Dog Whistle Racism and the Defeat of Debo Adegbile

Last weekend during a  long 2 ½ day  drive from Minnesota to Philadelphia I listened to a podcast of the renowned PBS journalist and former White House staffer Bill Moyers interviewing legal scholar Ian Haney Lopez who has recently published a book entitled Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racismand Wrecked the Middle Class. In the book and interview Lopez describes how in order to win elections both conservative and liberal politicians have used language and images culturally coded to evoke racist stereotypes in order to motivate white voters. Through meticulous research Lopez shows how phrases like “welfare queens,” “law and order”, “war on drugs” and references to food stamps have been used like dog whistles to call upon deeply held prejudices and fears in order to seduce white voters to support efforts for less government regulation, cuts on corporate taxes, and a general distrust of government action, all the while giving more power to corporate interests control over American public life. Efforts like this have been used to influence white voters to act against their own self-interest and to increase the divide between the wealthy and the middle class, all the while scapegoating the poor and people of color in the process. More recent examples of dog whistle racism include the depiction of Obama as a Muslim and non-citizen, the relentless attack on “Obamacare,” support for reduction for food stamps, opposition to raising the minimum wage and antagonism towards immigration reform.   The language and images in each of these efforts call upon deep-seated, largely subconscious,race-based fears deeply socialized into most whites’ psyches.

So imagine my shock when I opened Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer to read that Senator Pat Toomey (Republican- PA) had led the fight to vote down the nomination of Debo Adegbile, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s Division of Civil Rights. Adegbile’s "crime" was participating in the defense of  Mumia Abu-Jamal,  a former journalist, radio host, taxi cab driver, and member of the Black Panther Party who was accused of the 1981 shooting of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. While Abu-Jamal was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, his case has been the focus of controversy for the last 30 years. Abu-Jamal has always insisted on his innocence, and his case has gained worldwide recognition. However for police and their supporters Abu-Jamal is a pariah and a symbol of a cold-blooded cop killer. While I was not in Philadelphia at the time of the incident and only know what I have been able to read in the papers over the years, I have come to realize that there are two competing narratives as to what happened on the night of Daniel Faulkner’s death. To police it was a case of calculated murder. To many in the activist black community, it was a racist travesty of justice of an innocent man wrongly accused and convicted.

Enter Senator Toomey and Debo Adegbile. Because Debo Adegbile was part of Abu-Jamal’s NAACP legal defense team during a 2011 appeal, according to Toomey he is therefore unfit to be director of the Civil Rights Division. Forget the fact that all people accused of a crime, regardless of the crime, are entitled to a vigorous defense. Forget that as a defense lawyer, Adegbile is required to offer that vigorous defense. Forget the fact that Toomey could not find any public actions or statements by Adegbile about Abu-Jamal. Toomey gathered all sorts of documents and YouTube videos arranged to make a case against Adegbile but never even spoke to him. As a defense lawyer Adegbile was doing his job; defense lawyers by design defend people accused of a crime, but to Toomey that in itself is a crime.

Toomey’s actions against Adegbile raise troubling questions. Was Pat Toomey calling upon deep-seated racist fears to further his cause against Adegbile? Did he resort to silent racism to disqualify an otherwise highly qualified candidate? Was he even aware of what he was doing? What if Faulkner had been black and Abu-Jamal white, and Adegbile defended Abu-Jamal, would Toomey assume Adegbile unfit to serve in the government? Highly unlikely. Without mentioning race, Toomey played on racist stereotypes and fears, and won his fight to derail the nomination. Ian Haney Lopez says this is the essence of dog whistle racism: one does not ever have to mention race, the images and stereotype do that without the word being spoken.

By appealing to fears of a “cop killer” Toomey was able to cast Adegbile and Obama (who nominated him) as somehow seeking to undermine the justice system. The fact that Adeqbile worked for the NAACP and would head the Civil Rights division only adds to the race-based fears that somehow the justice system itself might be undermined. Never mind that it was this same NAACP that over 60 years led the fight to overturn the then legal process of racial segregation and oppression. Even now Michelle Alexander (author of The New Jim Crow) has shown how the U.S. criminal justice systematically and unfairly punishes people of color as compared to their white counterparts.  So the criminal justice system has many flaws both past and present. That someone like Adegbile might fight to correct something he believed the system did wrongly is what we would hope courageous people of principle would do. However, by choosing to stir up racist stereotypes and fears, Toomey and all the Senators who followed his lead, have participated in the basest form of character assassination against Debo Adegbile for sake of political gain, and we as a nation are degraded for having fallen prey to such a hideous and seditious racism.

I encourage you to listen to the podcast and/or read the book. Ian Haney Lopez  shows us that the racism of the 21^st century is far more seductive and pervasive than most well-meaning whites and people of color would like to admit. The podcast can be accessed via this link.

(images from the Philadelphia Inquirer)

Not So Fast Senator Toomey...

