From the Organizers of Racism in Politics: Live Tweet the Republican Debate

Racism is pervasive in the United States. Racism is much more than explicit words of
hate or intentional discrimination; it is a current of subconscious thinking that is present in our
psyches, interpersonal relations, institutions, and politics. As our country has grown, we have
learned to condemn explicitly racist speech, but willfully ignore racist institutions, structures,
and strategies. Racism has grown more subtle, but is not less present.
Our politicians know this. They are well aware that they can garner political support from
voters--especially white voters--by appealing to the fear of the racial other. Most politicians
understand they can no longer say things that are transparently racist without consequence, but
realize they can still stoke racialized fears to win support for policies and candidates.
The event Racism in Politics: Live Tweet the Republican Debate is an effort to render
visible how racism is used strategically in contemporary politics. Only by making it visible can
we hope to correct it.
What is Dog Whistle Politics?
Dog Whistle Politics is the use of seemingly neutral, racially-coded language to appeal
to racial divisions and stereotypes for political gain. This racism is motivated not by hate, but by
strategy and personal gain; it is strategic racism. Politicians engage in dog whistle politics
when they employ racial tropes while maintaining that an alternative, non-racial explanation
justifies their claim.
The concept was best explained by Ronald Reagans deputy campaign manager Lee
Atwater in 1981:
You start out in 1954 by saying Nig**r, nig**r, nig**r. By 1968 you cant say
nig**r- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states rights and
all that stuff. Youre getting so abstract now, youre talking about cutting taxes, and all
these things youre talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is,
blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe thats a part of it. Im not
saying that. But Im saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are
doing away with the race problem one way or the other. You follow me-- because
obviously sitting around and saying, We want to cut taxes and we want to cut this, is
much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than
Nig**r, nig**r, nig**r. So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the backburner.
We can look to the rhetoric of immigration for a concrete example. In the 1950s,
politicians used the word wetback. Today they use the phrase illegal alien. The intention is
the same: to cast Latin@s as dangerous, invading others that threaten the country. This
mentality is expressed quite fully by Donald Trumps statement, "When Mexico sends its
people, they're not sending their best, they're sending people that have lots of problems...they're

bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. This kind of language has Trump
leading in the polls because it appeals to the persistent racial stereotypes present in the minds of
Americans.
Donald Trump can evade the criticism that hes making racial appeals by saying
Mexican is not a race, but a nationality. Meanwhile, his supporters are acutely aware that
Mexican and immigrant refer to threatening Latin@s who come to this country as illegal
immigrants and criminals with no interest in becoming productive members of this country or
citizens of the United States. Rather, they come as criminals and rapists to threaten the
American white population.
Dog whistling is not unique to immigration. Welfare discourse is rife with anti-Black,
racially-coded language. Ronald Reagan referred to young bucks and welfare queens taking
advantage of welfare programs. It is now politically and socially unpopular to call Blacks
lazy, however, politicians use racially-coded language to suggest that Blacks (and Latin@s)
refuse to take responsibility for themselves, and that Blacks just want stuff. This language is
reminiscent of the Black Code and Jim Crow Law vagrancy laws, created to arrest and force
Blacks into forced labor, because they were considered lazy.
Why are we hosting this event at the Republican Debate?
Racism is present in politics--not just in the Republican or Democratic parties. We chose
to engage the Republican debate because of the partys history of using dog whistle politics
intentionally. This effort is known as the Southern Strategy.
In 1963, as the Civil Rights Movement was changing the political landscape,
conservative journalist Robert Novak reported, A good many, perhaps a majority of the
[Republican] partys leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis
by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Mans Party.
The partys leadership has publicly acknowledged this long-term strategy. As former
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman explained in 2005: By the seventies
and into the eighties and nineties, Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote,
looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.
In organizing this event, we are not stereotyping Republicans as racist. We are speaking
publically about historical facts that remain crucially relevant today.

Why are we doing a live tweet?

