Anyone wondering what Karl Rove is up to these days? There is an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal called Why Hillary Won written by him. While writing interestingly about Hillary Clinton’s victory, he also launches a very sneaky and questionable attack on Obama.
I do not know if he is correct about this one but he writes well:
[M]ore interesting than dissecting the pollsters is dissecting the election returns, precinct by precinct. Sen. Hillary Clinton won working-class neighborhoods and less-affluent rural areas. Sen. Barack Obama won the college towns and the gentrified neighborhoods of more affluent communities. Put another way, Mrs. Clinton won the beer drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd. And there are more beer drinkers than wine swillers in the Democratic Party.
Now the sneaky part:
Rove uses subtle cues to bring in race. He writes that Obama played pickup basketball and that he is lazy, two familiar stereotypes about blacks. These types of subtle cues that come in under the radar are probably more effective than if race is brought in openly. If race is primed openly, it is possible for people to disagree with the message. It obviously requires motivation, but many people fortunately want to treat people equally so it should be possible. If, on the other hand, race is cued unconsciously, then racial attitudes can have an effect without people being aware of it and they might not be able to override their stereotypes. (This thinking primarily builds on the research by Patricia Devine and John Bargh.)
Since Rove does this discretely he might be able to deny the intent if someone calls him on it. This is brilliant from a strategic standpoint (if you do not want Obama to win) but it is normatively questionable.
Recent Comments