Britney and Crypto-Racism

Via Chris Bodenner, John Riley explains why we should read that McCain ad as a miscegenation dog whistle:

We just got off a conference call with Camp McCain, defending their new ad comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. They said they thought the ad was legitimate because Obama is a big celebrity..., and Britney and Paris were Number 2 and 3. The problem: Anyone with even a vague sense of pop culture knows that Britney and Paris are yesterday's news. Here's a link to Forbes' Celebrity 100. Paris and Britney don't even make the list any more. Instead, the top 10, in order: Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Angelina Jolie, Beyonce Knowles, David Beckham, Johnny Depp, Jay-Z, The Police, JK Rowling, Brad Pitt. So, they didn't pick other big celebrities, who were either men, or black, or married. What they picked was two sexually available white women.

Except that those other big celebrities are all famous for actually accomplishing something - they're celebrities whom people admire, or at the very least approve of. For many people, comparing Obama to Tiger Woods or David Beckham or J.K. Rowling would be a compliment. Whereas the whole point of picking Britney and especially Paris Hilton is that they're figures of ridicule, famous primarily for being famous and widely derided as embarrassing airheads who only exist to feed the paparazzi machine. In other words, if you're going to attack Obama's celebrity by comparing him to frivolous Hollywood types - which is a silly and juvenile thing to to do, to my mind (though see Rich Lowry for the defense) - Paris and Britney are exactly the figures you'd choose for the ad. In fact, it's hard to think of a white male equivalent who's actually famous-for-being-famous enough for an ad like this to work. (No, Brandon Davis doesn't cut it.)

Meanwhile, I'm trying to imagine what Josh Marshall would have said if the McCain campaign had run the ad with Tiger Woods, Beyonce and Jay-Z in it instead ...

Comments

Why isn't anyone commenting on the most shocking element in this story....

The Police are a top 10 celebrity?

Posted by e | July 31, 2008 12:29 PM

Ashton Kuchner might have worked. I live in Tennessee and condemned the Howard Ford bimbo ad, but this is not the same thing... This ad is trying to convey that there is more to leadership than a surface appeal, Britney and Paris are examples of celebrity "accomplisment" that is literally skin deep.

Posted by wayne s | July 31, 2008 12:34 PM

"Meanwhile, I'm trying to imagine what Josh Marshall would have said if the McCain campaign had run the ad with Tiger Woods, Beyonce and Jay-Z in it instead ..."

He'd say, "It's really a stupid to run an ad comparing Obama to a bunch of incredibly successful African-Americans. They should go back to dog whistle ads that will be excused by folks like Ross Douhat in spite of their obvious racism."

Posted by Mr Crabby Pants | July 31, 2008 12:38 PM

A total tangent, but I don't think it's quite fair to lump Britney in with Paris. Obviously her celebrity has spiralled off into a self-sustaining cycle now, and she's clearly all kinds of messed up. But she's hardly unaccomplished, having sold tens of millions of albums and established herself as a pop icon and sex symbol. Her original celebrity was no more empty than, say, Madonna's. She was at least as accomplished in her field as David Beckham has ever been in his.

Back on the point, I tend to agree that Riley's argument is specious. On the other hand, the existence of an alternate, innocent explanation hardly proves that the more nefarious explanation isn't true. It just proves that the McCain campaign hasn't utterly inept at everything.

Posted by Doug T | July 31, 2008 12:38 PM

By the way Ross, when are you going to show some Southern Courtesy and welcome your new blogging colleague?

It's been a few days since MY, AS, and MM all welcomed him. It's a little noticable now.

Or did you not know about him because he comes to the office through the 'coloreds' door?

Or are you so innocent of race you didnt even notice him?

Posted by James | July 31, 2008 12:43 PM

James asks: "Or are you so innocent of race you didnt even notice him?"

I'm guessing Steve Sailer hasn't completed his opposition research on the new guy yet. You know, so we can have ACTUAL SCIENCE detailing just how many chips he has on his shoulder and how big his TV is.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 31, 2008 12:49 PM

The modern GOP is the creation of Pat Buchanan, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove.

