Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has opened up, in the past several weeks, that longstanding debate on political realism, racism, and the intersection of both. Reid sparked the controversy following the release of Game Change, a book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in which it is reported that “[Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and 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, which some see as a sludge report of 2008 campaign gossip, was vindicated when Reid admitted to spouting the scurrilous remark.
But does Harry Reid’s comment make people uncomfortable because it’s racist or because it’s true?
The statement is both racist and true. Yet just because it is true does not make it right, and just because it is true does not validate the attitude behind it. Even the most liberal-minded people still buy into, either consciously or otherwise, the prejudices associated with black people— they are violent, overly-sexual, unintelligent, and unintelligible. Today, it is still not uncommon to hear “He’s black and so polite!” or “What a beautiful black model!,” implying that blackness and certain positive attributes are normally incompatible.
Truth can also be found in Reid’s statement. No one primarily speaking a “Negro dialect” or any stereotypical “dialect,” whether Asian, “white trash,” gay, or female, would find him or herself in high office. This is simply a point of political realism, not racism. People want their elected officials to fit their ideals and speak proper English. And when the office in question happens to be the Presidency, people want their candidate’s background, speech patterns and overall demeanor to not be representative (supposedly) of a single community, but of all of America. Some voters may appreciate a certain dialect, but any particular one likely alienates more than it endears.
Dr. Boyce Watkins, in his blog “The Gri,” believes this is indicative of something broader and perhaps more sinister; “What is saddest about Reid’s commentary, however, is that it reminds many African-Americans across the country that if our speech patterns or appearance are “too black” (whatever that means) or too different from what some consider acceptable, we are going to be deemed inferior. It seems that looking, sounding and behaving like a white man is the only way I might be considered to be as good as a white man. That is White Supremacy 101.”
Reid’s commentary is politically realistic, but it is also racist.
Speaking a certain way is an action, and an individual can choose (wisely or unwisely) to act in such a way at certain times and in certain places. Wise and unwise choices can be indicative of character, but skin color cannot.
Whether the non-black people of the United States chose President Obama based on the darkness of his skin is a reflection not on him but on the people and the degree to which they still make important judgments of character based on skin color and its socially constructed connotations.
How do black people (or any people) respond to these realistic but racist “compliments?” There are five typical responses.
At the extreme is passivity or a rebuke. For some, it is easier to stay silent and accept propositions like “I actually have a smart black friend” as problematic but genuine compliments that reflect an unfortunate status quo. Then there is the immediate rebuke, which points out that such statements are inherently racist. A rebuke, though, which leaves no question as to how one feels about the remark, may do more harm than good by discouraging well-meaning, non-black people who straddle a line between tolerance and acceptance.
The third response is humor, which offers no active explanation for or condemnation of the remark it responds to, but relaxes tensions and allows the offensive party to reflect. This is perhaps the most moderate kind of response to these remarks, which is then paired with either a thoughtful response or with passivity and forgiveness. A rebuke with a well-tempered explanation points out racism carefully and kindly, yet actively helps a person understand what was racist about a given remark. Passivity with forgiveness is usually employed towards one who knows better or should know better. There is no condemnation—on the contrary, there is usually unconditional forgiveness when an offensive party realizes his or her error on their own.
Choosing between such options is ultimately left to the discretion of a victimized party, who decides according to the strength of his or her personal connection with the offensive party. This introduces a social, and therefore necessarily political, relativism into the manner with which we react to racist comments.
President Obama chose to passively forgive Reid, saying recently “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.” He didn’t need to condemn Reid. Reid was aware of what he did and had already apologized. The Republicans, on the other hand, were in an uproar. When RNC Chairman Michael Steele was asked if Reid should resign on Fox News Sunday, he responded saying “I think he should.”
There is a standard where Democrats think they can say these things and apologize when it comes from the mouth of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it’s racism. It’s either racist or it’s not. And it’s inappropriate, absolutely. Steele compared Reid to Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott, who in 2002, at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday celebration, told Thurmond that if he had won his presidential bid in 1948, on a platform that supported segregation, the nation would have been a better place today. Consequently, Senator Lott was forced to step down.
Political relativism has justifiably helped Reid keep his job because his statement is much different than Trent Lott’s endorsement. First of all, it’s doubtful that President Obama would pardon just any Democrat who uttered a racially insensitive remark. Reid is not like other Democrats in the fact that he has sacrificed his career for President Obama’s health care initiative. Before this incident, Reid was already trailing in the polls behind the Republicans in Nevada’s upcoming Senate race due to his support of healthcare reform. The President will not alienate someone who risked so much for him.
Secondly, unlike Lott, Reid isn’t a racist. Though what he said may be, Reid’s actions are not. When Reid’s office called civil rights leaders to apologize, the Reverend Al Sharpton said “While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people.”
Democratic Committee Chairman Timothy Kaine responded to Steele by saying that, while Lott’s comments seem to imply segregation of blacks is a good thing, Reid was simply politically incorrect while praising then-candidate Obama. Dr. Watkins (author of the “Gri”) argues that “he wasn’t necessarily giving his own opinion. Rather, he was giving his assessment of the preferences of the American public,” albeit in a “racist white male dialect” using outdated words like “negro.”
Even if this was Reid’s opinion, Watkins explains that, “You don’t have to be a racist to embrace white supremacist thinking. You don’t even have to be white, since many African-Americans also believe that whites are superior… Harry Reid’s words are painfully connected to the day-to-day challenges that black people face all across America.”
Others have made comments equally, if not far more, egregious than Reid’s. During the 2008 campaign, former President Clinton tried to convince Senator Edward Kennedy to endorse his wife’s presidential bid. The late senator refused when Clinton said, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Outside the campaign in 2007, Joe Biden called Obama, “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” President Obama maintains relations with both of them.
A statement can be racist and politically realist or true and it can make people uncomfortable because of its dual nature. The nature of such statements, or “compliments,” makes responding to them more complex than responding to explicitly racist statements. This doesn’t make such statements right, but the reaction can make all the difference in diffusing or complicating the issue.
The statement itself is indicative of an attitude that may be bigger than the statement and the reaction themselves. Given that it’s nearing Dr. Martin Luther King Day, Dr. Watkins says “Fulfilling the dream of Dr. King is going to take hard work, not another string of benefit dinners and superficial Black History Month celebrations. It is going to take a commitment to policies that seek to eliminate systemic inequality, and a commitment to the dialogue necessary for all Americans to understand each other. This problem is far deeper than Harry Reid.”
