The Promise and Failure of President Clinton's Race Initiative of 1997-1998: A Rhetorical Perspective

The Promise and Failure of President Clinton's Race Initiative of 1997-1998: A Rhetorical Perspective Martin Carcasson and Mitchell F. Rice Labeled "naive," "lackluster," "rudderless," a "sham," "blind to reality," a "dud," and "timid," President Clinton's race initiative was heavily criticized throughout its 15-month existence. Perhaps without actually listening to what has been said, many dismissed the entire proposition of a national dialogue concerning race. Others rejected the race initiative as simply a spurious attempt by the embattled president either to deflect the multitude of charges brought against him, or to grasp any issue that may assist in creating his elusive "legacy" for future generations. Still others rejected Clinton's strategy due to partisan politics: conservatives attacked the race initiative as simply a front in the defense of affirmative action, while liberals attacked Clinton's program as timid talk when bold action was needed.1 This essay examines Clinton's race initiative through a rhetorical lens with the intent to better understand both the race initiative and Clinton's perspective on the nation's racial condition. By examining a large sample of presidential remarks connected , directly or indirectly, to the race initiative, we provide a focused analysis of a rhetorical performance that was distributed through a number of specific addresses, political writings, and question-and-answer sessions at various meetings. We argue Clinton's initiative as presented in 1997 and 1998 failed due to three primary factors: the inherent constraints relevant to modern discussions about race, the degree to which the presidential scandals overwhelmed the administration's and the media's time, and the presence of numerous flaws and inconsistencies in Clinton's arguments. The faults include the assumption that the avoidance of difficult issues would somehow alleviate their salience, the contradiction between Clinton's rhetoric and his support of affirmative action, and the reliance on unrealistic ideals. Only a few positive outcomes—such as the focus on local "promising practices" and the clear acknowledgment of some of America's past racial sins—can be identified. Final judgment on the race initiative, however, must be withheld until Martin Carcasson is a Ph.D. student in Speech Communication at Texas Ae-M University in College Station, Texas. Mitchell F. Rice is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Race and Ethnic Studies Institute at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. © Rhetoric & Public Affairs Vol. 2, No. 2,1999, pp. 243-274 ISSN 1094-8392 244 Rhetoric & Public Affairs it is determined whether Clinton is eventually able to harness the information gathered during the race initiative to make a more precise appeal for progress concerning race in America. In addition to providing a basis for understanding the program's problems and failures, this analysis also reveals important themes within Clinton's remarks that unveil his particular perspective concerning race in America. Specifically, Clinton's rhetoric significantly downplayed the role of past or present discrimination and racism in causing current racial inequalities, and focused more on economic and geographic factors (which followed the work of sociologist William Julius Wilson) and the need for more personal responsibility (which resembled the contemporary conservative argument). Interestingly, these perspectives clearly conflicted with the conclusions reached by Clinton's own race advisory board, which emphasized the enduring legacy of past and presently active discrimination. We begin this analysis by exploring the five elements of the rhetorical situation surrounding Clinton's program. Next, we analyze Clinton's racial rhetoric in depth, focusing on three aspects of Clinton's message—the strategic focus on the future, the selling of a particular ideal, and his suggestions for how to arrive at that ideal. Finally, we offer an overall critique of Clinton's strategies. The Rhetorical Situation According to Lloyd Bitzer, every rhetorical situation is affected by an exigence— described as "an imperfection marked by urgency"— which functions as its organizing principle. When President Bill Clinton introduced his national dialogue on race on June 14, 1997, during a commencement address at the University of California at San Diego, he emphasized that the time was ripe for such a national conversation precisely because no current crisis was plaguing the nation. Unlike Presidents Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, Clinton sought...