I dunno, but if there’s one thing this whole Joe Ricketts fiasco shows us it’s how much the Republican Party has lost its grip.
I’ve just started reading Paul Krugman’s 2007 book The Conscience Of A Liberal (I know, I’m behind on my liberal canon) which is an excellent read. I was struck by this:
Today leading figures on the American right are masters of what the British call “dog-whistle politics”: they say things that appeal to certain groups in a way that only targeted groups can hear — and thereby avoid having the extremism of their positions become generally obvious. […] But in the early days of the National Review, positions were stated more openly.
Thus in 1957 the magazine published an editorial celebrating a Senate vote that, it believed, would help the South continue the disenfranchisement of blacks:
The central question that emerges — and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal — is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being. it is the advanced race …
National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of its violence.
The “catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal” dismissed by the editorial would, presumably, be the document known as the Constitution of the United States.
This is the National Review, circa 1957. Advocating white supremacy over blacks, because black people are “socially atavistic” and whites are “enlightened.” Whites must maintain control of society through policies like Jim Crow, they say, because society will regress if blacks are allowed a seat at the table. In 1957 it was perfectly acceptable for the intellectuals at the National Review to openly espouse such White Supremacist views.
Post Civil Rights era, such views have been pushed underground. They’re still there, of course, but you didn’t openly say such things. No, you spoke in code. You make reference to “welfare queens,” for example.
Until we got our first black president, that is. Not long ago National Review writer John Derbyshire was fired for a column (published in another magazine) basically espousing the same views as that 1957 editorial, and he’s since gone full-on white supremacist on the pages of Vdare. Pat Buchanan wrote an entire book espousing racist fearmongering about “the end of white America.” They aren’t hiding this stuff anymore. It’s out there.
So I have one question: what the hell happened? Republicans have ditched the dog whistles, they’re speaking in fucking tornado sirens. Birtherism and attacks on black churches and references to President Obama being “a Kenyan” and “a food stamp president,” not to mention the racist photos featured at conservative think tanks like the John Locke Foundation: they’ve ditched the code and are just letting it all hang out, and it doesn’t seem Karl Rove or other party apparatchiks have any control over it.
Is this what the Tea Party has done? Is it people like Rush Limbaugh who constantly rail against “political correctness” deciding, fuck it, I’m a racist bigot and I’m proud of it? Is it the internet giving more people a venue to spout their racist views?
Is it that the rest of us are more savvy to these dog whistles and see them for what they are?
When did the Republicans decide to ditch the dog whistles?
[UPDATE]:
Next time someone starts a sentence with, “I’m not racist…” think of this lady (h/t, John Cole):
Southern Beale 
…when the average American’s IQ dropped to knuckle-dragging level.
We were a helluva lot smarter on average as a population back in the 50s or so – they’ve been slowly working on making the average American a mouth-breathing boat-anchor ever since Goldwater got kicked to the curb…
But that’s my point. If people were more educated back in the 50s they also were more overtly racist. If we’re less educated now, we at least were more attuned to dog whistles and veiled racist language. Until 2008. Now Republicans are as openly racist as they were in the 50s.
Average IQ?
Part of me wants to see the distribution curve of IQ now. There’s a certain amount of smarts in this country, yet I don’t think it’s spread as equally as it used to be.
Any resemblance to the meaninglessness of “average income” not showing how income distribution has been skewed over the last forty years is perfectly intenional on my part.
As I am sure you have heard, on May 18th the birth rate for all minorities combined surpassed the birth rate for whites in the US. In my opinion, the blatant undisguised racism began in November, 2008 when the people of the United States elected its first African-American president.
SB, I believe you are correct – This is what the Tea Party has done. When they say “take back America” they mean, dump the black president, suppress minority voting, give nothing to the poor and working poor who overwhelmingly non-white.
Racism is a perfectly acceptable tactic for the Republican party as long as they can call it something else.
Here are, I think some of the “new code words.”
Balance the budget by reducing food stamp benefits (currently $1.48 per person per meal) = starve the beast (minorities)
Take as much money out of Pell Grants as possible = keep minorities dumb
Reduce funding for Headstart = no child care for working poor, they will have to quit their jobs – yeah! two for one, less pre-school experience and more minority poverty.
I could go on, but your posts are far better than my comments. Keep up the fight.
I would say it’s even more simple — dog whistles only work when you’re using them against white politicians by essentially accusing them of being “race traitors.” Dog whistles were always used to make a white majority that was uncomfortable with open racism feel like the problems of racism had been solved while signalling that their superiority was intact.
Now that we have a black president, all bets are off. You can’t delicately hint that he may be a n*-lover who will betray his own race. You can’t suggest that he’s deluded enough to think that Those People can be trusted. He actually is one of Them, so the dog whistles are inoperative.
Hmm, interesting point. You may be on to something there.
The short answer is, of course, in the early summer of 2008 when it/they realized that a black, even 1/2 brilliant black (horrors, he seemed REAL intelligent, too) was getting real close to becoming their/our President ! And since that time, no matter how much proof there is to the contrary, these rich bastards, these hate-filled goons like this Rickeets fool, have reintroduced all the lies, rumors, gossip, accusations without proof that Barack Obama is not a citizen, is a Muslim, a socialist, a communist, worships satin, runs with ‘terrorists’, blah, blah…their problem is this time around they are singin’ to the choir!!
**shrug** People are, at their very core, tribal, and when things get scary and uncertain, they revert to tribal loyalties. And tribal loyalty means that they want the power to be vested with “their kind of folk”, not with “the other”. In good times, intellect has the best chance to influence the debate. In bad times, fear drowns out intellect, because fear screams louder than intellect speaks.
“give nothing to the poor and working poor who overwhelmingly non-white”
I think this is untrue, other than that I pretty much agree with your position.
I believe Wm. Buckley eventually acknowledged he was on the wrong side of history with his segregation/states rights stand in the 50’s.
I’d like to see some data supporting an IQ decline in America and that people “at their very core are tribal…”
I think the ubiquitous digital cam and umpteen cable/web outlets needing content have made it easier for dingbats to get exposure.
The Whites feel threatened and i try to understand this fear of losing the majority status.
William Buckley was on the wrong side of pretty much everything. He didn’t change his mind on the subject of race, he just looked at the numbers, did the math and decided that he’d rather lie about his beliefs and continue to sell books and magazines.