WASHINGTON — In the acrid aftermath of the South Carolina
primary I think it is safe to say that Toni Morrison, the novelist,
was dealing in fiction when she pronounced Bill Clinton our first
black president. After watching him huff and puff up the issue of
race in a way that Americans have not seen since the presidential
campaigns of the late George Wallace, the former Boy President,
rather than being our first black president, is our second redneck
president.
I say Clinton is our second redneck president because first came
Jimmy Carter. Jimmy did not play the role of the bigot while in the
White House, not exactly. Rather as the historian Betty Glad
demonstrated in her fine biography of him, Jimmy Carter: In
Search of the Great White House, Jimmy played the racial
politics at the beginning of his political career in Georgia while
seeking the governorship. That is not to say that as president he
did not use race divisively. He was frequently given to
transforming policy disagreements into a matter of white voters
repressing black voters, that is to say Republicans repressing
blacks. He was forever presuming himself to be the champion of
black people and Republicans to be anti-black. Any disagreement on
domestic issues he was apt to present as part of a Republican
“Southern strategy” to win Southern white votes.
Now after the Clintons’ treacherous campaign against Senator
Barack Obama, we see that some Democrats will practice a Southern
strategy too. Yet they do it within their own party, dividing
Democrats along racial and even ethnic lines. This is the repellent
absurdity to which identity politics has sunk. Why two Southern
politicians would play the racial politics — each in his different
way — is mystifying. Southern politicians, more than any other
politicians in this country, should be aware of the racial
antagonisms of the past and the potential for racial violence even
today. It is especially mystifying to see Clinton play the race
card. I do not credit him with many virtues, but the one virtue I
thought he had was racial tolerance. Nowhere on his record is there
any evidence that he ever sought to benefit from bigotry against
blacks. That is no longer the case.
To be sure, as president he treated race the way President
Carter did, interpreting policy differences between him and his
Republican opponents as inspired by the Republicans’ presumed
racism. Now, after his repeated acts of treachery in South
Carolina, we see a Bill actively turning whites and blacks in his
own party against each other. Moreover, he wants to encourage
ill-will between Latinos and blacks within his party. He is making
these invidious efforts purely to bring his family back to power.
Though I have called him a sociopath, I thought that when it came
to the issue of race he might be more scrupulous.
Race is the cruel burden this country has borne since its
inception. We fought a bloody civil war over it. The evil of Jim
Crow followed after that war, featuring widespread injustices
against blacks and violence between the races. From north to south,
race riots have broken out in this country for generations. After
the heroism and idealism of the civil right movement the country
has steadily moved toward racial tolerance and an improvement of
the material condition of all minorities. Admittedly there remain
instances of unspeakable cruelty, hate crimes committed by brutes
on both sides. Yet with a growing sense of tolerance and a growing
economy offering jobs and other opportunities, we have reason to
believe that racial harmony is replacing the racial strife of the
past.
Now comes the Clinton quest for the Democratic nomination and
what journalists politely call “the race card” is being practiced.
It is a dangerous game. Thankfully, racial tolerance is probably
too far along for the Clintons to screw it up. The divide between
the races will continue to narrow. But perhaps you will understand
my astonishment after the Clintons’ demagoguery in South Carolina:
they are actually worse than I have been saying.