It has long thrived on coded racist appeals, and it has gotten away with them thanks to apologists who have done the See-No-Evil routine whenever something controversial like this pops up. In the meantime, less 'sophisticated' voters out in the hinterland get the real message loud and clear. Schmidt plays offense, Douthat, wittingly or unwittingly, plays defense.

Every time push comes to shove, the GOP goes atavistic and turns out racist trash like this.

Is Sam's-Club Conservatism meant to replace the racist identity politics at the core of the GOP, or is it just designed to provide it cover?

Posted by lampwick | July 31, 2008 12:53 PM

well, we've already had him down as 'affirmative action' on MM blog.

I imagine SS is trying to find a way to slate him as we speak, yes.

Probably going through every word he's ever written, while all the while his acolytes ignore the racist bilge of Sailer's I quoted at length.

It's so sad that someone like that can't just be ignored - he ends up being linked and quoted here, the new york times etc. It still amazes me. I dont know why.

Posted by James | July 31, 2008 12:55 PM

So what if the ad works on more than one level? That's how dog-whistle messages work -- unlike actual dog whistles, there are two elements: one for the faithful, or prejudiced, or fearful, or whoever, and one for the rest of the audience.

Posted by Ann Arbor | July 31, 2008 12:58 PM

I think Paris Hilton has more in common with Cindy McCain than with Obama. Even John thinks she's a "trollop."

Posted by speakesa | July 31, 2008 1:03 PM

Ross just doesn't have a good argument on this one. It may be true, as he says, that Britney and Paris are "figures of ridicule, famous primarily for being famous"--though, as Doug T points out, this seriously diminished Britney's real success as entertainer--but, even if they *are* primarily figures for ridicule, they are so because of their public sexual antics and intermittent substance abuse. Associating two, young, white females who are notorious for sex tapes with a black presidential candidate who is regularly described as "presumptuous" and over-reaching sends a strong, if subliminal message, to white Americans.

The ploy is ingenious because, as Ross has demonstrated, there is a degree of plausible deniability to it. This is an inspired Rovian tactic. I just wish the Democrats could hit McCain like this somehow.

Posted by wj | July 31, 2008 1:05 PM

Actually, as always the elephant in the room is sex.

Make a list of the five celebrities which you most associate with this phrase

"slut"

and tell me who is on your list.

So are you trying to tell me it is a coincidence that the two celebrities chosen for the ad are in the top five (two)? Really, two blonde white women who the public highly associated with 'slut' are just chosen as the 'celebrities' by chance. Think of all the other non-white, non-blonde, non-slut celebrities who might have been chosen but weren't.

Really, just a coincidence?
Really?

Posted by sven | July 31, 2008 1:07 PM

Ross said: "Meanwhile, I'm trying to imagine what Josh Marshall would have said if the McCain campaign had run the ad with Tiger Woods, Beyonce and Jay-Z in it instead ..."

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out if Ross realizes why McCain didn't use those celebrities.

If McCain had, I'd bet my life Josh wouldn't have said "peep."

Posted by R | July 31, 2008 1:09 PM

Whereas the whole point of picking Britney...

famous primarily for being famous

No Ross, Britney became famous as a singer and went on to be one of the biggest stars in the world for several years, before self-destructing.

What you are saying applies only to Paris.

So it's a completely false statement.

So, again, what do they have in common beside, white, female, blond, perceived as sexually available?

Posted by James. | July 31, 2008 1:11 PM

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Posted by TDE | July 31, 2008 1:14 PM

That's not quite right either. The question is what would he have said if they had run an ad with Jay-Z, Biggie Smalls, P. Diddy, T.I., Ludacris, etc.