Conservative Republican Senator Pat Toomey (PA) went out on a political limb to co-sponsor a bill with Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (WV) that would have mandated background checks on all sales of firearms in the United States. This was an issue brought to light after the Newtown, CT shootings. Despite overwhelming popular support for the measure, Senator Toomey risked his 100 ranking with the NRA. Not only did the NRA not want the bill on universal background checks to pass, they didn’t even want it to be discussed on the Senate floor, threatening to “punish” those Senators who voted simply to talk about the issue. The NRA’s threats betray the gun lobby’s commitment to gun rights over people’s safety, and Senator Toomey is to be commended for going against his NRA supporters despite their threats. Toomey’s willingness to work with Manchin is the kind of political compromise and partnership that used to get things done in a divided Congress but is all too rare these days.

Unfortunately, while the country was rightly fixated on the horrific and tragic bombings in Boston, the Senate failed to pass an amendment instituting the Toomey-Manchin back ground check system.  While a majority – 56 to 45 - voted in favor of the amendment, a bill of this kind requires a  so-called “super majority” of 60 votes and so failed. This occurred despite nearly 90% public support for a bill and 70% support among gun owners. While many reasons were given for the bill’s failure, the bottom line is that the NRA is one of the wealthiest  lobbies on Capitol Hill, and money, not the the people’s will, rules our dysfunctional plutocratic government. [Don’t’ get me started!}

In his letter to his Pennsylvania  constituents Senator Toomey regretted the failure of the amendment to pass and reiterated his belief that the “amendment would have helped enhance public safety while still protecting the Second Amendment.” In describing the vote Toomey wrote “[The amendment’s failure to pass] was not the outcome I hoped for, but the Senate has spoken on the subject and now it’s time to move on.” [emphasis mine].

Not so fast Senator Toomey! Given the tremendous pressure Toomey received from his conservative base, one can understand his desire to put this firestorm behind him and “move on.” In fact if one’s goes to the Senator’s website there is no indication that he was ever involved with the legislation. However, some of us are not so easily swayed.  In fact despite the NRA’s harangue and pressure, a majority of the Senate actually did vote for the amendment.  More importantly an overwhelming majority of citizens are calling for background checks. The Senators and gun lobby are hoping we will just forget this issue and go away. Though Congress seems only able to act on what their political sugar- daddies  say they can act on, those of us who have been working for these common sense gun laws are not so easily defeated. 

However, I do think tactics may have to change. The government seems beholden to corporate war chests and wealthy elites, so perhaps our tactics need to focus on those who are shelling out the dollars while hiding in the shadows. Perhaps several thousand gun violence prevention activists and people affected by the ongoing gun violence crisis need to show up at the next NRA meeting and cause a non-violent disruption. Perhaps we need to show up in large numbers to demonstrate our outrage at the headquarters of Glock, Smith & Wesson, Beretta and other gun manufacturers who are lining their pockets while thousands die each year.  Perhaps we need to let Senator Toomey and other leaders who have a few shreds of dignity left that we appreciate their courage, and we want to see more of it.

No Senator we aren’t “moving on” and you best not either.

[Picture from Senator Toomey's website]

An Open Letter to Joe Sestak and Pat Toomey

Note: The following letter was set to both candidates and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

For those outside Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak (Democrat)and Pat Toomey (Republican) won their respective primaries and will face off in the November's election for the U.S. Senate now held by Arlen Specter.

Congratulations gentleman, on your respective primary victories. Though I did not vote for either of you, I am now left with the two of you as the principal candidates in this fall’s Senate election. So I have a request: please keep the campaign focused on the issues.

Mr. Sestak, you ran a campaign that basically had the message “I am a Democrat and Arlen Specter isn’t.” You rarely discussed your own positions because despite Specter’s recent change in political party, you were not substantially different than him. So you played misleading ads that highlighted Specter’s Republican connections and implicitly (by virtue of the images you showed) reminded people of Specter’s age and recent battles with cancer. It was a disgusting and disappointing campaign. In your acceptance speech you exclaimed that “Democracy works!” However, your campaign represented the worst of what democracy has become in this country, and it needs to stop.

Mr. Toomey, because you did not have a serious challenger, you did not have use such tactics in your primary campaign. Furthermore, your political strength in the Pennsylvania Republican Party was significant enough to drive Arlen Specter from the party he had served for 30 years. Your pushing him out was the first nail in his political coffin, Sestak’s victory was the second.

Even so, you now represent a party that’s recent claim to fame has been “We are not Democrats.’ Republicans have become the part of “no” – no health care reform, no banking reform, no taxes, no government. Moreover, your party has exploited race and class divisions in a manner Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls “colorblind racism:” (Racism Without Racists, 2009) not speaking of race, but using code words race and class to turn white folks against President Obama and his agenda.

Both of you, prominently display your young children on your websites and your political ads. So here’s a proposal: Conduct yourself in this fall’s campaign in the same way you would expect your children to behave on the playground. No name calling. No dirty tricks. No misleading or dishonest statements.

Instead why not focus on the issues, since there are significant differences between you on a variety of concerns from health care reform to environmental issues to education to the role of government to gay and lesbian concern to women’s issues to immigration, and so on. Talk about those things. Let your ads focus on what you believe and how it is similar or different from your opponent. If your opponent chooses to make misleading, personal attacks, don’t take the bait. Call him out for his bad behavior. We voters are sick of the misleading attack ads; all they do is make us disrespect you more.

At the end of each day until November, before you go to bed, ask yourself this question: In my words, decisions, and behavior today was I living an example I would want my child to follow?

Believe me, if at the end of each day you can answer that question in the affirmative, we will all sleep better.