Off the Plantation

Cathy Young | January 19, 2006

Last night on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," amidst fulminations against Hillary Clinton's "the House is run like a plantation" remark, the hapless Alan Colmes repeatedly asked how it was different from Newt Gingrich's rather similar 1994 comment ("Since they [the Democrats] think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I'm actually willing to lead the slave rebellion"). Dick Morris brushed him off with a dismissive accusation of reciting talking points off Hillary's faxes (which really seemed to get under Colmes' skin, and I don't blame him). Larry Elder at least took the question seriously, and stressed that the big difference was Hillary's line, "And you know what I'm talking about!" which, addressed to a black audience, clearly had an implication of "The Republicans who run the House are racist bigots."

At first I thought that Elder was reaching for excuses; now I think that he has a point, but he should have made it better. And he should have been much tougher on his comrades-in-arms on the right who have used plantation metaphors to score political points.

Robert George comments:

First, as a quick aside, the left is really stretching in claiming that Gingrich's comments are the same as Hillary's. Not to defend a former boss, but the context here matters: He said those words in the course of a Washington Post profile of the man identified as the likely next Speaker of the House. If the context is about the majority abusing its powers when running a legislative body, then the partisan analogy holds.

But -- important difference. He was not speaking to a black audience -- or even obliquely referring to one; there was not an implicit racial connotation to his words. Yes, talking about plantations usually conjures up images of American slavery, but referring to oneself as the "leader of the slave rebellion," one could be referencing Spartacus as much as anything.

Hillary, on the other hand, made a clear -- "and you know what I'm talking about" line to a black audience. I'm actually a little surprised that those on the left whose eyes were raised when Ross Perot made reference in 1992 to "you people" when speaking to a Southern black audience, didn't find Hillary's implied "you people" just a little it pandering.

But conservatives don't get a free pass on this. I don't know who started it -- though this was an early entry -- but too many on the right have adopted the "plantation" language as a favorite trope in trying to dislodge minority (particularly African American) allegiance to the Democratic Party. It matters little whether those comments have come from black conservatives or white conservatives (or Latino conservatives), it is inherently insulting and counterproductive to the very principle that the writer is advocating.

It's very difficult to convince someone of the validity of your argument by suggesting that continuing to vote for the other party is evidence of a slave-like mentality. Invite individuals over with the power of your positive arguments, not by trashing the "family" that they have been part of for large segments of their lives. In short, suggesting that blacks have a plantation mentality for continuing to support Democrats -- and then expecting them to support Republicans -- makes about as much sense as trying to convince a Republican to switch parties because, well, "the GOP are Nazis."

It's actually worse really.

The plantation rhetoric is the manipulation and exploitation of American racial tropes that are better of dead and buried. Yes, the left-wing will often use it against black conservatives. (We've been down that road before; no need to dredge all THAT fun stuff up again.) But that is hardly an excuse. This country will never move beyond its history until it decides to leave noxious racial references dead and buried -- especially on King's birthday.

I think Robert's a leetle too easy on Newt; when you're talking about plantations and slave rebellions, in an American context, it's pretty clear you're not talking about Spartacus. But other than that, I think Robert's comments are right on the money, and I don't have much to add to this except to say, "Right on!" I will add, though, that the demagoguery of HRC's speech is amplified by the fact that she made it not only to an African-American audience in Harlem, but also on Martin Luther King Day. In this sense, the analogy to Newt's comment in the Washington Post interview is a bit thin.

(Cross-posted at The Y-Files.)

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|1.19.06 @ 3:24PM|#

Game Show Host Voice

|1.19.06 @ 3:26PM|#

I think Hillary had some balls to say that to a black audience (oh wait, we already knew she had balls - har har!).

I know if you call a black man "boy", they can get offended. I know that if you say you've been working like a slave to a black person, and you are white, the black person can get offended.

So to even bring up plantations and whatnot, when you're a white person, around a bunch of black people, is pretty ballsy.

|1.19.06 @ 3:30PM|#

Yes Joe anytime a Republican uses the term "plantation" or really any term for that matter, it is really a racist trope showing what closet bigots they are and of course Democrats are always speaking nothing but the truth and Hillary wasn't being a racial demagogue and doing her best to poison well of political discourse but just courageously speaking the truth against said Republicans.

|1.19.06 @ 3:31PM|#

I think we should just put them in "time out" when they talk stupid.

