The Harold Ford Ad Scandal: Pots Calling The Kettle Racist
(Cross-posted from Teenage Pundit)
The ad parodies several of [Democratic candidate] Ford’s political positions through mock interviews with people defending or agreeing with him. “Terrorists need their privacy,” a woman indignantly insists. “Ford’s right,” says a hunter , “I do have too many guns.” A Wilford Brimley look-alike declares, “Canada can take care of North Korea — they’re not busy.” And a bare-shouldered bimbo squeals, “I met Harold at the Playboy party” — a reference to Playboy’s 2005 Super Bowl bash in Florida, which Ford attended. The ditzy blonde returns at the end to whisper, with a wink, “Harold: call me!” [Source: Boston.com]
What’s the left-wing’s criticism of this ad? That the ad is inaccurate? No. That the ad misrepresents the candidate’s positions? Nope.
The Democrats’ colossal problem with the commercial: the actress playing the model is white, while Ford is black.
Who are the racists here?
It was a witty, entertaining ad — and it promptly had liberals and
Democrats and even the odd Republican screeching about how “racist” it
was. The NAACP issued a press release calling it “racially charged
political propaganda” akin to “The Birth of a Nation,” D. W. Griffith’s paean to the Ku Klux Klan. Salon
described it as an “attempt to inflame white bigotry about interracial
relationships and white fears of black male sexuality.” Vanderbilt
University professor John Geer breathlessly told AP: “I’ve not met any observer who didn’t immediately say, ‘Oh, my gosh!’ It was a race card.” [Source: Boston.com]
By now, I expect most are aware of the controversy surrounding this Tennessee political advertisement. Essentially, the fact that the actress portraying the ditzy Playboy model is white means the Republicans are playing on the (apparently widespread, according to the left?) Southern fears of interracial relationships.
This is complete hogwash. It is a fact that the candidate, in his romping and stomping about town like, well, a young man spoiled with power, attented a Playboy party. It’s a fact that white models were in attendance. What’s the big deal, really?
For Boston.com, Jeff Jacoby sees it my way:
The ad would be just as effective if Ford were white. The Playboy blonde isn’t a coded reference to interracial dating (which, according to the Pew Research Center, most Southern whites don’t oppose anyway). Her presence isn’t a subliminal reminder of Ford’s color. It is a cue that Ford, who campaigns as something of a goody-goody — one of his campaign spots was filmed in a church — may be a little less straitlaced than he lets on. [Source: Boston.com]
The racists in this debate aren’t those who produced the ad, they are those who saw it and immediately thought a white-black relationship is so scandalous and such a big deal that the Republicans HAD to mean something special by it.
If the “bunny” was dark-skinned, I’m sure we’d be hearing about either
- the ad’s implication that all black women are strippers and whores
- the ad’s implication that of course Ford, being a black man, could only have a relationship with another black woman, because the Republicans are racist and don’t believe in interracial relationships
According to Washington NAACP head Hilary Shelton, “It is a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about
African-American men and white women” [Source: Yahoo].
He’s right, except for one thing – the prejudices belong to the critics, not the advertisers.
80 Responses to “The Harold Ford Ad Scandal: Pots Calling The Kettle Racist”
Joe Albanese
No need to be harsh.
In a perfect world AQ would have a point. And we draw ever closer to that perfect world.
But we aint there yet.
JOeA, who’s ignorant?
DD,
In the history of racism in the U.S. there is no such thing as half black.
Andrew,
How in the world recognizing that the ad was meant to send a coded message to the part of the population that still doesn’t think the Klan was that bad a group of good old boys makes those with the common sense to see it the racists is beyond me.
Not more than 20,000 people I’m sure
That pretty much sums up the size of the town I grew up in. I knew everyone in my high school. Strangly, none of them were black. Or Mexican. We did have a couple of 2nd gen Asians.
Strangly enough, there wasnt really a lot of prejudice towards blacks. There was vicous prejudice against Jews. I had a close Jewish friend, so I learned to hete Rednecks real quick.
<i>and the real racism lies with those who claim that the two versions of the commercial would carry different messages.</i>
Ya know, I was starting to seriously give some thought to your 10:31 post, until you had to go and finish it off with that.
