Playing the Race Card

Although the primary season is over and done here in Michigan there are, as always, lingering questions. One that sticks in our mind is the question of the Black Slate, which always puts out pamphlets encouraging folks to vote "for only those with the interests of Detroit at heart'.

Well, why not call it the Detroit Slate, then? Why inject race into it at all? For as it is, the implication is that if you don't vote for whom they want you to, you're anti-black. If it's about what's right for Detroit, there doesn't seem to be any need to mention race, does it?

Or is it done to insinuate that those who do not vote for those selected candidates are racist? Because that high charged implication is equally and immediately clear: if you didn't vote for Virg Bernero for Governor, you're racist. Surely they do not mean that?

The really interesting thing around here is that we don't actually mind movements such as the Black Slate. If you honestly believe that that group of candidates are the best for your group, whatever group, then we see no moral evil in and of itself in supporting them in that light. But we cannot help but wonder if the folks pushing the Black Slate would see the issue on equal terms.

In short, why is it that inserting race into an election is all right if it comes from a minority, but would be roundly condemned should it come from certain other quarters? Further, where there are areas from which such things do arise, they are derided (usually with good cause, we'll allow) as Nazis or skinheads?

We've changed our minds. The Black Slate ought to be dropped. If your candidates are good candidates then such crass inferences are unimportant. Or is it that, in the end, you think the general issues against you and an injection of good old lightning rod politics the only way you may see electoral victory?

We're just asking. But they are questions which need good answers.