Ed|1.19.06 @ 3:38PM|#

Lefties often get a free pass from the (liberal?) press when it comes to this kind of thing. Old news. But how do Republicans woo a tribalist voting bloc away from a party that revels in tribalism? I don't think it can be done. The President refuses to speak before the NAACP because he knows he's being set up. Nothing to gain there. Republican political philosophy is nearly as bankrupt as Democrat, and must seem alien if not outright hostile to tribalist thought processes.

|1.19.06 @ 3:53PM|#

I always thought a gladiator was someone who worked on a plantation raising gladioli.

|1.19.06 @ 3:55PM|#

Ooh, I'm sorry. Spartacus didn't work on a plantation. He was a gladiator. A gladiator. The answer we were looking for is "Obvious reference to racial slavery in the ante-bellum South. Sorry. >Game Show Host Voice

While I agree that to believe Newt was referencing anything but the ante-bellum South is foolish, but to be fair Spartacus was a slave.

Ed, I think you hit the nail on the head as to why African Americans continue to overwhelmingly support Democrats, even in light of the fact that their support in places like D.C. where liberals have had a free hand in the daily running of things has failed to deliver equality and justice. Democrats simply moved the goalposts and blamed GOP interference in their noble plans for the continued hardship. But Republicans have horrifically mishandled the courtship of black voters, especially when you consider the dixie democrats used to have the southern racist angle sewn up. But with the way Hillary is throwing around the stereotype football, the GOP may get more help than it can provide for itself.

|1.19.06 @ 4:01PM|#

So, Alan Colmes basically argues that HRC's statements aren't that bad because Newt Gingrich said something similar in 1994? So "everyone else is doing it" is now a valid defense? Gee, I wonder what kind of parents he had.

"Mom, can I have a car?"
"Only if you pay for it."
"But everyone else's parents are buying them cars!"
"Well, OK, sweetie."
"Great Mom! You're cool."

|1.19.06 @ 4:02PM|#

John,

Wipe the spit off your monitor.

|1.19.06 @ 4:04PM|#

Stretch,

Gladiators were slaves.

They just didn't work on plantations.

All I'm sayin'.

|1.19.06 @ 4:07PM|#

Joe, I just wanted to make sure that all the Gladiator-Americans weren't offended by your insensitivity to their plight. After all, those fuckers can fight.

Jeff P.|1.19.06 @ 4:09PM|#

Fade Up

We see a cartoon donkey on the left side of the screen. An elephant is on the right. They are some distance apart and facing each other. Each has a bucket beside them.

Sound effect: Whistle blowing

The two creatures reach into thier buckets and begin throwing feces at each other. Big heaping handfuls of rich brown shit. They occasionally break to send a big arcing stream of piss at thier opponnent. When the buckets are empty they begin shitting into their own hands and throwing that.

Lower third super:
"Welcome to modern political discourse."

Fade to black

White letters: Paid for by The Libertarian Party.

Air this every half hour on basic cable during the cheap overnight hours. Between paid shows would work.

Timothy|1.19.06 @ 4:10PM|#

Joe: Hey, they may have worked on plantations (what's the difference between a plantation and a farm? Is it only the slave thing?) before becoming gladiators, eh? Eh?

|1.19.06 @ 4:11PM|#

|1.19.06 @ 4:13PM|#

Jeff P.,

You owe me for one monitor and keyboard that just got snot on / in them. :-)

|1.19.06 @ 4:14PM|#

Stretch,

American Gladiators is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Let's not go there.

|1.19.06 @ 4:15PM|#

joe, your disrespectful answer to John is absolutely uncalled for and you should be ashamed. Go and wash your mouth out with soap! (Methaphorically at least)

No, I'm Spartacus! (C'mon, it had to be done.)

|1.19.06 @ 4:16PM|#

Kind of a weird plantation where the slaves raise millions of dollars just for a chance to get to work there.

keith|1.19.06 @ 4:17PM|#

I think the confusion over gladiators is happening because Newt was refering to American Gladiators, and as we know, they volunarily take that job and assume gladiator names (not slave names) like Laser and Malibu.

|1.19.06 @ 4:26PM|#

So, Alan Colmes basically argues that HRC's statements aren't that bad because Newt Gingrich said something similar in 1994? So "everyone else is doing it" is now a valid defense? Gee, I wonder what kind of parents he had.

I don't see that as the argument/defense. In fact I don't think that was a "defense" at all. Instead I think he was calling bullshit on the "outrage". I think the argument is that if you are gonna pretend to be outraged by the comment, maybe your outrage would be taken seriously if you could muster up some outrage when your side does the same if not worse things.