While I myself am not black, almost every black man or woman I know would LOVE IT if race were no longer an issue. But all you’re doing is blaming them because they point out that we, as a society, still aren’t there yet. I’ve seen racists drop their attitudes, and I’ve seen oversensitive people calm down a little bit . . . but neither one happens by stifling the mere discussion of it.
I agree with the commenter that said this ad had subliminal racism. We don’t live in a color-blind world, but it is very difficult for people to admit any kind of racial prejudice, because that is not PC. But small towns in the South, might well react negatively to an ad like that. Also, there is some truth to the possibility that Ford is losing because some whites just won’t vote for a black candidate, no matter how bright and attractive he is. We are less racist than 20 years ago, but we are not there yet.
Joe Albanese
No need to be harsh.
In a perfect world AQ would have a point. And we draw ever closer to that perfect world.
But we aint there yet.Harsh? I said the post was ignorant. Would hardly classify that as harsh. The poster is obviously ignorant of the history of racial prejudice and what the RNCC ad was tapping into. AG is basically saying that those he disagrees with are racist but I am harsh to suggest he is ignorant. Ok. Interesting code of civility.
You’re right, Mr. Q. If an negative ad which uses an unneccessary insinuation of an interracial relationship with a playboy bunny comes off as racist, clearly, the problem lies with the Democrats and the NAACP. I mean, if you perceive racism, you must be racist yourself. Like me, I see pictures of the Ku Klux Klan, and people tell me they’re a supermacist group who worked actively to promote a racist agenda. But me, I just see some folks in white bed spreads. People tell me lynching is a massive expression of racism, but since I’m not a racist, I just can’t put it together as a racist act. I mean, look, if anyone is racist, it’s Harold Ford. What’s wrong with insinuating he likes white women? I mean, is he trying to say he doesn’t find white women attractive. And how does he know she’s white? Me, I’m color-blind, so when I see that ad, all I see is Harold Ford’s character being assassinated in every other fashion short of playing the race card. All I see when I see that woman is a symbol of the man’s party habits and tendency towards promiscuious sex with random city-slicker tramps. To blame Republicans for any racism in the ad is ridiculous. But if you do, you’ve got to remember that Harold Ford is the closest thing to a Republican in the Democratic party, and as such, it’s basically the Democrats’ fault anyways, just like the Mark Foley scandal. Some people say that the e-mails were inappropriate, but I say, if you find Mark Foley asking an underage page whehter or not they were horny inappropriate, then maybe it’s you that’s got the problem.
I think the lad was being a contrarian. At least he stood in and tried to defend his position.
My use of harsh was due to the fact that you were skirting dangerously close to insult.
I cant believe I am saying this, but lack of experience might have been more polite.
Oh dear God! I think I was being civil! Must return to Democratic Underground for deprogramming.
Snarky, I grew up in Thomasville, Ga. I lived a segregated childhood. I’m 70, so I remember how important it was to be careful; not to be out alone especially. In those days you let somebody know where you were going and when to espect you back. Getting snatched up was common.
I see politicians my age on TV today claiming they were all for civil rights. for most of them it’s bullshit… I know better. Because I lived it.
In those days ANY white man running for office better be in the klan or in good standing. If he weren’t, he was a niger lover: it was that simple. There was no in between.
It’s late, maybe we can speak to this in the morning.
ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
I stand by my comment.
Well,
doesn’t declaring this Ford ad as not racist seems an ignorant thing to do if you don’t understand who the ad is being marketed to.
the ad isn’t for us. Its for the kind of people who live in small towns who also have some very narrow minded, specific attitudes about race. I’d say they are uniformed when it comes to race.
It’s not enough to keep repeating how the attitudes shouldn’t exist. they DO exist.
Snark – wow, an unsolicited reference. Thanks.
As for my usual contrariness, in this case I earlier argued the point that it would be no less offensive if the girl had been black, and could even have been seen racist then as well but with a different twist on the form of racism.
But I think this ad was pointed less at those who are already racist (suppressed or open), but more a play against the moralistic votes, which is why I didn’t think the girl being black or white made a real difference.
