3 ms·

Here is the quote with more context: > Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace v

Here is the quote with more context: > Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps? > Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger." He's talking about the 1980 campaign run by the Republicans here, and it absolutely about appealing to racist voters, and getting them to vote for you, without appearing racist yourself. But part of it is pledges to support policies that will disproportionately affect blacks rather than whites, and how to code the rhetoric in such a way that the message will get across without being obvious enough to create a scandal. That's what he means when he says "the whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference" - the emphasis there is on reference. You might think you don't see life through a racial prism, but the Republican party of the eighties most definitely did, and they exploited it.

tsotha 11y ago
I read the entire exchange. The other quote is far more definitive. >You might think you don't see life through a racial prism, but the Republican party of the eighties most definitely did, and they exploited it. No they didn't. For Republicans Willie Horton was a story about a guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough. Only for Democrats was it about a black guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough.
- deciplex 11y ago
  > No they didn't. For Republicans Willie Horton was a story about a guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough. Only for Democrats was it about a black guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough. You act as though it could have only been a racial issue if the Republicans had explicitly made it so, which is not how it works, and that by calling them out on it, Democrats made it into a racial issue, which is laughably disingenuous. Considering the obsession that Lee Atwater had with racial politics, and in light of the fact that he was a big part of how the Republicans ran campaigns in the 80s (not to mention that you still see echoes of those strategies even today), I guess you are certainly, totally, and kind of embarrassingly wrong, actually.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >You act as though it could have only been a racial issue if the Republicans had explicitly made it so, which is not how it works, and that by calling them out on it, Democrats made it into a racial issue, which is laughably disingenuous. Rather than laughably disingenuous, that's exactly the case, though it's pretty silly to characterize cynical demagoguery as "calling them out". Maybe you should read the entire thread. The only way you could hold this position is to ignore the evidence to the contrary and rely entirely on your Democrat secret racial code word decoder ring. You know only Democrats have those, right?
    - deciplex 11y ago
      Well only Democrats are supposed to have them. They are acquired easily enough, though. Let me know when you get yours before we continue this utterly fruitless conversation any further.

tsotha 11y ago

I read the entire exchange. The other quote is far more definitive. >You might think you don't see life through a racial prism, but the Republican party of the eighties most definitely did, and they exploited it. No they didn't. For Republicans Willie Horton was a story about a guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough. Only for Democrats was it about a black guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough.

deciplex 11y ago
> No they didn't. For Republicans Willie Horton was a story about a guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough. Only for Democrats was it about a black guy who killed someone on a weekend furlough. You act as though it could have only been a racial issue if the Republicans had explicitly made it so, which is not how it works, and that by calling them out on it, Democrats made it into a racial issue, which is laughably disingenuous. Considering the obsession that Lee Atwater had with racial politics, and in light of the fact that he was a big part of how the Republicans ran campaigns in the 80s (not to mention that you still see echoes of those strategies even today), I guess you are certainly, totally, and kind of embarrassingly wrong, actually.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >You act as though it could have only been a racial issue if the Republicans had explicitly made it so, which is not how it works, and that by calling them out on it, Democrats made it into a racial issue, which is laughably disingenuous. Rather than laughably disingenuous, that's exactly the case, though it's pretty silly to characterize cynical demagoguery as "calling them out". Maybe you should read the entire thread. The only way you could hold this position is to ignore the evidence to the contrary and rely entirely on your Democrat secret racial code word decoder ring. You know only Democrats have those, right?
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Well only Democrats are supposed to have them. They are acquired easily enough, though. Let me know when you get yours before we continue this utterly fruitless conversation any further.