Why is the Willie Horton ad considered racist?

[MavsSuperFan]

The guy who helped come up with the Willie Horton strategy would not agree with you. He completely understood its appeal. Roger Ailes (now head of Fox News) said


You could have made the ad without showing the criminal. That would have gone a long way to helping you say race was not the issue. In fact, Al Gore brought up the program in the primaries without mentioning the criminal at all.



Says the young guy 26 years after the ad was run. In 1988 you had plenty of unreconstructed racists as part of the electorate. This is what Bush's campaign manager said at the timeThis is what he said a few years before that in explaining how using racism to your political advantage had changed. Overt racism couldn't be used in politics any more but you could appeal to racists in a covert "dog whistle" way where they will be sure to hear your message without you saying it. Lee Atwater understood the powerful appeal of this racist ad.

You also over-estimate the rationality of people. TV, Film, Advertising play on emotions. Fear is a very powerful emotion, especially when combines with pre-existing thoughts/beliefs/fear/prejudices.

Check out this story on a black player scoring a game winning goal in the Stanley Cup.
You wouldn't think that would bring out racism either, but it did.

It seems illogical to me for horton's race to be that big a factor. Personally for me it wouldnt make it better if a white guy first degree murderer was let out of prison on a weekend pass in a stupid attempt to rehilbilate him, and than he proceeded to kidnap me and my gf at gunpoint, stab me and rape her. If I get stabbed and my gf gets raped, that fact that a white guy did it would not make the situation better.

Maybe I am naive, but I think most people wouldnt want that to happen if the criminal was the same race as them.

You could have made the ad without showing the criminal. That would have gone a long way to helping you say race was not the issue. In fact, Al Gore brought up the program in the primaries without mentioning the criminal at all.

Frankly I dont see that big a deal with showing an accurate picture of the scumbag horton, but if you didnt show his picture it is no difference to me.

You need to mention specifics though. It is entirely appropriate to point out the real life consequences of Dukakis' actions.
Facts:
Dukakis supported the weekend furlough program
Dukakis vetoed a bill passed by the legislature that would have prevented convicted first degree murderers from participating in the furlough program
Horton (a convicted first degree murderer) was let out of prison for the weekend and later kidnapped a couple at gun point and raped the woman and stabbed the man.

You dont need to mention Horton was black, that is irrelevant to the case, but it would be irresponsible not to show the possible effects of the program dukakis supported.

Had dukakis not vetoed the bill that would have prevented first degree convicted murderers from being let out of prison, that woman would not have been raped, that man would not have been stabbed, they would not have been kidnapped at gun point.

its entirely appropriate to mention the results of dukakis' actions.

You also over-estimate the rationality of people. TV, Film, Advertising play on emotions. Fear is a very powerful emotion, especially when combines with pre-existing thoughts/beliefs/fear/prejudices.

i get there are racist people. I dont think Horton's case would have been any less threatening if he looked like this guy.



If that was willie horton he still would have scared plenty of people
Horton is a scare person because of his actions, not his race.

Its important to mention specifics about the problems with the program dukakis supported.

By not mentioning the specific case of the time Dukakis' actions and decision making lead to the kidnapping of a couple, the rape of the woman and the stabbing of the man you let dukakis off the hook.

Edit: obviously im not black, but if I were willie horton's actions still would have appalled me and scared me and dukakis letting him out on weekends would have still outraged me.

[MavsSuperFan]

WHO CA[COLOR="Black"]RES? WHO CARES WHY ANYTH[/COLOR]ING IS CONSIDERED RACIST???

I think candidates should be punished for using racism or appealing to racism. Personally I would never support a candidate that tried to win in a way that offended me.

The horton ad is not racist to me. In fact it is very educational about a real life consequence of Dukakis' decision making and brings into question his decision making ability.

[MavsSuperFan]

Also it was not an official Bush campaign ad. They knew it would be toxic.

It was done by an "independent" third party group. The ad itself was created by several people who used to work for Roger Ailes.

They also got the ad cleared for broadcast without the mugshot. They added the mugshot later.

So you are arguing if willie horton was white, dukakis wouldnt have been hurt if all other factors remained the same? That the only reason people were outraged dukakis vetoed a bill preventing first degree murderers to be let out of prison was because horton wasnt white?

Horton could have been white, the decision to let him out of prison in the weekend furlough program would have still killed dukakis' hopes.

On October 20, Horton was sentenced in Maryland to two consecutive life terms plus 85 years. The sentencing judge, Vincent J. Femia, refused to return Horton to Massachusetts, saying, "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again."

[dude77]

this guy was from dukakis's state .. he was completely relevant to the topic .. very effective to show a specific example that led to heinous crimes because of your opponent's decisions .. so what if he's black .. can't use black criminal examples now because it will offend black folks ? are you fkn kidding me ? ..

also dukakis was a real p$ssy.. saying he would still be against the dp if his wife was raped and murdered .. he would fit right in over in denmark

[RidonKs]

I think candidates should be punished for using racism or appealing to racism. Personally I would never support a candidate that tried to win in a way that offended me.

The horton ad is not racist to me. In fact it is very educational about a real life consequence of Dukakis' decision making and brings into question his decision making ability.

that couldn't possibly work. your posts in this thread demonstrate it. buncha ppl think its racist, you dont. should anybody be punished as you proscribe for those who appeal to racism?

what you should be concerned about is that this ad was funded by invisible money, contains zero information on policy, demonizes a candidate without evidence, is deeply stylized for propaganda purposes (lighting, music, voice, etc)

all because of a supreme court ruling four years ago.

those are my priorities anyway and also contain the reason i made my last post

[MavsSuperFan]

that couldn't possibly work. your posts in this thread demonstrate it. buncha ppl think its racist, you dont. should anybody be punished as you proscribe for those who appeal to racism?

what you should be concerned about is that this ad was funded by invisible money, contains zero information on policy, demonizes a candidate without evidence, is deeply stylized for propaganda purposes (lighting, music, voice, etc)

all because of a supreme court ruling four years ago.

those are my priorities anyway and also contain the reason i made my last post

What I meant was I would never support a candidate that used a stratgey I consider racist, or sexist or homophobic, or in any other way discriminatory against a factor that is not in the control of a person. (eg i dont consider religious discrimination nearly as bad as those above, because you can choose your religion).

Punished was a poor choice of wording we live with the first amendment, even neo nazis shouldn't be punished free speech to me trumps almost everything. all i meant was i could never support someone i considered discriminatory on a factor outside a person's control and would look down on people that supported such a candidate. Eg. I couldnt support a candidate that would want to resegregate schools or prevent gay marriage, etc.

I cant control how others feel. For example I have met feminists that tell me that not mandating 50% of all political positions go to females is sexist. or that continuing to hit on a woman after not being clearly told that your attention is appreciated is misogynistic/perpetuating "rape culture". I dont think it is. and i dont consider that sexist.

I cant control how others feel. Sometimes what they find discriminatory I dont.

Also ill put up a poll to see if people here think the add was racist

poll
http://strawpoll.me/2834702

[RidonKs]

good man glad you didn't mean that, i feel the same way about free speech

i probably wouldn't either. but i tend to see that as a result of other qualities i look for in candidates. the sorts of politicians i support would never be put in the position of having to defend themselves for comments a bunch of people could ever decry as racist. racism should be completely beneath them, preferably. the adage "i do not see race", not personalized by politicized.

just taking a closer look at your post now and i agree with it 100%