Earlier this week, Pat Buchanan wrote a piece with the condescending headline "How to Handle Sonia." One’s antennae immediately go up when a man who hangs around with a self-described "white nationalist" talks about "handling" the first Latina to be nominated to the Court (like she’s some kind of infestation, perhaps?) and calls her by her first name (would anyone have written a piece about Justice Alito entitled "How to Handle Sam"?) Buchanan’s piece confirms the suspicions raised by the title: he advocates racist tactics as a political tactic for the Republican party, invoking the racist Willie Horton ad as an example John McCain ought to have followed in his presidential campaign (and, actually kind of did).
Even Lee Atwater apologized for declaring that he would "make Willie Horton [Dukakis's] running mate" in 1988, but Pat Buchanan is stuck in a bygone era, as Rachel Maddow aptly observed the other night. In his "Sonia" piece, Buchanan advised Republicans to "expose" Judge Sotomayor "as a political activist" with a "lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males." Buchanan does not hesitate in attacking Sotomayor in naked racial terms (continuing to condescend by using her first name): declaring that "Sonia is, first and and foremost, a Latina." Buchanan suggests that the Republican party can "win back its lost votes" by directly appealing to white voters in racial terms; he notes that white voters made up 74% of the total vote in 2008, Hispanics just 7.4–therefore, "adding just 1 per cent to the white vote is the same as adding 10 per cent to the candidate’s Hispanic vote."
It’s pretty clear that Sen. Sessions and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee didn’t need Buchanan’s advice; they had already decided to focus on what Buchanan says is most important about Sotomayor: that she is a Latina. Commentators wondered why Republicans kept quoting the "wise Latina" line, over and over. There seems to be a pretty good working hypothesis as to why they did this: they simply wanted the white conservative voters Buchanan spoke of to hear, over and over, that Judge Sotomayor is a Latina.
This is ugly stuff, and it will be interesting to see what future commentators say about the tactics Republican senators employed during Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings. What I keep thinking of is a passage from the Great Gatsby, where Tom Buchanan says "It’s up to us who are the dominant race to watch out or these other races will have control of things…The idea is that we’re Nordics…and we’ve produced all the things that go to make civilization…" The narrator wonders why Tom has decided to "nibble at the edge of stale ideas." In 2009, some of us are still nibbling at these stale ideas. It would be nice for even one Republican to denounce Buchanan’s racial tactics and the "wise Latina" mantra chanted over and over by Republican senators.



10 Comments




You’re a bit overboard in assigning Buchanan-style tactics to people being offended by what they thought they understood in the “wise Latina’ comment.
I described it as a hypothesis, and I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis given what Buchanan is advising Republicans to do and given the evolution of race-baiting politics over the years (see e.g. digby’s discussion of how this works http://digbysblog.blogspot.com…..-been.html) It’s hard to understand why else Republicans senators kept repeating these words–but I’ll concede that I don’t know for sure what their motivation was
They’re likely repeating it because the comment, absent context or explanation, sounds like shit.
Unless I misremember, SC nominee conformation hearings have been replete with this level of mud-slinging for years.
I disagree with how the comment sounds, but even assuming your premise is correct, why ask the same question over and over? You ask, you get your answer. why keep asking over and over? In addition, I do not remember Roberts or Alito having mud slung at them during their hearings–and even if they had, that would not justify focusing in on Judge Sotomayor’s ethnic background.
Chris, the quote made her ethnic background the issue. It makes her sound like a wise-ass Latina.
The reason to keep beating her with it would be the familiar tactic of trying to anger someone known to have a short fuse in hope of causing them to unwisely attack.
I think it’s fair to say that you have offered one theory to explain why Republican senators kept repeating the words “wise Latina” over and over, and I have offered another. I don’t have a way to prove which theory is correct, but I would additionally say that, even assuming your theory is correct, Republican senators ought to have considered what it would look like/sound like for them to repeat these words, over and over.
In addition, I would note that the Republican senators, in particular Sen. Sessions, did not enter the hearings with a blank slate when it comes to race. A black former US Attorney testified that Sessions called him “boy”. Sessions called the NAACP “un-American” for “forcing civil rights down the throats of people.” A former Justice Dept. official said Sessions called a white attorney a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African-Americans. Sessions admitted making many of the racial remarks attributed to him, but said he was joking. During the Sotomayor hearings, Sessions wondered why Judge Sotomayor hadn’t voted the same way as another judge on one case, seeing as the other judge was “also of Puerto Rican ancestry”. None of this proves that Sessions or other senators had a racial motive during the hearings, but it certainly raises suspicions.
Chris, thanks for listening to me and I don’t doubt that one or more of the Senators aren’t free of taint. My problem is that I don’t wish to accuse a group of people of something so calculatedly ugly without more, just as I wouldn’t accuse Sotomayor of being racially biased.
Heather at Crooks & Liars:
Apparently One Racist Buchanan Isn’t Quite Enough for MSNBC
thanks for the comments
I like that MSNBC’s graphic described Bay Buchanan as a “Republican strategist”. The Republican party ought to be concerned about being associated with either Buchanan