kenya" loons as representative of right-wing America, the message would be abundantly clear: some of us want regular, grounded people to run America, not an elite class of politicians.
Josh: I don't think Harry Reid was calling America a racist country, but instead he was saying that there are some people who will vote based on whether or not a black candidate makes them comfortable/has mainstream appeal. The same can be said for other candidates based on gender, sexuality, etc.
Post a Comment