Larry Jankens's picture

    AFL-CIO Misses Mark on Racist Healthcare Commercial

    By Larry Jankens on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 3:14pm |

    I honestly don't know what all the hubub is about.  I watched the commercial and didn't understand why the AFL-CIO was reporting it to be racist.  Instead of focusing on the supposed racism, I was doing something foolish - focusing on the arguments the commercial is making about healthcare.  What was I thinking?

    Only until after I read the article about it did I see why people were getting their panties in a twist: The guy who is getting fired is white while the guy who didn't get fired is black.  The claim is that it perpetuates the white person paranoia that black people get preferential treatment when it comes to being selected for jobs or deselected for firing. 

    I would argue that it's racist to assume that that is racist.  How do you know the white guy is not getting fired because he sucks as a worker compared to the black guy?   Isn't that the logical conclusion?   Are they saying its natural to think that if a white guy is getting fired instead of a black guy racism must be involved? 

    Is it possible that a person could infer that the black guy kept his job because black people get preferential treatment in the job market?  Sure, if you are already a racist idiot who tends to think that way or if you are way too hyper senstive about racial issues, but I think the vast majority of non-racist and not hyper sensitive would not have seen supposed racism. 

    I honestly think that if you showed people this commercial and then asked their general opinion about it the vast majority of folks would not see the racial thing until someone pointed it out to them. 

    The AFL-CIO says: "This is the same old right wing dog whistle politics." I'm not even sure what dog whistle politics means, but I am sure that AFL-CIO is using racial politics to encourage folks to think that fighting against healthcare is racist - and that is racist!  Just because the AFL-CIO is celebrating it's anniversary of it's starting a football league (which is why all the AFL teams are dressing all funky this year - have you seen those throwback Broncos unis? Bleh), doesn't mean it should try and make something racist out of nothing. 

    Here's the original HuffPo article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/new-chamber-of-commerce-a_n_345392.html

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    I have to disagree with you, Larry. Ads like these are heavily researched, and attention is paid to subtle and even subliminal messaging, so it's logical to assume that the actors were chosen for their race. Such choices are not necessarily racist. Often it works the other way, as with beer commercials that depict buddies of different races to broaden the appeal of the products.

    But when you combine the likely intentionality of the casting with the persecution narrative popular on the right, one can plausibly infer a more sinister intention. One of the paranoid right's chief tactics has been to represent white Christians as a persecuted demographic. On the race front, you need to consider Beck's contention that the health care plan is a form of slavery reparations (redistributing health care benefits from whites to blacks), Beck and Limbaugh's charges that Obama is intentionally hiring racists who hate white people, and a host of "reverse racism" fearmongers like Buchanan who have charged that white people being discriminated against. This ad fits easily into this narrative with the subtle suggestion that white people will lose their jobs to black people. Larry Jankens is not the target of this ad, but there are plenty of folks who are receptive to that message, which is why right-wing pundits shout it so loudly and so frequently in less subtle ways.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 4:27pm

    I think it's entirely possible that there was a racist undertone to the message, but I agree with Larry that it's at least borderline racist to assume so.


    by Nebton on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 4:32pm

    Who's assuming? I and others have tried to present a plausible argument for inferring race-baiting. Moreover, I neither assume nor infer that the makers of the ad are white, so whence the racism?

    Larry's argument, insofar as I understand it, is different. He's suggesting that the AFL-CIO is deliberately race-baiting (reverse race-baiting?) to drump up health care support. That's possible (even if the ad itself is also race-baiting), but I would like a little more evidence to back it up, such as a history of race-baiting by the AFL-CIO and other health care supporters.

    Final note: If it's borderline racist to assume that the ad-maker is race-baiting, then wouldn't it be equally borderline racist to assume that the AFL-CIO is race-baiting?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 4:42pm

    Final note: If it's borderline racist to assume that the ad-maker is race-baiting, then wouldn't it be equally borderline racist to assume that the AFL-CIO is race-baiting?

    No, it's not. (I assume by "race-baiting" you simply mean pointing out the racist assumption.) The ad (as far as I can tell, I don't have sound here), makes no reference to either person's race. Other than inferring that the race choices were deliberate, there's no clear racial connections made. On the other hand, the AFL-CIO does make an explicit reference to race (or at least minorities). The AFL-CIO is clearly making an issue about the race of the two actors. The ad maker is inferred to be making an issue about the race of the two actors. I see a huge difference there.

    On a side note, because it's always about me, my real first name (you know me by my middle name) might as well be "Sue". As such, it's astonishing the number of times I'm asked to show ID when I use my credit card. It happens to me significantly more often than it happens to friends I'm with. It's safe to infer that some of those ID requests are due to my first name. It is not safe to infer that any particular instance is due to my first name, however, as everyone gets asked for ID occasionally.

    I do want to clarify something: I'm not calling anyone a racist in the usual sense of the word. There are racial assumptions (or inferences, if you prefer) being made, though, that I'm not entirely comfortable with.


    by Nebton on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 4:57pm

    I agree that is plausible to infer race baiting, but I don't think it is logical or rational. 

    What I was arguing is that race bating is racist (which it is unclear - I would argue non-existent - if the original commercial did), but reverse race bating (accusing others of race baiting whether or not they are in order to drum up racial support - which we know the AFL-CIO is doing) is also racist.

    Final note: I emailed this article to Stephen Colbert's one black friend and he agrees with me.


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 5:03pm

    I'm going to diverge a bit from what Larry's saying (and possibly from what I previously wrote), and say that I don't think the AFL-CIO is deliberately making an untrue statement. Rather, I think they are making a statement of certitude that cannot be backed up by the events. They are making racial assumptions, but they are not reverse race-baiting in, to me, the latter implies a certain intent that the former does not.


    by Nebton on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 5:15pm

    Latest Comments