First, the Harold Ford, Jr. ad with the white faux playmate.  The point of the ad is to tell voters that Ford attended a Playboy party, which may not be in keeping with the moral norms of many Tennessee voters.  A white woman was used as a pretend playmate.  Ford is black.  While the ad is tawdry, is it racist?  I say no.

The people who have been lambasting the GOP for the ad are the same people who promote racial equality.  I thought we were getting past the whole interracial taboo in this country.  You might remember a similar controversy a couple of years back involving a locker room scene between Terrell Owens and Nicollette Sheridan.  That plug for Desperate Housewives was considered inappropriate for its overly strong sexual content.  I don’t remember anyone calling ABC racist simply because TO is black and Sheridan is white, although there were people upset because they thought ABC was promoting interracial relationships.

Statistically speaking, is there justification for using a white woman in the ad instead of a black woman?  I researched the racial composition of the Playboy playmates of the month over the last two years (with my wife’s consent).  To date this year all 11 playmates have been white.  In 2005 there were 10 white playmates, 1 black, and 1 who was of Filipino and Italian descent.  So, over the last two years only 4% of playmates have been black.  Furthermore, the common stereotype of Playboy models is a blonde, buxom white woman.  It seems the makers of the ad were justified in using a white woman.  Would the ad have still been racist if a black woman was used?  Race baiters might claim that the GOP specifically selected a black woman to reinforce Ford’s race in the minds of voters.

One assertion I have problems with is that the implied interracial tones of the ad would influence voters to oppose Ford.  If someone holds such prejudicial misgivings against non-white people that they disprove of interracial relationships wouldn’t they be predisposed to not vote for a black man in the first place?

Next, we have the excerpts from one of James Webb’s novels that involves some pretty graphic stuff.  The knee jerk reaction is that the revelation is quite damning, but after closer inspection and more thought George Allen’s attack is desperate and without merit.

If we hold Webb in contempt for a work of fiction he did years ago then we essentially forbid any novelist from ever seeking public office.  I’m sure that one could find unseemly excerpts (taken in or out of context) in the works of most authors.  If you’re writing a book about a detective who investigates a serial rapist you are somewhat obliged to write a scene describing the crimes of the rapist.  That doesn’t mean you condone rape and it doesn’t make you a rapist.

Even if Webb should be “held accountable” for the content of his fictional works, how immoral is the subject matter in question?  The scene in question involves a man putting his young son’s penis in his mouth - certainly not acceptable in America.  But the scene in Webb’s book took place in Vietnam and apparently such an act is not only common in the Cambodia/Vietnam area, but it is actually a sign of love (kudos to Rob).  John McCain, who knows a thing or two about Vietnam, praised Webb’s book, “Lost Soldiers,” and was quoted on the book jacket.  Allen’s allegations that the scene is sexual in nature may actually backfire against him because it highlights the fact that he didn’t serve in Vietnam (otherwise he would be aware of the nature of Webb’s fictional, but based on reality, scene), while Webb did.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Saturday, October 28th, 2006 at 9:34 am and is filed under Politics, Race Card. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.