However, having been raised in a rural Southern environment for three years as a teenager (Poquoson, Virginia), my overall take is ANY reference to sex involving a black candidate will have racial undertones to a large portion of the Southern audience, black and white.
I agree with this poster. I donated money and voted for Ford already.
“Pyst, please see Item 5 of the Comment Policy.
It’s the personal attack part I am referencing.”
pacatrue, if that was too rough for you then we wont have anyone left here by the end of the month. Nobody else was crying about it but you, and infact he answered me without crying foul himself, so find something better to complain about.
I still think the ad wasn’t racist. Another person who agrees with this vision is Harold Ford himself, or at least that’s what he said on Bill Maher’s show. He objected to the indirect lies in the ad and the “smut” in the ad (the playboy girl looks naked in the shot, I guess that’s what passes for smut over there) but not the race issue.
It was a 100% unadultered slander ad, well done but in very very poor taste. The playboy party was more a party sponsored by playboy because of some football event and thousands of people were there. Not hardly the orgy it is implied to be.
I don’t agree that the reaction shows that the critics are racist. It’s absurd. The racism in the ad is fictional, and the outrage over said racism from the political operatives on the other side is ALSO fictional. Saying that they are racists because they saw racism is silly. They played the race card. Not a pretty thing to do, but not uncommon on either side and certainly not indicative that either side holds actual prejudice towards any race.
You’re right, Mr. Q. If an negative ad which uses an unneccessary insinuation of an interracial relationship with a playboy bunny comes off as racist, clearly, the problem lies with the Democrats and the NAACP. I mean, if you perceive racism, you must be racist yourself.
Surgejack- I totally disagree. That’s like saying if you saw segregation as racist, you must be a racist. I’m not implying that this is blatant racism, but its like beauty-in the eye of the beholder. Some will see it, some won’t as is obvious from the varying responses to the ad on this site. At the very least, the ad was controversial. When you have lived around rural southerners, you realize that not all are as progressive as you would like them to be-even in 2006.
Jim Webb ran an ad in the primary showing his opponent with lots of cash and a hooked nose. A lot of people here saw antisemitism. I honestly didn’t, and I am have a Jewish father. But that doesn’t mean that the ad absolutely wasn’t antisemitic, and those who claimed it was, were antisemites. It just means we have differing sensibilities, and perceive the same things differently.
Kim, I think he was being ironic:
Seriously, it’s not even very subtle irony.;-)
Man, if he was found in an orgy or something with porn stars that’s one thing. But Playboy throws big parties at every superbowl. This is like blaming a Hollywood actorfor going to an Oscar after-party! There is NOTHING wrong with Playboy’s Super Bowl bashes – there are many out there. Coor’s runs a big one as well, if he showed there would the ads attack him for being a drunk?
Lynx- Oh—he he- I guess I overreacted without reading the entire comment. You are right!
Pyst: Karl gave us the night off since he figured that Kerry is doing our job for us
Tak: If I’m not mistaken, Corker asked for the ad to be pulled because it was “tacky” not because it was racist. I think that Mehlman did make a statement that he understood that some people apparently inferred racism and unlike Kerry, he apparently felt it was important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Snark: This is the kind of bigotry that the Dems practice, the belief that the majority of white southerners are racist hicks. I think you were the one who commented that this ad set the GOP back with black voters; well, I’d say it’s done as much damage or more for the Dems trying to win back the southern white vote, by insulting them with these assumptions. In order to believe that the GOP purposely made race an issue with this ad, you have to believe that there are more racist whites in Tennessee than non-racist ones. Otherwise, the outrage over racial baiting would cause more backlash than any positive effect of motivating the bigots.
I think the comment in the Boston.com article about the Pew Research center findings that interracial dating is not opposed by the majority of southern whites is salient. You guys can give plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are still plenty of racists in the south, just as I can give you anecdotal evidence of plenty of whites who aren’t racists. Like my white next door neighbors who are from, yes, Charles, Waycross, GA- and they have had a black foster child. Anecdotes matter less than valid stats on what is really currently the prevailing attitude in a region.