I'm sort of surprised we haven't heard more "Obama listens to Jay-Z, who uses the B word" howling at least from crankier portions of the right.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 31, 2008 1:19 PM

You can say that Paris and Britney are vapid, and you'd be right...however, trying to lump in a Columbia and Harvard Law grad, who was also a professor at the U of Chicago and is the author of two very successful book, and who also happens to be a U.S. Senator and the first African-American candidate from a major party is just absurd on its face. Whether you buy into the race angle (I'm black and I didn't get too worked up over that) or the McCain campaign's gender attack/reply to Obama's response to the ad (calling him "fussy), the real issue is that the ad just doesn't make any sense. In an honest moment above, I see Ross admits as much, but he still sees the need to either defend or justify such nonsense. It's sad.

Posted by Mike P | July 31, 2008 1:31 PM

Ross is exactly right. Paris & Brittany are two people whose fame far outweighs their actual skills or accomplishments. That's the point of including them in the ad, whether you agree with the analogy or not.

Posted by T-web | July 31, 2008 1:39 PM

The party of Lee Atwater would never ever ever stoop so low.

Posted by ed | July 31, 2008 1:45 PM

I don't consider the 'celebrity' ad to be racist.

But the whole 'presumptuous' meme IS.

Part of presidential campaigning always involves a candidate trying to portray themselves as 'presidential', possessing 'gravitas', able to interact with the highest ranking world players.

Most of the so-called pundits have said, at one time or another, that this is something that Obama especially has to do.

Calling him 'presumptuous' for actually doing it is simply a poorly veiled version of calling him 'uppity'.

Posted by jacortina | July 31, 2008 2:02 PM

jacortina--Have you considered whether Obama has in fact been acting presumptuously? Reports are out that he's putting together a transition team, and during his overseas trip one of his aides twice talked about Obama as if he were president already, i.e. "When the president of hte United States gives a speech...".

The presumptuousness, then, isn't that he's trying to appear presidential, it's that his campaign is acting as if he's already won the election and that the will of the people is a mere formality along the path to his inauguration.

Posted by T-web | July 31, 2008 2:12 PM

Yes, Ross, the McCain campaign was going to be called bigoted no matter what they did, so they really had no choice but to juxtapose Obama with Paris and Britney.

Also, they had no intention whatsoever of playing the miscegenation card when they did so. They were only trying to establish Obama as a "celebrity" and anyone who says otherwise is an unhinged leftist.

The future of American conservatism is every bit as dumb as its present.

Posted by lowellfield | July 31, 2008 2:14 PM

But, Ross, where is your commentary on whether McCain should have run this kind of ad in the first place? Silly and frivolous, you say, as you also quickly link to the esteemed Rich Lowry for a defense of the silly and frivolous. Please. Where the cynicism regarding race factors into this particular ad is that McCain should have known (and I believe DID know) the firestorm over race this would have produced. And that's the ugliness here. And besides, Obama, for all his faults, is clearly NOT a vapid, empty, slutty, airhead. Forget the racism angle, doesn't even what you admit to be the non-racist intent of the ad shock the conscience beyond just "silly and frivolous"?

Posted by huckupchuck | July 31, 2008 2:15 PM

Yes, Ross, the McCain campaign was going to be called bigoted no matter what they did, so they really had no choice but to juxtapose Obama with Paris and Britney.

Also, they had no intention whatsoever of playing the miscegenation card when they did so. They were only trying to establish Obama as a "celebrity" and anyone who says otherwise is an unhinged leftist.

The future of American conservatism is every bit as dumb as its present.

Posted by lowellfield | July 31, 2008 2:16 PM

Yes, Ross, the McCain campaign was going to be called bigoted no matter what they did, so they really had no choice but to juxtapose Obama with Paris and Britney.

Also, they had no intention whatsoever of playing the miscegenation card when they did so. They were only trying to establish Obama as a "celebrity" and anyone who says otherwise is an unhinged leftist.

The future of American conservatism is every bit as dumb as its present.

Posted by lowellfield | July 31, 2008 2:17 PM

Desperation...a new scent, by John McCain.

