In the bizarro world of liberals, discriminating against a job applicant because of the color of his skin isn't racist. Issuing a political advertisement objecting to this vile practice is. In 1990, Jesse Helms ran an advertisement pointing out that his opponent, Harvey Gantt, supported racial preferences, and he, opposed them. Liberals expected Gantt to win the race. He didn't, and the ad had much to do with the outcome. They still haven't forgiven Helms--not for running the ad, but for winning. Andrew Sullivan calls Helms a "racist" because of the ad and describes it as the five-term senator's "most famous racist ad." Let me second NRO's Roger Clegg, who opines: "Sorry, but the ad looked perfectly legit to me then, and still does. It's become accepted in liberal circles that it was somehow racist, but it was not, and it's wrong to suggest that Helms was wrong in running it." View the ad here and draw your own conclusion before revisionists draw it for you.

The as isn't racist. The racists are the white elites but mainly they hate white non-elites, particularly southerners and so deem them all racist as a way to dismiss them. It is just inter-racial class warfare amongst whites.

The "ad" that is.

Liberals have the same delusion about Willie Horton and GHW Bush. The ad is denounced as racist, but just how so?

Here is what is wrong with the ad.

It addresses the viewer as "you." It assumes "you" is white, the victim of discrimation which benefitted "a minority." The ad instantly places members of "a minority" outside the audience, and arguably counts on white anger towards minorities (and not necessarily outrage at the law, though that will probably be part of it) as the the motivation to go vote.

I wouldn't call it racist, but it's unfortunate. As are laws providing for a diverse workplace, inclusion, etc.

I am *not* defending racial quotas, and I believe everyone should fight to repeal them where they still exist, but I can't defend that ad, either.

Veronica,
ads address groups of people. Taxpayers (as opposed to non-workers), union members, businesspeople, dems or repubs. Whoever is affected by an election. White people were being informed where Gant stood on a policy that affected them. How is it wrong to address them as a group? The ill-advised law has already grouped them. The ad merely points out the ugly truth. If you must choose between the truth or a false bromide, give me the truth any day.

White Evangelicals are seen as evil, racist,
hatemongers because they have the audacity to
adhere to principles clearly taught in The New Testament. Black Evangelicals... not so much.
They are seen as passionate, spiritual etc.

Liberals don't complain about Muslim misogyny
or anything else about Islam because they are afraid of Muslims. They also know and exploit the fact that Christians are commanded to love their enemies. It's easy to mock someone you believe will turn the other cheek.

Jessie Helms was a Conservative, so, of course, the "intolerance is intolerable" crowd will excoriate him in the name of free speech- all the while attempting to silence those who share his views.

Politcal Correctness is the new Crusade.

Webster,

Candidates are free to address any group of their constituents as a group, in such terms as those that consciously exclude other potential voters, but they do so at their own peril.

What you say is true, but the voice of the ad --the use of "you," etc -- is what gets it called racist, which is what I was pointing out. An ad addressing whites as a group, while refering to members of "a minority" in a vaguely disgusted tone of voice may not be wrong, but it's not exactly out of left field to call it racist; that charge under those circumstances certainly has more t-eeth than the same applied to one who uses the term "black hole," to reference an instance of true PC hyseria in another of Dan's posts.

The Helms ad works by inflaming white anger towards minorities - which is why I called it unfortunate. It never attacks the law on any other grounds, which it well could have. And the same information about Helm's opponent and his stance on quotas could have been conveyed in a way that doesn't make the assumptions this ad did. It was/is a divisive ad, and deliberately so.

So, like I said, I am not calling the ad racist, but I understand why some have called it that; in the end, I just find it unfortunate.

I am personally offended by Veronica's racist comments, here. Her claim that the Helms ad works by inflaming white anger is unquestionably drawn from her racist attitudes about whites. Her assertion that addressing whites as a group is suspect while addressing "minorities" as a group has the opposite meaning is a wonderful example of newspeak, contradicting herself in the same sentence, driven by the constant assumption that whites are racist while real black racists who falsely accuse innocent people of racism are engaging in something somehow reasonable. It is absurd and deplorable.
Her use of the term "divisive" is liberal boilerplate for attacking the truth. All truth is "divisive" because it exists in contradistiction to lies, like the racist slurs Veronica assumes as a baseline.
Anyone who finds any credence to claims of racism against a blatantly anti-racist ad, like this one for Helms, is hoplessly decieved and, perhaps, incurably biased.

The ad inflames white anger at Gant for his policy that may very well unfairly burden whites. Gant is the villain, not minorities.

As for divisive, well it's unfortunate that the affirmative action policy is divisive by its very nature. But that is not Helms's fault. You attack the policy in the strongest possible way, and that is by attacking its divisive nature. Again, don't blame Helms for pointing out the truth.