The controversy over the anti-Harold Ford ad continues, including a big story in the NYT: Ad Seen as Playing to Racial Fears
The controversy erupted over one of the people featured: an attractive white woman, bare-shouldered, who declares that she met Mr. Ford at a “Playboy party,” and closes the commercial by looking into the camera and saying, with a wink, “Harold, call me.”A spokeswoman for Mr. Ford, who is single, said he was one of 3,000 people who attended a Playboy party at the Super Bowl last year in Jacksonville, Fla.
Critics asserted that the advertisement was a clear effort to play to racial stereotypes and fears, essentially, playing the race card in an election where Mr. Ford is trying to break a century of history and become the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction.
Here’s the ad:
Yesterday James Joyner took issue with the race-based interpretation of the ad noting:
And here I thought the white woman was just a caricature of a bimbo that one might meet at the Playboy mansion.
On one level, I think he is correct. However, the fact that she is a blond white woman I think is significant as well. Quite honestly, I think this is correct:
Hilary Shelton, director of the N.A.A.C.P.’s Washington bureau, said the spot took aim at the sensitivities many Americans still have about interracial dating.
Having lived the last eight years in the deep South and having family from that region, there is no doubt in my mind that there are persons, especially older persons in rural areas, who will be motivated to vote against Ford (or motivated not to vote at all) because he is black. For example: when my wife and I sold our house in Troy, Al prior to moving to the outskirts of Montgomery we had a neighbor, who was only maybe a decade or so older than us, ask in hushed tones as to the color of the persons who bought our house. This stuff is alive and well in some sectors and in an election that will likely be quite close, effecting turnout and voting on the margins will be decisive (despite the rantings of one of my commenters).
Further, I would note that just two years ago the voters of Alabama balked at removing blatantly racist language from our constitution because of some bizarre theory that it would lead to higher taxes. This was a case wherein a rather convoluted theory about the interaction of the amendment, the courts and the legislature trumped any outrage over specific language that stated that “white and colored children” couldn’t attend the same school.
Indeed, it was only in 2024 that we finally removed miscegenation language from the document.
Sadly, racism is alive and well and it does influence elections. I don’t subscribe to the notion that some on the left-ish side of thing make that the Republicans are inherently racist. And I do think that many words, events and images are incorrectly interpreted–sometimes purposefully for political gain.
Still, this is clearly a raw nerve.
The ad suggests to classic racist objections are black men with white women and the notion of blacks who get above themselves. The commercial, along with other issues, could be seen to be appealing to those types of issues.
However, some have gone overboard:
John Geer, a professor at Vanderbilt University and a specialist in political advertising, said that it “is playing to a lot of fears” and “frankly makes the Willie Horton ad look like child’s play.”
That assessment strikes me as hyperbolic and ridiculous. For one thing, I have a very hard time thinking that this ad is going to be discussed 18 years from now. Of course, I have long thought that while I understand the accusations of race-baiting in the Horton add, it always struck me that the the most dramatic element of the ad was the furlough program in Massachusetts, not that Willie was black. And, let’s face facts: the man was a vicious killer who was in life in prison for a brutal murder, and was allowed to get a weekend furlough from prison—during which he beat up a man and raped his fiancé twice.
Another significant element of the ad was that it was one of the first of its kind insofar as it was a highly inflammatory ad that ran only once (or a handful–memory fails me) but was exposed to multiple viewings on cable news. In other words, the ad demonstrates that if a commercial was sufficiently interesting or controversial it would become “news” and then be shown for free to a national TV audience.
Certainly in that way, the Ford ad is part of the Horton legacy.
Update: In browsing about I see that Ann Althouse thought that the ad was “shameful.”
Sphere: Related Content
October 26th, 2024 at 10:07 am
It will be interesting to see if the ad has any backlash. Instead of sending the subtle message it clearly intended, it may in fact insult some voters that the RNC thinks that this type of ad could work.
It will also be interesting to see if Ford is overperforming in the polls because of his race. He has run an excellent campaign so far, and if can’t get elected in TN, then it is unlikely that any black Democrat could.
October 26th, 2024 at 10:41 am
Steven,
I read elsewhere (Moderate Voice, I think) that this is a twofer- many African-Americans look less than kindly on black men dating white women and the intention is that they too will be turned off voting for Ford.
The evil empire’s got nothin’ on these guys.
October 26th, 2024 at 11:18 am
I can’t say I know what the intentions were, but I just wonder what the reaction would be if the ad dodged the interracial issue and featured a black woman in the exact same role. That wouldn’t have been pretty, either.
October 26th, 2024 at 11:23 am
I tend to agree with DavidH. The ad didn’t particularly strike me as being racist, but it did strike me as being sleazy. Very sleazy.
October 26th, 2024 at 11:29 am
I think it would have shifted the discussion.
The only black person in the ad is the woman at the beginning who says “Harold Ford looks nice, isn’t that enough?”
October 26th, 2024 at 12:15 pm
Little White Lies and Harold Ford
Taegan Goddard points to a subscriber-only WSJ article saying there may be bad news for Democrats in Tennessee:
The Wall Street Journal uses Tennessee’s U.S. Senate race to explore the “15% lie” — “when whites, bowing to s…
October 26th, 2024 at 8:58 pm
[...] Ok, while I could see how the so-called “Playboy” ad could be construed as having racists overtones, I have to say that that flap over the Corker radio ad that supposedly has “jungle drums” played when Ford is mentioned is difficult to take. (My comments on the other ad are to be found here). [...]
November 7th, 2024 at 8:22 am
When I first heard about the ad and looked at YouTube to find a clip of it, I thought that couldn’t possibly be the ad they were talking about. It was a sleazy ad but I couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about.
I know you are right about some people and interracial dating, but it really didn’t even occur to me when I first saw the ad. But honestly, I wouldn’t have known that Ford was black if people hadn’t told me, so I guess I’m not a good judge, even though I have lived my entire life in Alabama and unfortunately was raised in a fairly racist family. (My mother is totally against interracial dating, black, white, Asian, anything, and she was not happy that my best friend in middle school was Vietnamese. My grandmother still uses the “N” word and thinks black people should use the back door only.)
I’ve got to remember to stop using these stupid pop-up windows to comment. UGH!