Posted by Paine in the Thomas | July 31, 2008 2:22 PM

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this ad unfairly maligns Spears; she's at the level of celebrity warranted by her accomplishments. That's the point of the ad: people who are being given far higher status than they deserve from their accomplishments. Like Hilton, Obama is where he is because of what he is rather than what he has done, and what he is does not justify where he is. Now, if McCain had attacked Obama for being a U.S. senator, that would have been unfair because, quite frankly, the position of senator doesn't warrant that high a bar for accomplishments; you can get away with being a state senator of moderate intelligence (I may be giving too much credit there--from his remarks on his trip it's clear Obama doesn't even know which committees he serves on).

So why'd they pick Britney Spears? My guess is that they wanted more than one point of comparison and, surprisingly, there really aren't THAT many people whose celebrity status far exceeds what is actually warranted. They probably figured that not quite enough people know who Kim Kardashian is to include her, and having Anna Nicole Smith would be in poor taste. I might have put on Harriet Miers, but since she never actually got on the Supreme Court, it wouldn't have been a fair comparison--though it would have had the extra benefit of creating distance from Bush.

Posted by Scott | July 31, 2008 2:23 PM

T-web writes: "Have you considered whether Obama has in fact been acting presumptuously? Reports are out that he's putting together a transition team, and during his overseas trip one of his aides twice talked about Obama as if he were president already, i.e. "When the president of hte United States gives a speech...".

The presumptuousness, then, isn't that he's trying to appear presidential, it's that his campaign is acting as if he's already won the election and that the will of the people is a mere formality along the path to his inauguration."

Inane. So he has advisors, and this amounts to a "transition team"? Why, because some right-wing hyenas say so? And some anonymous aide refers to a president giving a speech - even if it's true, so what? That happens to be the office he's running for.

McCain actually ran an ad referring to himself as president, and I don't notice any of the right-wing hyenas calling that presumptuous. I guess McCain's encroaching senility gives him a special immunity.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 31, 2008 2:30 PM

T-web -

The current President started his transition planning in 1999 and I really can't recall any accusations of that making him 'presumptuous'.
http://transition2008.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/transition-2000-george-w-bush/

But, for Obama is advance planning and preparations are apparently a bad thing. It's not like he's stopped doing his current day-job (when was the last time McCain's actually been in the Senate, by the way?).

No, that dog whistle is loud and clear.

Posted by jacortina | July 31, 2008 2:48 PM

Ross, clearly you are insistent that the ad doesn't have racist overtones. Perhaps you could acknowledge the existence of the racist slur that black men are out to rape white women. See, for instance, Birth of a Nation, or the joke about this slur in Blazing Saddles. If you were to argue that this ad is not a part of this tradition, and has nothing at all to do with this tradition, that would be one thing. Pretending there is no such tradition, as you seem to be doing, is weak and should be beneath you.

Posted by DA | July 31, 2008 2:49 PM

I'm tired of being called a racist.

I might as well vote for Obama if that will make it stop.

Also: Liberals, please, stop pretending that Sting and the Police are better than everyone else. This fanboyism is sickening.

Posted by The average American | July 31, 2008 2:54 PM

These last two posts succinctly and brilliantly capture the Douthat oeuvre...

-First you have the grim and haunting specter of unrestrained female sexuality causing the usual sphincter clenching...

-The sputtering, and at this point, almost half-hearted denials of institutional GOP racism...

-cries of "reverse racism" on the part of those pointing out the history and obvious example of said bigotry (ie George Allen, Jesse Helms, etc. etc.)

-No GNP pimpin', but it does have probably the funniest fake Steve Sailer quote ever...

As an aside, I don't think its the race-mixin' angle that makes this shit racist, although its arguably there , for me its the implication that Barak Obama--a guy, who whatever you may feel about him was not exactly born on third base in this country--an ivy league educated law professor, writer of two best-selling books, US senator, and candidate for the Presidency--is the equivalent of a vacuous and unaccomplished diva like Paris Hilton, simply by virtue of the fact that he's a charismatic and popular figure at the moment.

