Race in American Politics

Tali Mendelberg's piece on "Racial Craime in the 1988 Presidential Campaign" was very interesting due to its focus on the Willie Horton story. I was first exposed to the Horton ad in another politics class at the University, though we did not discuss the racial implications of the ad itself. Mendelberg, on the other hand, believes that, "Given the right conditions, a racial campaign can reinforce a variety of racially conservative views and actions" (134). The ad was broadcast over 20 years ago, in a much different environment than the one in which we live today in a number of ways - especially with regards to race. Today, the Horton ad would have been considered a sort of abomination, setting off a chain of events that would culminate in some sort of protest against racial campaigning. The ad itself is terrifying, featuring a grainy picture of Horton with the words "Kidnapping", "Stabbing", and "Raping" underneath. It is clearly intended to have a sobering effect on the audience, especially given the tone of the man in the advertisement. Would the ad have been equally as terrifying if it had featured a white man? I sincerely doubt it, given the stereotypes attached to African American criminals, prisoners, etc. A television show on the History Channel known as "Gangland" features documentaries on the most horrifying gangs in America - the majority of which are African American. For some reason, the white gangs do not seem to combat as much fear from the audience. An additional experiment for Mendelberg to conduct would have featured a white man's picture in the place of Horton's to see if the ad really was constructed to appeal to issues of crime rather than race. Yet, is that to say that every time a non-white man's picture is used in an ad it has racial undertones? We are simultaneously trying to downplay the race card while attempting to equalize racial attitudes. However, it is impossible to put everyone on equal footing without including minorities in political campaigns, etc. Though on the other hand, it is impossible to downplay the race card simultaneously because not including minorities from campaigns would ignite that same prejudice we are attempting to dissipate.

The concern over the Horton ad stems from not only his ethnicity, but also the nature of the crimes he committed. It seems as though voters were more likely to use Horton's specific situation as indicative of African American prisoners to some extent. Therefore, by increasing racial prejudice, voters perceptions of the election changed. It is impossible to tell how perceptions would have differed if the ad had featured a white man - but how important is it that Horton was black? He was clearly guilty of the crimes he committed, which unfairly ads to racial prejudice. Yet, at the same time, was there a white man who had committed similar heinous crimes at the time as a result of the weekend pass? If there was, then the ad absolutely cannot deny its racial implications. However, since there was probably not another prisoner who had committed such horrific crimes, white or black, it is reasonable to understand the use of Horton in the ad for the purpose of appealing to voters. The fact that it may or may not have impacted political opinion is clearly a cause for concern because, whether it intended to or not, racial prejudice has no place in politics. As discussed in the Claibourn and Martin article, the ad unfairly discourages certain groups from the political process. In the case of the Horton ad, that group was minorities, and specifically African Americans. By discouraging certain groups and altering perceptions of racial prejudice within the context of an election, the political process becomes nothing more than an elite-driven machine. Everyone who is not represented or protected by the elites is cast out of the political process unjustly, leading to further discontent and subsequently more stereotyping at the hand of the advantaged. The Horton story is a prime example of racial prejudice - one that may have had a large effect on the outcome of the race between Bush and Dukakis, for better or for worse.