Dog Whistles A few weeks ago I’m talking with a friend about the root causes of poverty—no, really, we talk about that stuff, this isn’t one of those fake “conversations”—and I say that one of the advantages my son had was being raised in a two-parent household, because not every kid is so privileged.
Overall, I agree with you about the self-defeating nature of avoiding certain discussions or facts. I have to admit though that I don't understand the Willie Horton argument. The ad that everyone cites didn't misrepresent what happened; Horton really did get out on furlough while serving a life sentence for murder, and he really did burgle a home and rape a woman when he absconded. The claim that this is a dog whistle is strange; it implies that there is no way to discuss this event in a non-racist way without refusing to acknowledge that Horton is black. I don't think the use of his picture changes anything. He is kinda scary-looking in that picture, and my intuition is they chose to use the picture because he looks kind of like a wild man in it. I'm a criminal defense attorney, and I have many white clients charged with serious felonies who look at least this scary in certain pictures. I just don't see the argument that if everything else was the same except that Horton was white, this would have been done any differently. And if I'm right about that, then whether the ad is a dog-whistle depends entirely on factors outside the control of the person accused of sending the dog-whistle, namely, the race of the person under discussion. So you have a situation where Dukakis vetoed a bill that would have excluded first-degree murderers from the furlough system, and then Horton got released on furlough. I actually agree with Dukakis on the veto, but I also think that there's just no way a campaign doesn't use something this inflammatory against its opponent, no matter Horton's race.
Sorry to clutter your comments with that; I really liked this post but had to get that off my chest
I think the Willie Horton thing is complicated. I'm a Dem so I'm probably biased about the ad. It feels unfair to me and using racism in a bad way, but absolutely talking about crime is fair game. My bigger point is that kind of thing also helped to feed a narrative on the left that any mention of things like crime is bad, even if done for supposedly good reasons. If we mention crime, we're being just like the Bush campaign. Shame on us!
For some reason the black-on-black crime problem has come to mind several times recently. Cons and 2A supporters agree with many progressives and BLM- 'don't talk about black-on-black crime'. I kinda doubt we can completely separate feelings towards perpetrators from feelings towards victims. I'd first and foremost like to see fewer people, including Blacks, from being shot. That means fewer shootings, more incarceration and/or unsolved violent crime. I do not believe concern for victims is racist.
Great piece, Boomer. Absolutely spot on and really, really well done.
Thank you very much!
Overall, I agree with you about the self-defeating nature of avoiding certain discussions or facts. I have to admit though that I don't understand the Willie Horton argument. The ad that everyone cites didn't misrepresent what happened; Horton really did get out on furlough while serving a life sentence for murder, and he really did burgle a home and rape a woman when he absconded. The claim that this is a dog whistle is strange; it implies that there is no way to discuss this event in a non-racist way without refusing to acknowledge that Horton is black. I don't think the use of his picture changes anything. He is kinda scary-looking in that picture, and my intuition is they chose to use the picture because he looks kind of like a wild man in it. I'm a criminal defense attorney, and I have many white clients charged with serious felonies who look at least this scary in certain pictures. I just don't see the argument that if everything else was the same except that Horton was white, this would have been done any differently. And if I'm right about that, then whether the ad is a dog-whistle depends entirely on factors outside the control of the person accused of sending the dog-whistle, namely, the race of the person under discussion. So you have a situation where Dukakis vetoed a bill that would have excluded first-degree murderers from the furlough system, and then Horton got released on furlough. I actually agree with Dukakis on the veto, but I also think that there's just no way a campaign doesn't use something this inflammatory against its opponent, no matter Horton's race.
Sorry to clutter your comments with that; I really liked this post but had to get that off my chest
I think the Willie Horton thing is complicated. I'm a Dem so I'm probably biased about the ad. It feels unfair to me and using racism in a bad way, but absolutely talking about crime is fair game. My bigger point is that kind of thing also helped to feed a narrative on the left that any mention of things like crime is bad, even if done for supposedly good reasons. If we mention crime, we're being just like the Bush campaign. Shame on us!
I don't think we're allowed to acknowledge it nowadays, but maybe, just maybe, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was on to something.
For some reason the black-on-black crime problem has come to mind several times recently. Cons and 2A supporters agree with many progressives and BLM- 'don't talk about black-on-black crime'. I kinda doubt we can completely separate feelings towards perpetrators from feelings towards victims. I'd first and foremost like to see fewer people, including Blacks, from being shot. That means fewer shootings, more incarceration and/or unsolved violent crime. I do not believe concern for victims is racist.