Unpacking Harry Reid's "Racist" Comments
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
There was a moment in Sunday night's "60 Minutes" piece on revelations from the 2008 presidential campaign in which Steve Schmidt, John McCain's former top campaign strategist, was asked if the choice of Sarah Palin "was about winning an election, not necessarily about who's gonna be best as vice president."
"My job was to give political advice," Schmidt responded. "We needed to do something bold to try to win the race." (More from "60 Minutes")
That exchange is worth remembering when considering the controversy that broke over the weekend involving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, it was revealed, privately stated that he believed Barack Obama was well suited to a presidential run because he is a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Reid, an early Obama backer, immediately apologized "for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments," but that didn't stop Republicans from pouncing on the comments and calling for Reid's resignation from the Senate leadership. They drew comparisons to Trent Lott's 2002 comments that America would have been better off had then-segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, which resulted in Lott being forced to leave the GOP leadership.
Washington Unplugged: Are Bill Clinton Race Comments "More Objectionable" Than Reid's?
Obama: Harry Reid's "Inartful" Words Don't Matter
Harry Reid: I'm "Not Going to Dwell" on Race Comments
Bob Schieffer: Reid Will Survive ... 'til Election Day
Harry Reid Gets Support from Eric Holder
Dianne Feinstein: Reid Comments a "Closed" Matter
Republicans Keep the Heat on Harry Reid
Reid Apologizes for "Negro Dialect" Remark
Jan Crawford: Racism Doesn't Always have a Southern Drawl
60 Minutes: More Revelations from "Game Change"
There was a clear difference between the comments, of course: While Lott's words could be interpreted as an argument that segregationist policies would have been better for America than the alternative, Reid was discussing a political calculus. Like Schmidt, his thinking seemed largely confined to the realm of politics.
On NBC's "Today" show Monday, Matt Lauer asked PBS' Gwen Ifill this question: "Isn't Harry Reid implying that a dark-skinned African American who speaks in a way that some would consider more stereotypical would not be electable?"
Ifill's response? Well, yes. Because it's true.
"There is actual political science that backs that up," said Ifill, who is black. "I don't know that Harry Reid has read it, and what Harry Reid said was certainly impolitic, at least, but there is evidence to support that people – whether it is a matter of voting for a white candidate or voting for a black candidate – if a person is very much different than who they are, or what they perceive the mainstream to be, they are less likely to vote for that person."
Indeed, what Reid has now said publicly is what everyone in Washington was saying privately as Mr. Obama prepared his run – it's just that he seems to be the only one whose words eventually became public.
Well, maybe not the only one: The best comparison to Reid's comments is not what Lott said but rather comments by then-candidate Joe Biden, who in 2007 said Mr. Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Biden came under criticism for the comment, but the controversy didn't endure – and Biden, of course, has gone on to have a pretty close relationship with Mr. Obama.
Reid was right to apologize for his comments: As we've seen with the recent census flap, many are offended by the word "negro," and notions of "light skin" and a certain type of black dialect raise legitimate questions about America's still-unsettled relationship with race. (Wrote black historian Blair LM Kelley: "I find it horrifying that fair-skinned blacks are seen as more acceptable candidates in the 21st century.")
But Mr. Obama is too savvy a politician not to see the basic truth in Reid's comments, which is part of the reason why he was quick to accept his apology. (It also didn't hurt, of course, that Mr. Obama needs Reid in place for final passage of the health care bill, along with a host of other issues.)
"This is a good man who's always been on the right side of history," Mr. Obama told Roland Martin Monday afternoon. "For him to have used some inartful language in trying to praise me, and for people to try to make hay out of that makes absolutely no sense. He apologized, recognizing that he didn't use appropriate language, but there was nothing mean-spirited in what he had to say and he's always been on the right side of the issues."
On "Today," Ifill essentially made Reid's argument (using more appropriate language), stating that someone who looks and sounds like Al Sharpton is a harder sell to the American people than someone who looks and sounds like Mr. Obama. (Notably, Sharpton is among the black leaders who are largely backing Reid.)
Or, as Joan Walsh of the liberal online magazine Salon put it: "if progressive racial-justice Democrats don't think politicians of every race size up the field in terms of competitive advantage -- and sadly, even today, accord advantage to African-Americans who put white folks at ease, speak 'white' or 'standard' English, and even, yes, look 'less non-white' -- we're kidding ourselves."
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 197 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 362 Comments
Nice try, but all those democrats moved over to the Dixiecrat party around 1950, and now most closely identify with the Republican party.
Seriously. Go ask a Klansmen what party he's with.
Not all Republicans are racist, but ALL racists are republicans.
I'm not sure what planet you grew up on, but it was certainly not this one. Obviously you have developed some pretty bad study habits, to make such an ignorant remark.
You might be better served to study the documented facts, rather than accept the Racist rhetoric of our bigoted self annoited leaders. If you did, you would know in which administration "The Father of Affirmative Action" served. You would also know which party brought about actual Desegragation, rather than just talking about it. You might actually get a grasp on which party gave us our 1st Black Joint Chief of Staff, our 1st Black Secretary of State, our 1st Black Female Secretary of State etc.etc.
I will give you a big hint...It was not your Massa's Democratic Party.
They have done nothing but opress our people since day one. Now they Enslave our votes, while tossing our children the scraps from their almighty table. Even the beloved Clinton Regime only gave out token positions to our loyal "Ya Sir Massa" leaders. Perhaps you will finally catch on to the fact that it was our own kind which sold our ancestors into slavery. It is our own kind that are selling out our people today, and they are not Republicans. These self anointed bigots are condemning our children to serve the children of their true Masters...The Democratic Party! If you think they will give our people anything after they gain what they want from us, just step back and look at how they demean and slander their own poor. To think they would do any less to ours is nothing short of delusional. If that is what you want, then that is your right. But do not speak as though you speak for all of our people. Because you don't, many of us reserve that right for ourselves. We chose to be masters of our own destiny. We chose to raise our children to be Americans, not Africans. We chose who to call our leaders, not the ones who a handful of elitest Media Mogul's tell us they are. We are truly free, only because we chose to accept a responsible role in this society. We do so by not labeling ourselves or our children as anything other than what we are...Americans period. Those who chose to be seen as different, have know justification to cry foul, when they are treated as such.
In other words, Democrats "own" black issues, so THEY can say whatever they want, even if it would be offensive if someone else said it.
Welcome to liberal logic. A great big steaming pile of political correctness for the majority, with generous helping of exception for themselves.
We want a single definition of racism, please. One that applies to all people, all of the time.
President Obama's mother was white, and his father was 15/16 Arab, and 1/16 Negroid.
Harry Reid was simply stating a fact!