Live tweeting allows us to engage with a wider public via Twitter and create awareness
of how racism operates in the 21st century.
We respect and encourage private conversations about race where all participants feel
comfortable. However, this is not not one of those conversations. Rather, this is a public
conversation held with the intention of disrupting a racist status quo.

To start a public conversation, we must speak in public, despite the discomfort and
friction it may cause. We recognize that explaining how the anti-immigration agenda is pitched
in terms of racism will cause discomfort. This discomfort pales in comparison to the discomfort
we experience in light of the fact that racism is being used to advance policies and get candidates
elected.
Racism is urgent. Those who feel its negative effects are forced to engage with it every
single day. People of color do not have the luxury of disengaging from the effects of racism. Nor
do they feel that they study or work in an emotionally safe space.
In this event, we intend to create a space where it is safe to speak publicly about racism,
not a space where it is easy for skeptics to listen to our message. We do this with an awareness
that most spaces are safe for skeptics but not for those who want to raise awareness about racism.
We understand that talking about racism is contentious and uncomfortable for many
people. Sometimes contentious and uncomfortable conversations are the most important ones to
have. We need to have a public conversation in order to counteract the political discourse that is
threatening the physical and emotional safety of racialized people.
We care more about eliminating racism than we do about the discomfort that process
causes people.
Is this a political attack?
We are not calling anyone racists; we are talking about racism. We are talking about
how a particular current of thought is present in the consciousness of our country. We are talking
about how politicians use this current to gain support.
Not everyone who uses coded racism is a bigot. They are calculating politicians who
simply realize that racism exists in the (conscious or subconscious) mind of the electorate, and
that they can stoke the fears that accompany it in order to gain support. In doing so, they
reinforce the stereotypes that are present. This divides our country and threatens many of the
people within it.
We recognize that our attempt to eliminate racism feels like a threat to peoples beliefs,
identities, or social positions. If it feels like a threat, that is probably because those things are
supported by racism. If they were devoid of racism, our attempt to remove racism would not
constitute a threat.
Moving forward?
We asked the Berkeley College Republicans to help us host a similar event centered
around the next Democratic debate, but they declined. This is unfortunate, because Democrats
have also found it politically strategic to use racially-coded language to gain White votes. Bill
Clinton used Strategic Racism in his push for welfare reform. President Barack Obama used
Strategic Racism when he spoke in front of the NAACP on the importance of fatherhood.
President Obama also uses racism strategically through his tough-on-immigration policies that

have deported millions of undocumented immigrants and has forcibly separated families. A
discussion on the Democrats use of racially-coded language and racial politics is much-needed
today.
Our request was denied, but we hope the Republicans will reconsider. We remain open to
exploring strategic racism with them as it manifests in the Democratic political sphere, in
whatever forum they suggest. We extend a similar invitation to any other group on campus that
would like more information, or to engage in a discussion on coded racism.
We recognize that making space for this conversation is uncomfortable and contentious.
We recognize that it can make people feel personally attacked. Our goal is not to attack, but to
help our community confront a racial reality. We hope to honor the emotional difficulty this will
cause people, and imagine it will be particularly challenging for people who have the privilege of
not experiencing racism on a daily basis, for whom feeling of isolation or marginalization may
be new.
If the fact that an action causes discomfort to a segment of people was a reason to cancel
the event, then we would be calling on the Republicans to cancel their debates because of how
uncomfortable they make us.
We do not have the privilege of having our comfort respected. Discomfort is part of the
process of growth and learning. We encourage any and all to join us.

RE: hosting a non-partisan seminar:

The Berkeley College Republicans suggested that we host a seminar that examined both
parties speeches. We offered to do this with them, but they declined. We are still open to such
an event. In the meantime we would like to call attention to the following courses at UC
Berkeley that will provide a non-partisan examination of racism in the United States:
Racial and Ethnic Politics in the New American Century: Political Science 167AC
Diversity, Law, and Politics: Legal Studies 187
Race, Class and Gender in the United States: African American Studies 111
Immigration Reform and the 2016 Presidential Campaign: Chicano Studies 180
A History of Race and Ethnicity in Western North America: Ethnic Studies 10AC