The Southern Strategy, Welfare Queens, and the Food Stamp President???

             I've always been fascinated with politics.  When I was younger, before I figured out I was gay and learned to enjoy the escape that partying afforded me, I felt that one day I would become either a lawyer or a politician.  I've always had a sense of awe and wonder when watching the governing process as well as the political shenanigans play out. 
                     So naturally I've noticed when politicians have said things that I found to be somewhat startling, untrue, or simply off the wall.  This week's reading showed me just how clever some of our politicians have been in using just the right amount of racism when speaking to the public.  
               Because when a politician speaks about a policy issue that may be impacted by race, or when in which race can be used to the politician's advantage, it requires just the right amount of racial tinged comments.  
                       Copious amounts of research has been done which shows that if a politician makes a comment that is overtly or explicitly racist, it will be far less effective for him or her.  The reasoning behind this is that more people will clearly see the racist comment, and hopefully will be turned off by it. 
                         But if a politician carefully hones the craft of effective communication, he or she can inject just enough racism into a comment so that it will go unnoticed by many people.  However, the damage will be done.  It will sink into our collective consciousness and active what is called racial priming.  Racial priming will then activate people's already held racial predispositions.  One can see how effectively a skilled politician could sway public opinion, policy, and the voters' choices by saying just a few select words in order to trigger this type of reaction amongst the people. 
                One of my earliest memories of something like this was Reagan's comments about "welfare queens."   He was speaking of welfare fraud during his campaign and felt that there were many people living on government assistance and getting rich while doing so.  Of course he never came out and said that he felt that it was African-American women he was referencing.  But it was clear to me what he meant.  But it wasn't quite bad enough to get him into hot water, nor was it bad enough to turn away the voters.  For you see, he actually touched a nerve with many voters who believed it.  His words tapped into their already previously held notions; they perceived African-American women as being lazy and far too reliant on government assistance and were gaming the system.  
            I could mention President Nixon and his "southern strategy" but that's just a bit too obvious.  Or is it?  Possibly not because it helped get him elected.  But we can see that for what it really is, can't we?     
          A more recent example of racial priming occurred during the last Republican presidential primary debates.  Newt Gingrich, while referencing our stalled economy, called President Obama the Food Stamp President.  Now those on the left immediately saw the comment for what it was and pounced.  However, there are a lot of Americans in the center and center-right that didn't catch Gingrich's somewhat veiled racist comment.  For these people, his words sunk in and activated their previously held notions whereby African-Americans are linked to the food stamp assistance program.  He tapped into their prejudices with a coded word. 
                 Like I said in the beginning of this post, there have been countless studies done which prove that when these cues are heard, it triggers this reaction, this racial priming.  I look forward to the day when politicians will no longer be able to prime the pump of racism for political gain.  Don't you?  

Why It's Okay That I'm Right and You're Wrong

      Either I'm feeling far too cynical today, or Lewis Black has somehow inhabited my body, but I feel a bit of a rant coming on.  
       This week in Mass Media & Politics, one of the questions we were asked is do we think the mass media does a good job of enlightening voters and informing them about their electoral choices.  Really?  And no, I'm not being snarky about the question itself.  It's a very valid question and one I can understand why my professor would ask.  
      What perplexes me is the idea of trying to honestly answer that without my own biases showing through.  Of course my first gut reaction would be to say, "Sure, if everyone is watching MSNBC they're informed and on top of things.  It's those dimwits at Fox and their viewers that are totally clueless." 
     Of course I can't really say that on our message boards.  It wouldn't be very kind or diplomatic of me to do so.  Nor would I want anyone calling me a dimwit. So, to my credit, I refrained.  But the question still remains unanswered. Does the media do a good job?
     One point that stuck out to me from our reading this week was from the Graber text.  She points out that there is political and structural bias with regard to the substance of coverage done by media outlets. Really? Of course there is.  But that initial first reaction is obviously just taking political bias into consideration.  Let's look at what she termed structural bias.  
      "...structural bias reflects the circumstances of news production.  Balanced reporting may be impossible when candidates' newsworthiness and willingness to talk to reporters vary or when their campaigns are linked to different issues.  Structural bias, even though it lacks partisan motivation, nonetheless may profoundly affect people's perceptions about campaigns."  Doris A. Graber 
      Well, there we go!  Finally I have found my excuse for sitting back and laughing at Fox News and their coverage of candidates and the issues.  It's not me, it's the candidates' campaigns and their links to the issues that causes by blood pressure to rise.  
     Yes, I understand that Ms. Graber is not judging the issues themselves, she is merely saying that some campaigns may be linked to issues that other campaigns are not linked to.  But, holy smokes!  Isn't that what politics is all about?  The issues?  
      I had felt a Lewis Black rant coming on.  One complete with a diatribe about Americans losing their ability to think clearly, their obsession with excess, and their ever-present need to win at any cost in the their zero-sum mentality of politics.  But thankfully I've found an outlet, or maybe a scapegoat?  I've learned that it's okay for me to know I'm right, and giggle at some candidates and what they espouse.  It's not political bias on my part. It's merely the fact that their campaigns are linked to certain issues! 
      Oh, thank you, Ms. Graber!  :)