It's the same reason why it's hard to take Robert George seriously. If one really finds something offensive / outrageous, then call out your own side when they do it before you go calling out your opposition.

It's a variation of the: glass house dwellers shouldn't be throwing stones theme.

Republicans are constantly deriding blacks who vote for democrats as members of the "Democratic Plantation" yet, Mr Hannity and his ilk somehow don't find it so outrageous then.

|1.19.06 @ 4:39PM|#

The way partisans tend to insult the people they ostensibly wish to recruit is always a testament to human stupidity. It tends to be the party most out of power which is most eager to do so. When the Democrats weren't punished for Clinton's misbehavior in the '98 midterms, there were more than a few Republicans asserting that the electorate was entirely too immoral, and many Democrats throughout George W. era have been screeching about how stupid the electorate is.

There is a lot of irony here.

|1.19.06 @ 4:43PM|#

I can't believe nobody has made a "minority whip" joke yet. But I guess Hillary would know about plantations, seeing as how she was married to America's First Black President and all.

|1.19.06 @ 4:55PM|#

"But Republicans have horrifically mishandled the courtship of black voters, especially when you consider the dixie democrats used to have the southern racist angle sewn up."

Uh, it was Republican success in turning the Dixie Democrats who had the Southern racist angle sewn up into Republicans that made them the majority party.

"There is a lot of irony here."

i don't know if i'd call it irony so much as withering contempt for their fellow man.

of which there is plenty to go around here.

|1.19.06 @ 5:01PM|#

ChicagoTom,

You could be right--it's just easier for me, as someone who will probably not make as much money my entire life (before taxes) as Alan Colmes does each year (after taxes), to lob cheap shots. It's a character flaw of mine.

|1.19.06 @ 5:05PM|#

Hannity & Colmes. Ouch. Almost as hard to watch as Oprah & Dr. Phil.

|1.19.06 @ 7:04PM|#

Robert George:

But -- important difference. He was not speaking to a black audience -- or even obliquely referring to one; there was not an implicit racial connotation to his words. Yes, talking about plantations usually conjures up images of American slavery, but referring to oneself as the "leader of the slave rebellion," one could be referencing Spartacus as much as anything.

Gimme a break. Everyone knows that Gingrich was trying to paint the Dems with the kind of opprobrium that bien pensants have for the ante-bellum South. Republicans use this trick all the time when they say that black conservatives get dumped on by the left because they dare to leave "the liberal plantation." It's really the same game as accusing someone of being a Nazi when he advocates, say, strict restrictions on tobacco. ("See! See! He's behaving just like Hitler!")

(Is it a violation of Godwin's Law when you cite Godwin's Law? Just wonderin'.)

|1.19.06 @ 7:10PM|#

Put people in the public eye and tell them to keep talking and, eventually, they'll say something stupid, embarrassing, and/or inappropriate. Put *stupid* people in the public eye and tell them to speak *emphatically*, and you've got our current batch of politicians and political commentators.

Dun ben that way fer a looong time.

|1.19.06 @ 7:11PM|#

I REALLY like Jeff P's TV ad idea. It would not even be that expensive because, as Jeff points out, you run it in the wee hours, and it would be so in-your-face provocative it would undoubtedly get a lot of air time on the "news".

|1.19.06 @ 7:16PM|#

"It tends to be the party most out of power which is most eager to do so."

Such as the libertarian party.

Jeff P.,

Wouldn't such a commercial be more or less in line with the same type of behavior the commercial satirizes? I mean what does the commerical say other than "They suck, vote for me."

One of the biggest problems I see with libertarians is they think the feces they hurl at Republicans and Democrats are _righteous_ feces and that makes it all okay.

