Division: The 2008 Version

A fascinating interview with Lee Atwater, trusted advisor to Presidents Reagan and Bush 41, was published in “Southern Politics” in the 1990s. In the interview, conducted by “New York Times” columnist Bob Herbert, Atwater discussed politics in the South:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

In the same column, Herbert wrote, “The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.’s relentless appeal to the racism of whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.”

Four years ago, as he launched his reelection campaign, President George W. Bush called a press conference to announce his support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the key swing state of Ohio had an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot. This fact was generally credited with President Bush winning Ohio and re-election. This year there will be an antigay marriage amendment on the ballot in the swing state of Florida, though current polls there indicate it will fail.

Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have shifted in much the same way that racial attitudes have changed. Yes, there is still an abundance of homophobia and racism, but it is more subtle and hidden. The overt wedge issue for this year’s election is likely to be immigration. Candidates are competing to see who can be toughest on “illegal immigrants.”

What is most disturbing is that their tough talk is finding its strongest resonance in the very same quarters where being anti-gay-marriage was popular last time around: conservative churches. What is forgotten is that these are the same churches that, by and large, opposed the end of racial segregation and equality for women.

On the issue of immigration, this group has obviously not read their Bibles. Next week, I will write about “True Bible-Based Immigration Reform.” This week I’d like to invite us to ponder these questions in regards to our own attitudes on this subject:

• Do I really agree with the values that inspired racist and homophobic politicians and voters?
• Is this really about “national security”? And, if so, why aren’t we building a wall along the Canadian border since the only known terrorists came from there not Mexico?
• Is this really about jobs? If so, then where are the people lined up to pick tomatoes in the heat or pack meat in the cold?
• Why are so many immigrants so desperate to live here and do those jobs? Why have our economic policies allowed U.S. companies to move to Mexico and pay subsistence wages?

Yes, we need immigration reform, but whose values will determine the shape that reform takes? Here is a hint: values that support racial equality and equal rights for lesbians and gays are not the ones guiding the immigration debate right now. Integrity means integrating values in a way that we live them out for others as passionately as we would for ourselves.