by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 21, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

ignaling that vice president Al Gore no longer has Democratic challenger Sen. Bill Bradley in the cross-hairs, he has ratcheted up his attacks on Republican front-runner George W. Bush. Hitting a little below the belt, the race card has suddenly emerged in campaign 2000. Upbraiding Gov. Bush, Gore, a Tennessee native, views the Confederate flag as "a hurtful message for many Americans that recalls the pain of slavery." When Bush demurred on the flag issue, Gore then called on him to denounce Atlanta Brave’s relief pitcher John Rocker and then controversial South Carolina state senator, Arthur Ravenel Jr.. After Gov. Bush continued to equivocate on both counts, Gore went on the attack. Many South Carolinians find themselves caught in another war between the states, or, in this case, the crossfire of presidential politics.

       Calling on Gov. Bush to denounce South Carolina GOP state senator Arthur Ravenel Jr., whose incendiary remarks about the NAACP fell far short of good old Southern hospitality, Gore said, "I think he [Bush] is worried about alienating some supporters . . . And some of the active Republican supporters down there have expressed some of what I regard as very hateful views toward the NAACP and African Americans." Since when does the GOP claim a monopoly on racism—in the South or elsewhere? What’s Bush supposed to do? Denounce every nut whose brains fall out of his head? God knows there’s enough bigots to go around. But targeting GOP candidates as showing racial insensitivity escalates the competitive juices even where the issue is bogus. With Gore and Bush cruising into Iowa and New Hampshire, both front-runners now find themselves in the inescapable place of training both barrels on each other. Contrary to prevailing beliefs, there’s absolutely nothing partisan about prejudice in Dixie or anywhere else.

       Showing insensitivity to racial issues is one thing, but deliberately pulling the race card to score political points is another matter. Most pundits recognize that with or without such attacks, Democrats will land about the same percentages of minority voters. Flashing the race card neither helps Democrats nor hurts Republicans, but creates a combative atmosphere breeding unwanted acrimony and partisanship. While strategist like James Carville are busy laying minefields, Republican and Democratic cliches remind voters that the twilight warfare to win the White House has already begun. South Carolina’s flag issue now becomes a powerful piece of propaganda distinguishing Republicans and Democrats. To the media, flying the Rebel flag is almost as bad as Atlanta Braves’ pitcher John Rocker’s racial gaffes—maybe even worse.

       Making her own incendiary remarks, Gore’s campaign manager Donna Brazile inadvertently caused some sparks by stating the obvious, namely, that Republicans don’t have an activist agenda to help African Americans or other minorities. True or not, everyone knows that the Republican party doesn’t grandstand about fancy kinds of social engineering. Without legislating social programs, George W. Bush and the new Republican party believe that reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, and returning authority and autonomy to the people, is the best cure for reversing racial injustice. Democrats lean more toward federal fixes to correct imbalances. Whatever the key differences between the parties, they certainly don’t turn on race or what to do with the Confederate flag.

       With Bradley and McCain’s campaigns loosing steam, there’s really no need to pull the race card to define political agendas for Democrats and Republicans. While the contrast seems indistinguishable between Gore and Bradley, the contrast with Bush leaves plenty of room for controversy on practically every issue. What’s ironic is the fact that Gore is running right of left-center and Bush is running left of right-center, placing their campaigns more closely parallel than some would think. When Clinton moved Democrats to the right and hijacked Reagan Republicanism in 1992, Republicans lost their identity and their momentum. While Al Gore’s talking education and gun control, George W. Bush hasn’t detoured from his pledge of a 10% across-the-board tax cut. Though most tax payers are concerned about Medicare and Social Security, they don’t look a gift-horse in the mouth. How many candidates are offering this kind of incentive?

       With political correctness ruling the day, flying Confederate flags or uttering private racial thoughts have become less tolerable. Turning the Lincoln bedroom into a bordello or fibbing under oath is far less politically incorrect and forgivable than airing racial slurs in public. Both front-runners are acutely aware of the value—and necessity—of political correctness. Condemning either candidate for not denouncing some person or cause, has to be regarded as naive and impractical. Why would any candidate risk offending voters because of a bogus, primary election issue—like whether to fly the Rebel flag or whether John Rocker should endure more public flogging? By next November, few will even remember this week’s controversy du jour.

       When candidates are seduced into knee-jerk reactions on controversial issues, it shows a lack of savvy about handling the press. Even Hillary Clinton, whose candidacy for U.S. senate left her answering whether she’s ever cheated on her husband, showed some grace under pressure. Candidates must remember there are no restrictions on a free press. No matter how out-of-bounds or off-the-wall the questions, candidates must answer only what seems advisable. No one expects candidates to answer verbatim all questions. It’s always been that way—why should it be any different now? Candidates must answer incendiary questions in manner that advances their agendas. Based on the response, it’s up to the press to draw their own conclusions. Whether it’s the fate of Elian Gonzalez or South Carolina’s rebel flag, candidates must say what they think scores more points. One thing’s for sure, playing the race card can easily backfire.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.