It's the "arrogant" angle that is really the worst...I mean who does this guy think he is? Its almost as if he thinks he should be President of the United States or something...

Posted by dearleader nyc | July 31, 2008 3:03 PM

The funny thing is the Sailer quote seems to be the only one deleted.

Hoods of feather, stick together.

Posted by James | July 31, 2008 3:11 PM

The point here that everyone seems to be missing is not that McCain is comparing Obama to white female celebrities, it's that he's comparing him to women. Of course, it's true that the glitiziest and most recognizable celebrities are female, but the undercurrent here is the charge of effeminacy and weakness.

Posted by Mark Borok | July 31, 2008 3:11 PM

I agree with Ross that the dustup over the ad has been pretty silly. But I think it is fair to point out that Ross is the most self-righteously tone deaf diagnostician of racial relations among The Atlantic's bloggers. This is a guy who will never pass on an opportunity to construct an ahistorical parallel and go: "See! See!"

Posted by Brian K. | July 31, 2008 4:03 PM

Sorry for the 3x repetition. I didn't even hit submit more than once. It's just from reloading the page.

Posted by lowellfield | July 31, 2008 4:16 PM

Seems like the McCain team is already thinking about transitions as well.

But remember...Barack Obama is the one who is presumptuous!

Posted by Mike P | July 31, 2008 4:22 PM

I think Britney is still a celeb, her 'melt-down' made her even more famous.
Only frigging Americans know who Obama whatshisface is. I am British and didn't have a clue before today.
A celebrity is a person everybody knows. Paris and Britney are international, and Obama is not. Contrary to many Americans beleifs.

Posted by kwlnesspersonlolz | July 31, 2008 4:59 PM

"I Am Charlotte Simmons," repeat "I Am Charlotte Simmons" is a political charlatan parlour trick by a hack who stole the name of Thomas Wolfe. A man on a mission, a man with a Bush.

Posted by Joy Deutshe | July 31, 2008 5:23 PM

By reading the stuff about this ad, one would think that McCain had used voodoo to pluck out the eyes of Obama or raped his children.

And all this stuff about it being “racist” .. amazing. It might stick a bit better had they used OJ Simpson, but by this measure of racism, Rev. Wright would be the devil himself.

This is a fairly mild ad that really hit the spot. It’s pretty obvious by the reaction that Obama must be bleeding .. votes.

Posted by Neo | July 31, 2008 6:02 PM

Replacing Spears with Kardashian would make the accusation of coded racist messages much more plausible, as Kardashian's sex tape is famously with a black guy.

So one wonders if the McCain people are out of touch enough to not have picked up on that, or are so diabolically clever than they strategically avoided it.

Posted by Anthony | July 31, 2008 7:40 PM

Neo:
What are Britney and Paris famous for? Their sexuality!!!!!!! It is obvious that you and Douthat don't know history or are ignorant of it.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 31, 2008 7:51 PM

Sadly, I think this ad is going to convince a lot of white racists not to vote for Obama.

Posted by Carter | July 31, 2008 10:51 PM

On Kardashian, I'm going to go with out of touch, because I probably know more about her than anyone connected to McCain, and I didn't know about the sex tape; I thought she was famous primarily because she has what is apparently an unusually large posterior.

On a larger note, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this ad is actually a tribute to all Americans of non-European ancestry, as, apparently, you need a Caucasian to produce someone as vapid and undeserving of their status as Paris Hilton (please note that everyone in that ad is at least half white). Honestly, I cannot think of any minority celebrity who you could put in this ad and still convey the meaning the McCain campaign was aiming for.

With that realization, I don't think I've ever been more embarrassed to be of European stock.

Posted by Scott | August 1, 2008 1:08 AM

The ad is racist, but more importantly it's plain stupid and most importantly shows that McCain has become something of a caricature himself.

For such a noble fella he sure has a cranky side...maybe it is his age...my dad became very cranky, self centered and belligerent as he aged.

It's really pretty sad to see what's happened to McCain.

Posted by G Davis | August 1, 2008 2:07 AM