As far as Democratic reaction to these ads being racist? I wouldn’t phrase it that way at all, but what I do object to is first, the maligning of southern white voters with this accusation, and also the use of the race card by the Democrats to suit their political purpose rather than raising legitimate concerns about racial inequities. By using the issue of racism as a purely partisan political tool, they belittle the real struggle for racial harmony.
CS As CJ mentioned what would happen if your daughter was involved in a interracail relationship. I’m sure you wouldn’t have a problem with this, but others in your political circles would. The “one drop rule” applies to anyone who dillutes the “Whitr blood line”. Just one drop of BLACK blood makes a person unWHITE. The Germans applied this to Jews, George Allen would be considered a Jew, not a Methodist or whatever he is. Bring up some history from the 1970′s, JC Watts lovechild was raised by it’s black relatives, not the white side.
Seventy-second!
Rudi,
It’s not that those strong racist attitudes don’t exist, but it’s how prevalent they are or whether or not things have changed since the 70′s. And, it’s whether stirring up racist accusations against a political party will help in correcting the remaining pockets of racism or will it make it worse. You can’t force people to open their closed minds, but you can allow time and healing to encourage an environment where younger generations can learn to respect people of other races. When one party chooses instead to keep picking the wounds of racism in order to give blacks the misguided perception that their party is the only one that represents their interests, that party is choosing to do more harm than good.
BYG – nope, you were 73rd!
CS:
CS, any survey like this has to be taken with a mine worth of salt. Just because I respond on a survey as though I’m open minded about whatever controversy is at issue doesn’t mean it’s so. The effect of perceived social respectability on surveys like this is well known in research circles.
What is more valid is to compare responses to the same survey over time, and then say that attitudes have changed. But you still have a problem assessing the absolute value of that attitude that the survey can’t overcome.
jjc,
I don’t disagree, but one of the ways that the survey measured attitudes was by looking at the rates of interracial marriages (which would imply some degree of acceptance). They measured how many people had a direct relative who was married to someone of another race, and there was a single digit difference in the rate of this in the south vs. the region where it is the highest, the West (and the report pointed out that most of these were white/Asian marriages). I think the rate in the south was 22% of people responding that the did have a relative who was interracially married, vs. 28% in the West.
You’re exactly right. If that corrupt older man is tarnishing an innocent young virgin he ought to be lynched. It’s not racist at all, it’s just like Bill Clinton and Monica, all of them ought to be lynched. This is what America used to stand for and we didn’t have all those teenage pregnacies and AIDS and homosexulity destroying families. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is negor, it’s because Mr. Ford is a corrupt older man who might have AIDs corrupting a lilly pure as the new driven snow virgin into the well known depravities that his type is known for while hardworking honest young men who work hard for a living and vote Repblican don’t get any. The fact that they are white has nothing to do with it, the point is they work hard rather than living off government money and they are decent Republicans rather than media hyped perverts with all this break dancing and rap, decent folk who vote Republican because the Democrats betrayed our traditions under LBJ, while the sort of people we can’t say because of politcal correctness take their sisters and tarnish their lillies into deep darkness of sin and turn the girl next store into feminists who defy the traditions of their fine communities and produce children no longer as pure as the driven soil but like soot stained slush, children who grow up to be terrorist loving liberals filed with hate.
And when we try protest all that made this country great, people call us racists!
well, I’d say it’s done as much damage or more for the Dems trying to win back the southern white vote
There was never the possibility of this so who cares?
Dems can win with the western vote, and southerners can just fade into the obscurity they deserve.
There are hillbillies in TN, and Rove was playing to them. You can believe whatever you want ot believe and you will.
And I say all this as a Southener. Southern values is a crock, and the reason we had to fight Civil War v1.0.
And they will probably be the reason we fight Civil War v 2.1
Unless the progressive southerners can finally drive the neo-confederates back to the intenetless holler were they can keep on with the cousin lovin and stay the hell out of the rational discourse.
Harsh but true.
Monica was like what 23? when she had the affair with Bill Clinton. I was laughing when Republicans tried to compare it with Foleygate!