Starting the political discourse with: "My opponents are all evil, racist, moronic, criminal tyrants" is hardly the beginning of a reasoned debate regardless of the person's political philosophy.

|1.19.06 @ 7:18PM|#

Wayne: I chuckled at it too, and it does have a strong stench of truth to it, but it wouldn't speak well (at all) of the LP's ability to change the tenor of the debate. Simply that it knows what sells by slamming both parties for slamming each other.

|1.19.06 @ 7:19PM|#

ARRRRGH! I got beat.

touche.

|1.19.06 @ 8:25PM|#

Well, regardless of the LP's foibles (of which there are many) I can't help to think that it would be beneficial to everyone to break up the two-party system we have now. Unfortunately, Perot and Nader taught us a very important lesson: it's more important to prevent your enemies from gaining power than it is to work for what you actually believe in. God bless America!

|1.19.06 @ 9:24PM|#

Hillary's quip is not the stupidest I ever heard. That would be the line from one Vincent Impellitteri , mayor of New York from 1950 to 1953, when he told a black opponent: "My heart is as black as yours."

|1.19.06 @ 10:26PM|#

Dunno why Cathy Young has to quote 5,000 words from Robert George on the subject. But really, since when do Democrats or Republicans have to apologize for insulting one another? That's their job! Conservatives and libertarians have long ridiculed liberals for political correctness, for attempting to declare some language too harsh, too mean.

I might point out that it was Gingrich's Gang who took voting rights away from the Washington, DC representative in the House when they took over. "Duke" Cunningham, when he was on the House District Committee, had a high old time ridiculing the corruption of Marion Berry. In the South, Republicans are fighting hard to re-invent the poll tax, with the full support of the Bush Administration. And how about Trent "Strom should have won" Lott, and how about Georgie, when poor blacks were dying of exposure and thirst, going down to Trent's vacation home and vowing to rebuild it, better than ever? No, Hillary wasn't really being very nice with that "plantation" crack, but so what? Politics, it ain't bean-bag.

|1.19.06 @ 10:39PM|#

Jeff P.
That's a commercial that should get made today!

LP!?!

Hello?!?!?

|1.20.06 @ 4:17AM|#

i think hillary has been defended by people saying that al sharpton has recently said pretty much the exact same thing.

|1.20.06 @ 5:30AM|#

I am not a Repub, or a Dem. Both parties definitely have their general failings. In my opinion though, the Dems are by far the most racist. Democrats see a KKK bogey man under every bed, they see racist plots behind every outcome, and they enact and institute racist policies over and over.

|1.20.06 @ 5:45AM|#

"I might point out that it was Gingrich's Gang who took voting rights away from the Washington, DC representative in the House when they took over. "

So what. DC is not a state. Why should DC have any say in national politics?

"Duke" Cunningham, when he was on the House District Committee, had a high old time ridiculing the corruption of Marion Berry."

So what, Marion Berry is corrupt, and so is Duke Cunningham as well as being a hypocrite.

"In the South, Republicans are fighting hard to re-invent the poll tax, with the full support of the Bush Administration. "

You got me here, I know nothing of this, but is it racist, which I assume you are implying?

"And how about Trent "Strom should have won" Lott, "

So what? How about KKK member, and senator, and Democrat Byrd from WV?

"and how about Georgie, when poor blacks were dying of exposure and thirst, going down to Trent's vacation home and vowing to rebuild it, better than ever?"

So what? He seems to have done at least as much as the overtly racist mayor of NO.

|1.20.06 @ 5:54AM|#

So what. DC is not a state. Why should DC have any say in national politics?

Um, because they people who live there are US citizens and are sure as shit taxed by the Federal government and subject to its laws?

|1.20.06 @ 5:59AM|#

So, move to VA, or MD where your vote can be ever so persuasive on the national scene.

Jeff P.|1.20.06 @ 7:29AM|#

To all commenting on my commercial idea:
Obviously that would not be the whole of the recruitment plan. I have long argued that current political discourse is indistiguishable from pro wrestling in both method and relevence, and both sides of the shit-slinging need to be called on the carpet for this.
thoreau and myself and a few others at the DC gathering last year discussed the TV presence of libertarianism. I honestly think the best strategy right now would be a half-hour paid show. Start off with the shit-slinging cartoon (or perhaps just that scene from th beginning of 2001 where the two tribes of hominids jump up-n-down and scream at each other) and then move on to more substantive content. The show could be updated every few weeks, the way Kevin Trudeau does his show.
And Trudeau is a good business model for something like this. The man has had a best seller for over a year thanks to carpet-bombing the airwaves with cheap paid shows.
Regardless, this strategy would be an improvement over the current LP strategy, which is do nothing.

|1.20.06 @ 7:36AM|#

I do declare that a plantation be a right fine place to live and work. In the mid-day's hot sun, I should repair myself to the shaded porch, where awaits my trustworthy tickhound, and a frosty mint julip. And there cannot be a finer moment.

