The Freddy Krueger factor and X rated candidates

Writing in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, Tavis Smiley (host of tonight's Republican debate) likens the no-show candidates to cautious children who are told never to talk to strangers:

We all remember the words of parents or guardians who warned us never to talk to strangers. While that might be an important warning for small children who face danger and harm from lurking criminals, I'm not sure it's the best tactic for the people who want to lead the country.

Unfortunately, some members of the GOP leadership are still heeding that advice. In fact, several of the leading Republican presidential contenders (all white males) have strategically avoided talking to some of the nation's leading groups of color. Not the NAACP, not the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), not Univision, and not any major groups representing Asians or American Indians.

I agree it's not a good tactic. Parenthetically (at least, it's irrelevant to tonight's debate), this explains something that has long bothered me: kids who refuse to speak and who clam up when asked simple questions like "Where's Main Street?" It's as if their parents have taught them that every adult is a potential Freddy Krueger.

I think the implicit assumption is being made that the GOP considers minorities to be potential Freddy Kruegers. While I see the point (as I said yesterday I think the candidates should all attend), an argument can also be made that the Republican right wing has been demonized so consistently as a group of evil white men that they, too, might be seen as potential Freddy Kruegers.

Tavis Smiley doesn't buy the "schedule conflict" excuse, and neither do I:

I'm sure the candidates all have pretty grueling schedules, and there have been quite a few public debates already - but isn't that part of the process of earning America's vote? In the most multicultural, most multiracial, most multiethnic America ever, should the president of the United States be elected without addressing issues of concern to communities of color - soon to make up the majority of Americans? I think not.

So what's to be gained by talking to strangers - especially if you're running for the highest office in the land? For starters, when you meet someone face to face, you're no longer a stranger. You have a chance to learn more about your common ground rather than your differences, a chance to chip away at what separates you. No, you can't achieve all that in one meeting - but no meeting doesn't cover much ground either.

To which I'd add that even if the audience is hostile, there's really not much of a downside. Assume that the Republicans face hostile questions and get booed for their answers. Some of the people sitting there will have more respect for them, whether they dare to display it or not. It takes a little spine to face a hostile crowd, though. And even more to do it and not get ruffled. But there's no indication at all that the crowd or host Tavis Smiley will be hostile. Obviously, he's not voting Republican, so there's probably a built-in political bias. But can't that be said of most mainstream media moderators?

According to the web site linked by Tavis Smiley, here's what the lineup looks like right now:

DebateList.JPG

If just one of the fearful Republicans who's currently rated "X" were to show up, I think it might very well amount to a campaign coup of sorts.

I'll be there as part of the Media Bloggers Association, and the plan is to live-blog the event.

(I'd just love to be able to report any surprise visit.....)

posted by Eric on 09.27.07 at 09:12 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5573






Comments

Turn it around: what possible advantage is there for a Republican to show up at one of these "minority voter" dog-and-pony shows? Nobody there is even going to consider voting for him. Media coverage will only be interested in isolating a "gotcha" soundbite or emphasizing how much the audience dislikes him (whether it's true or not). Any questions will be undisguised diatribes or verbal traps. If he's allowed to speak, he can only utter platitudes, because if he utters any real truths about the role of race in modern America they'll crucify him.

What rational person would show up to suffer nothing but abuse? Doing so only makes one look spineless, or confirm that you're just pandering to political power groups. The time and resources are better spent fund-raising, or rallying people who might actually vote for you. Or sitting in your rec room in your underwear playing video games. For a Republican to address one of these lockstep "minority" groups is like showing up at a Democratic party event. There is no upside.

Trimegistus   ·  September 27, 2007 09:48 AM

The magician there has a point. There really is no advantage in it.

And frankly, all of these debates will be forgot about after the 1st couple of primaries.

Eric Blair   ·  September 27, 2007 10:05 AM

While I can't blame any Republican for skipping what's sure be a festival of grievance...

I happen to like Tavis. He has this remarkable ability to walk comfortably in multiple worlds, teflon-like, without offending nor persuading anyone... almost Oprah-like.

I'll tune in.

Kadnine   ·  September 27, 2007 12:17 PM

And this is different from the Democrats not wishing to debate on Fox how?

At least, to my knowledge, Fox News has never attempted to demonize the Democrats the way the Republicans are constantly attacked by the groups Smiley names.

(Report on their actions or inactions? Sure Fox News does that. Demonize? Not on their news shows.)

joated   ·  September 27, 2007 01:25 PM

"Parenthetically (at least, it's irrelevant to tonight's debate), this explains something that has long bothered me: kids who refuse to speak and who clam up when asked simple questions like "Where's Main Street?" It's as if their parents have taught them that every adult is a potential Freddy Krueger."

Predators gain trust of kids by asking simple, innocent questions ("Have you seen my lost puppy?") so parents rightly tell their children not to have any interaction with strange adults. They'll find their way to Main Street eventually.

Boris   ·  September 27, 2007 02:36 PM

I'll admit I'm torn. However it is refreshing to see candidates who refuse to pander. Ideas such as staying in school, taking care of your family, and hard work are almost considered racist these days. Just look what happend to Bill Cosby when he espoused these ideals. On the other hand, these are professional politicans. They know exactly what they are going to be asked and how the questions are going to be couched. My old Scouts Handbook taught me to "be prepared", they should be too. But we must remember the current goal: win the Republican party nomination. Will appearing at this debate make any difference in achieving that goal.

Gregory   ·  September 27, 2007 07:57 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



September 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits