Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

What Bob Dole could teach Trump about racists in the GOP

I won’t claim to know how racist Donald Trump is in his heart, although there is plenty of basis to guess; the guess wouldn’t be pretty.

Obviously, he found a way to connect with many white voters who are threatened or at least bothered by the growing portion of black and Latino and Asian citizens in the electorate. Nonwhites overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic ticket last year, but not enough to overcome Trump’s 21-percentage-point margin among whites, who still form a significant majority of U.S. voters.

And, of course, I don’t assume that every white person who voted for Trump was motivated by racial animus. Nonetheless, we do know that Trump received overwhelming support from the so-called alt-right and other corners of the electorate where racism and nativism is overrepresented, and that he welcomed and encouraged that support.

You hardly need me to inform you that we are talking about this question, at the moment, because Trump, in remarks purportedly decrying the weekend violence in Charlottesville — which was committed overwhelmingly by the white nationalists, including one Nazi sympathizer who drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing one woman and injuring 19 others — went off script and out of his way to say Saturday that he wanted to condemn the “display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides,” then repeated “on many sides.”  

The White House later issued statements trying, unsuccessfully, to overcome the widespread view that Trump said, and repeated “on many sides” because he was unwilling to blame one side for the bigotry and violence. And the assumption in many quarters was that that was because Trump benefited significantly from the support he received from neo-Nazis and other variants of white nationalism.

Trump’s defenders suggested that Trump only meant to acknowledge that the counterprotesters also contributed to the violence. Nice try. Color me skeptical that this was Trump’s motive.

But I thought I could just offer a direct quote of what it sounds like when a presidential candidate says he doesn’t want the support of racists. The candidate was Sen. Bob Dole, the Republican nominee in 1996. I heard some of the Sunday show commentators referring to what Dole said, in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention that year so I looked up the quote. Here it is:

The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view.

But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.

Note to President Trump: That’s how you do it if you are really trying to say that you don’t want the support of racists.

Here, via C-Span, is the video of Sen. Dole saying it.

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (38)

Bob Dole

In today's Republican party, Bob Dole would be tossed out the door.

I kinda miss you, Bob.

In today's Republican party,

In today's Republican party, David Duke is disgustingly welcomed in the convention's front door.

Which one became President?

While I admire Dole's sentiments, they did not turn out to be good politics.
Brings us back to Adlai Stevenson:
"I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning."

This depends

on one's definition of "inexperienced."

I'm inclined to agree with his point about the difficulty of campaigning without losing one's ethical compass in the process, but you have to go back to the 1920s to find an Adlai Stevenson who was politically inexperienced, since his political career began as a New Deal lawyer in Washington in the '30s, followed by legal work for the Navy during World War ii and a stint as Governor of Illinois after the war. He was then—twice—the Democratic nominee for President in '52 and '56, and was, after Kennedy's election in 1960, made the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

I'm pretty sure Stevenson would have heartily agreed with Dole's sentiments—he was an eloquent spokesman against prejudicial treatment—but claiming inexperience at politics doesn't ring true when you've spent most of a lifetime practicing it.

Stevenson's Experience

He had experience in losing Presidential elections.

Bush 41

Given his Lee Atwater produced Willie Horton ads, he not have been sincere, but the best words I ever heard him speak were at (I believe) his 1988 nomination acceptance speech when he called on us to "leave the tired old baggage of racism behind.

While they were perhaps insincere, at minimum it was not a dog whistle to neo-Nazis or white supremacists.

The 40 years of "southern

The 40 years of "southern strategy" is coming to full fruition. Dole obviously never became president--instead Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush2 and now Trump. The southern strategy kept the nugget of the romantic ol' south and it's uglier elements in the tent.

The creation of entire realm of alternative media to feed the beast its own enraging tales ensures that the beast will act out more. Decades of code words and surreptitious promises are having to be made apparent now--what if the new-alt right bursts forth from the belly of the tendentious "good" Republican party along with all of the other groups that have been told to hold their fire until the time is right ? To them, the time is now, the person is Trump. If not now, when ?

Watch out !

When it bursts out

...It won't be the alien in "Spaceballs". It will be the nastiest monster anyone can imagine. Watch out, indeed.

Racism

So we pivot from racism to Trump to Dole to Stevenson and his profession of "inexperience."
Great way to stop talking about racism!

Little Change on the Horizon

I understand the voters anger with politician across the board and the corruption that is becoming endemic in politics. Voters want change and we are not being offered change.

On the other hand, it is no surprise how President Trump is. He had an 18-month campaign that was loaded with rude, crude, vulgarity, racism, and very little substantive content. Now he has loaded the White House with Alt-Right advisors. We won’t be getting any change in politics unless Mr. Mueller can drain the Trump half of the White House swamp. That will leave Mr. Pence and his half of the White House swamp. So, there is little change on the horizon. President Trump and Vice President Pence are proof consequences can come from careless voting.

Not so much careless and

Not so much careless and thoughtless voting, for many Trump voters. They voted emotionally and did not stop to ask themselves if they were responding, perhaps, to racist dog whistles.

They did not stop to think. And here we are, with Trump supporters on the white-nationalist right killing people at public rallies.

This presidential campaign was all about not thinking

Endless coverage of emotionally charged offensive language and scare tactics. No discussion whatsoever of policy. It was a campaign designed to keep people from thinking and the press ate it up gladly because they don't like people thinking either (scaring people sells more ads). The candidate with the vaguest policy positions won because there was nothing to criticize, just empty slogans.

Bob Dole

Before we get all teary-eyed in reminiscing about Bob Dole, let us remember that he was quoted in USA Today on July 20, 2016,, as saying "Trump is going to make a great president."

As I remember Sen. Dole, he was, first and foremost, a Party Politician. While he may have recognized the ethical morass in which he operated, he was accused of many "dirty tricks" during his presidential campaign

Seems this site has an

Seems this site has an efficient censorship regime, so perhaps this is destined for a black hole, but I will make the attempt, because it is important.

Charlottesville's Vice Mayor, Wes Bellamy, was removed from the school board after 5 years of twitter content of the most vile racist and misogynistic content was disclosed in 2015.

It was surprisingly well covered by the MSM at rhe time, but that coverage is being furiously scrubbed now. (It is still there elsewhere, but the CNN link I read just yesterday is now broken.)

My point is this; the good, progressive people of C'ville elected him again after his character was disclosed. Of course he says he's a miraculously changed man, but never the less, he is now vigorously denying everyone in sight the same benefit of the doubt he recieved.

Who is it that said something about hypocrites removing planks from their eyes?

So What?

You give an example of one community, albeit one that has garnered some notoriety, acting in a way you deem hypocritical.

What does that have to do with anything?

Are we supposed to overlook avowed racism?

Are we supposed to let the President give cover to the most vile elements of our society, because one community in one state acted in a manner that displeases you?

Are we supposed to pretend racism doesn't exist anymore, because of one apparent inconsistency?

Please, tell us SJWs (the term used on moderated fora when the "c" word would be censored) the best way to shut up and let the Republicans continue to indulge the bigots and racists.

Or are you just trolling, looking for a fight instead of a discussion? Oh, sorry, political correctness means no one is interested in a real discussion except conservatives. I forgot.

I think neo-Nazi, KKK type

I think neo-Nazi, KKK type racism and hate is just as appalling as the Antifa, BLM type. I unreservedly denounce both.

However, the fact is that while Obama was in office, the violence was exclusively being carried out by lefty SJW's. Asked to condemn the rioting, arson, looting, attacks and killings being comitted by BLM and Antifa, Obama made this utterly ridiculous statement:

""There were times when activists engaged in rhetoric that was overheated and occasionally counterproductive but the point was to raise issues... I think what you're seeing now is part of that long standing tradition."

And the MSM said....nothing.

Trump came out and immediatly condemned the violence on both sides. There is plenty of evidence to support the inclusion of far right and far left actors, but people with no credibility, like Wes Blakely, were not going to let any shade be thrown on their allies.

The hypicricy is not only appaling, it's counter productive. If you want to end the violence, you cannot excuse it because you agree with the politics behind it.

Make no mistake, the right is no longer going to shut up while the left continues to indulge destructive, anti-American violence and tactics lefties wont like what they hear, but it is their best interests to make space for it in the public square. Shouting down speech you don't agree with and attacking people with differing points of view has a proven track record of failure.

The gap between left and right is as wide as it's ever been. That means the discussions will be strident...well so be it, because the alternative to talking is far less attractive.

You Can't Do It

You can't do it, can you? You cannot condemn the KKK and the neo-Nazis without getting in a dig at the lefties, who are "just as bad and the MSM never said anything."

Because it's not about white racism, is it? Gee, whiz, that's bad, sure it is, but the other guys are just as bad! Why is everyone picking on the Klan, who are really bad, but the leftists are just as bad? And everyone's to blame, especially Obama, who was really, really divisive for not speaking out against BLM the way conservatives thought he should!

"Trump came out and immediatly condemned the violence on both sides." That is laughable. He made some vague reference to "all sides," but practically had to be forced to condemn racism. Remember when he waited so long to repudiate David Duke, and claimed he hadn't known what the Klan was? His supposed condemnation was a load of rubbish.

"Make no mistake, the right is no longer going to shut up while the left continues to indulge destructive, anti-American violence and tactics lefties wont like what they hear, but it is their best interests to make space for it in the public square." That is one of the most ominous statements I have ever heard here.

Why would anyone leave out

Why would anyone leave out any group out there commiting acts of arson, violence and murder?

Last weekend's disaster was 100% predictable. You had all the exact same kinds of people out there on opposing sides, ready to do battle, and battle they did. Why can't you admit what every rational, reasoned person sees crystal clear?

Also, when you have to invent statements never made to disagree with, you are arguing with yourself. Did you know that?

I'm sorry you find the prospect of having to allow opposing viewpoints to be heard so ominous. Must be tough for someone living under a Constitution guaranteeing just that.

"Last weekend's disaster was 100% predictable."

Yes, when you had armed groups converging on a city to "protest" a local decision regarding monuments, the outcome is predictable. Why can't you condemn the people who came to the city, using Nazi imagery, to protest?

For the record, I'm assuming you know that Heather Heyer was a resident of Charlottesville, right? That she didn't travel there for a protest, but was taking a stand on something happening in her community?

"Also, when you have to invent statements never made to disagree with, you are arguing with yourself. Did you know that?" Let's call it a caricature, rather than an invention.I don't think I said anything that wasn't a fair paraphrase of what you were saying.

"I'm sorry you find the prospect of having to allow opposing viewpoints to be heard so ominous." Sure, there was nothing at all ominous about "Make no mistake, the right is no longer going to shut up while the left continues to indulge destructive, anti-American violence and tactics lefties wont like what they hear, but it is their best interests to make space for it in the public square." If there was no threat implied, what could you have meant by "best interests?"

"Must be tough for someone living under a Constitution guaranteeing just that." As bad as it must be living under a Constitution that guarantees equal rights for all.

I have and do condemn the

I have and do condemn the people who came to the city, using Nazi imagery, to protest. Why can't you condemn the people who came to the city, armed, and using Communist / Anarchist imagery to fight with them?

There have been several stupid little neo-Nazi rallies the past 20 years or so. Usually people ignore them or laugh at them, and the stupid little neo-Nazis go home. Mutual combat needs two willing participants and last weekend that need was met.

I do think your imagined discussion wasn't a fair paraphrasing. If you cannot make a cogent case against my opinions, making stuff up isn't a suitable substitute...it's a logical fallacy and the mark of a lost argument. Just ask any fan of debate.

Source?

"[T]he people who came to the city, armed, and using Communist / Anarchist imagery to fight with them?" And your source for this claim would be who?

This was not a "stupid little neo-Nazi rall[y]." This was advertised nationally, and drew white nationalists from across the country. This was never going to be a few doofuses wearing brown shirts in the park.

"I do think your imagined discussion wasn't a fair paraphrasing." Agree to disagree. The objection that everyone be denounced or no one be denounced is moral bankruptcy.

Funny how "Trump" and "bankruptcy" seem to go together, isn't it?

My source? You are joking

My source? You are joking right?

The group that Ms. Heyer was marching with were armed with pipes and baseball bats as is clearly seen in the video of the killing plastered everywhere. There are hundreds of video clips of the fighting out there...everyone has something in their hand.

Heres a shot of their Soviet flag

https://twitter.com/AnonYmo55047328/status/896376262964465664

"This was not a "stupid little neo-Nazi rall[y]." This was advertised nationally, and drew white nationalists from across the country"

So that necessitated a violent response? Well, that's a point of view, and you are welcome to it.

I have no objection to denouncing anyone out there rioting, burning, looting, committing assaults or other violent acts, individually or as a group; done so three times now.

Who needs to be excused to meet your standard of moral consistency?

Curiouser and Curiouser

It's funny that the known leftists of the Federalist Society had at least two correspondents on the ground in Charlottesville and neither of them mentioned the communist imagery or the weapons.

It's funny that the picture does not seem to turn up anywhere else online.

It's funny that one flag leads you to claim an equivalence with the explicitly racist, fascist organizers of the protest.

False

You should ask the people of Charlottesville about the moral consistency.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_th...

The counterprotesters came to protect people from harassment of the Nazis. They stood with the local clergy to keep them safe. These people are heroes. True American Patriots.

To compare them to the Nazis is a vicious lie. You may not like their politics, but they were there to do good and fight evil

Sorry Mr.Senker, but whenever

Sorry Mr.Senker, but whenever anyone offers a one-line condensation of what a politician like Obama says, you know there is a lot being left out. His comments came at a press conference with Spain's president while traveling in Spain--the morning after the shooting in Dallas

(quote)
....one of the great things about America is that individual citizens and groups of citizens can petition their government, can protest, can speak truth to power. And that is sometimes messy and controversial. But because of that ability to protest and engage in free speech, America, over time, has gotten better. We've all benefited from that.

The abolition movement was contentious. The effort for women to get the right to vote was contentious and messy. There were times when activists might have engaged in rhetoric that was overheated and occasionally counterproductive. But the point was to raise issues so that we, as a society, could grapple with it. The same was true with the Civil Rights Movement, the union movement, the environmental movement, the anti-war movement during Vietnam. And I think what you're seeing now is part of that longstanding tradition.

What I would say is this -- that whenever those of us who are concerned about fairness in the criminal justice system attack police officers, you are doing a disservice to the cause. First of all, any violence directed at police officers is a reprehensible crime and needs to be prosecuted. But even rhetorically, if we paint police in broad brush, without recognizing that the vast majority of police officers are doing a really good job and are trying to protect people and do so fairly and without racial bias, if our rhetoric does not recognize that, then we're going to lose allies in the reform cause.

Now, in a movement like Black Lives Matter, there’s always going to be some folks who say things that are stupid, or imprudent, or overgeneralized, or harsh. And I don't think that you can hold well-meaning activists who are doing the right thing and peacefully protesting responsible for everything that is uttered at a protest site. But I would just say to everybody who’s concerned about the issue of police shootings or racial bias in the criminal justice system that maintaining a truthful and serious and respectful tone is going to help mobilize American society to bring about real change. And that is our ultimate objective.

Now, this week, people felt hurt and angry, and so some of this is just venting. But I think that the overwhelming majority of people who are involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, what they really want to see is a better relationship between the police and the community so that they can feel that it's serving them. And the best way to do that is to bring allies forward. That means -- that includes, by the way, the police departments that are doing the right thing, like Dallas, which has implemented the very reforms that Black Lives Matter has been seeking. That's part of why it's so tragic that those officers were targeted in Dallas, a place that is -- because of its transparency and training and openness and engagement in the community -- has drastically brought down the number of police shootings and complaints about misconduct.

The flip side of that -- and this is the last point I'll make -- is just as my hope would be that everybody involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, or other civil rights organizations or who are protesting -- just as I want all of them to maintain a respectful, thoughtful tone -- because, as a practical matter, that's what’s going to get change done -- I would hope that police organizations are also respectful of the frustration that people in these communities feel and not just dismiss these protests and these complaints as political correctness, or as politics or attacks on police. There are legitimate issues that have been raised, and there’s data and evidence to back up the concerns that are being expressed by these protesters.

And if police organizations and departments acknowledge that there’s a problem and there’s an issue, then that, too, is going to contribute to real solutions. And, as I said yesterday, that is what’s going to ultimately help make the job of being a cop a lot safer. It is in the interest of police officers that their communities trust them and that the kind of rancor and suspicion that exists right now is alleviated.

So I'd like all sides to listen to each other. And that's what we'll hopefully be able to accomplish over the course of the next week and over the course of the remaining months that I'm President.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/10/remarks...

(end quote)

I guess you kind of missed the statement...."First of all, any violence directed at police officers is a reprehensible crime and needs to be prosecuted."

Didn't find that in your snipped quote.

"So I'd like all sides to

"So I'd like all sides to listen to each other. "

All sides?

"The flip side of that..."

The flip side?

"And I don't think that you can hold well-meaning activists who are doing the right thing and peacefully protesting responsible for everything that is uttered at a protest site."

He is clearly gaslighting the situation.

You have to remember, this statement was made in the aftermath of a BLM riot where 12 cops were shot, and 5 died.

Is there a flip side to that? Why did he need a "First of all" preamble if not to softshoe what came next?

There is no way any of that can be sufficient, but especially so if you're going to cast aspersions on what Trump said.

Lets try it together:
"I reject neo-Nazis, the KKK, BLM, Antifa, racists of all color and haters of all political stripes."

Sorry that you miss the point

Sorry that you miss the point that the Fascists are called fascists because they believe in fascism, which is entirely against the founding ideals of America. Their goals are to make America LESS fair and LESS just.

Not what "a more perfect union" is directed at.

OK, lets try this together:

OK, lets try this together:

"I reject neo-Nazis, the KKK, BLM, Antifa, Fascists, racists of all color and haters of all political stripes."

Try Again

There is no group called "antifa." If you want people to denounce the concept of opposition to fascism, that dog won't hunt.

Unless you can show why BLM was formed specifically for the purpose of denying rights to anyone or celebrating oppression, there's no comparison there. Yes, members have committed criminal acts, and I'm sure you are mortally offended by the sight of . . . um . . . certain types blocking the highways and objecting to police brutality of . . . um . . . certain types, but I'm not going to draw an analogy between them and the Klan.

RB, I sincerely believe you

RB, I sincerely believe you don't see what you just did there. But I would be remiss not to point out that their members and apologists used to deny the existence of the klan.

Thankfully they don't get away with it today and neither do apologists of antifa...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

From Your Link

"Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform. The group doesn't have an official leader or headquarters, although groups in certain states hold regular meetings."

There are many people who identify as "antifa." I am well aware of that fact. That is not the same as saying there is a group called "antifa.

Denying the Klan existed? Sure, I've heard of people doing that. I've also heard people dismissing the rise of white supremacist groups as "several stupid little neo-Nazi rallies the past 20 years or so."

Antifa

They are patriotic Americans who stand up to Nazi traitors. In Charlottesvile, they came to protect the innocent from un-American monsters. True heroes.

Just for the record, in

Just for the record, in Charlottesville there are 5 elected city council members who then select one of their own members to be mayor and one to be vice-mayor. Their terms are two years, and they are replaced by the others.

But aside from the intricacies of city organization, by what means does the past actions of one council member negate everything that happened? Perhaps you may want to discount Bellamy's statements as hypocrisy, but as for everything else--it's not about Bellamy.

As for the "scrubbed" internet...I goggled his name and the netwebby innertube thing threw up thousands of results. So much for secrecy...

Racism build this ...

country and it now will tear it apart. Unless we pay the piper its due. There isn't anymore running away. Chase the hate away.

Unfortunately, the president is insane

How's the weather where you are?

Can you tell?

Or do you need someone else to tell you whether it's raining or hot or cold or nice out?

Last year a Minnesotan won the Nobel Prize for literature.

Hibbing's own, Bob Dylan.

The reason he won that award was literature like this:

"Maggie comes fleet foot

Face full of black soot

Talkin’ that the heat put

Plants in the bed but

The phone’s tapped anyway

Maggie says that many say

They must bust in early May

Orders from the D.A.

Look out kid

Don’t matter what you did

Walk on your tiptoes

Don’t try 'No-Doz'

Better stay away from those

That carry around a fire hose

Keep a clean nose

Watch the plain clothes

You don’t need a weatherman

To know which way the wind blows"

https://bobdylan.com/songs/subterranean-homesick-blues/

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Or do you?

Did you vote for Trump?

Do you still support him?

After this white supremacist thing in Virginia in which the president of the United States of America was, "political metaphor" speakingly, driving the car that killed that woman via contemporary political remote control, why?

If you're up to the challenge of explaining your continuing support for him just click "reply" (it's easy) and tell me about it.

Tell me why you disagree with the idea -- given everything that's happened since he was elected and took office -- that the president of the United States is insane.

Thanks.

(And, before you get all flippant and ideological, don't forget about the last line of that piece of Nobel Prize-winning literature, "The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles" . . . Not that contemporary Republican ideology could be, in any way, synonymous with those "vandals," but you know what the weather and pump handle situation's like where you live, right? . . . Looking forward to your report on that too . . . Thanks again.)

Did you know "the weatherman"

Did you know "the weatherman" Dylan was referring to was a the Weather Underground, a lefty terrorist group that carried out several bombings?

One of their leaders was Bill Ayers...yup, *that* Bill Ayers.

Awkward.

That would be a nice scary

That would be a nice scary tale if Dylan hadn't released the song, Subterranean Homesick Blues, in 1965 and the Weather Underground wasn't founded in 1969.

Awkward.

That *was* Awkward.

That *was* Awkward.