And you know what I mean.

|1.20.06 @ 7:42AM|#

Wayne is in favor of taxation without representation. Noted and moving on.

|1.20.06 @ 8:27AM|#

"So, move to VA, or MD where your vote can be ever so persuasive on the national scene."

Man, this brings me back to the good old days of Hurricaine Katrina?

Why didn't they just, you know, move?

R C Dean|1.20.06 @ 10:23AM|#

i think hillary has been defended by people saying that al sharpton has recently said pretty much the exact same thing.

If Al Sharpton is now our benchmark for what is True and Decent and Good, then we are truly in the end times.

|1.20.06 @ 12:20PM|#

"Wayne is in favor of taxation without representation. Noted and moving on.

Washingotn DC is on the biggest nipple, of the biggest tit, of the Federal money stream. The whole city is a federal money pit. Besides, you still have Eleanor Holmes Norton. I'd say she represents DC appropriately.

Besides, the implication that I refuted was that Newt (the white racist) eliminated DC's "representation" because he was white, hence racist. Typical racist blather.

DC is not a state, hence it has no right to a congressman, or senator, that is the way our country is set up.

|1.20.06 @ 12:26PM|#

"Man, this brings me back to the good old days of Hurricaine Katrina?

Why didn't they just, you know, move?"

Joe, you old racist you :-), instead of saying "they" why don't you just come out and say blacks? I have never been to NO, but I am sure it has some fine qualities. NO indisputably lies 6 feet below sea level and on the Gulf coast of the US, however. Moving away seems a rational thing to do.

|1.20.06 @ 12:47PM|#

Actually, I would be willing to compromise on the DC representation issue. It would be OK with me if DC residents got to vote in the federal elections for MD, or VA. That way they can be vote for the same political hacks that are already representing them. Poor Eleanor would be out of a job though, but that's life.

|1.20.06 @ 1:48PM|#

wayne,
and if our state was set up so that slaves counted for 2/3rds of a vote that would just be the way our state was set up, and it is not fair to pass any judgement on that?

|1.20.06 @ 1:55PM|#

Caoch,
"and if our state was set up so that slaves counted for 2/3rds of a vote that would just be the way our state was set up, and it is not fair to pass any judgement on that?"

Different argument and I am not taking the bait. You do know the DC is NOT a state though, right? Do you have slaves in your state? Which state is that?

|1.20.06 @ 3:25PM|#

Hmmm... Newt Gingrich made plantation comments, Hillary Clinton made plantation comments. Looks like another example of neither side has anything to be proud of.

What a surprise.

Who here actually thinks that either Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich would be worth pissing on if they were on fire?

Ok, I'm sure that joe will stick up for Hillary, but other than the obviously partisan types, who here thinks either of these two are worth defending?

|1.20.06 @ 4:32PM|#

"Who here actually thinks that either Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich would be worth pissing on if they were on fire?"

OK, you win this one, but let me change the scenario a little: Suppose your bladder was really, really full and painful, and both of these loathsome hacks were full ablaze right in front of you, and you could direct your stream only toward one of the cleansing pyres... Then which one would you pee on?

R C Dean|1.20.06 @ 4:54PM|#

Could I just pee on myself? Would that be an option?

|1.20.06 @ 4:59PM|#

"Then which one would you pee on?" - wayne

As long as there's a tree-line handy, I'll never have to make that choice. Which is why I'm in favor of protecting the environment!

|1.20.06 @ 5:13PM|#

"Could I just pee on myself?" NO, I say thunderously. You must choose a pyre upon which to dispense your cleansing rain.

"As long as there's a tree-line handy, I'll never have to make that choice."

You have such contempt for the environment that you freely admit that you would rather pee on a tree than a politician. I am shocked and saddened.

|1.20.06 @ 5:14PM|#

|1.20.06 @ 5:27PM|#

Could I use half on each one?

I mean that way I'd get to piss on both of them and diminish the chance that it would do either one any good.

|1.20.06 @ 5:44PM|#

This is like herding cats.

|1.20.06 @ 6:01PM|#

Could I use half on each one?

Brilliant!

|1.20.06 @ 6:12PM|#

"You have such contempt for the environment that you freely admit that you would rather pee on a tree than a politician. I am shocked and saddened." - wayne

Bwahahahahahaha! I just laughed so hard I nearly peed on myself.

Luckily I was able to make it to the treeline!

|1.20.06 @ 7:25PM|#

enough potty humor for me for a while. What was this thread about, originally; probably something earth-shakingly important, I am sure?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements