I Watched 3 Old White Guys Talk About Race Tonight and Now I Am Dead Inside

“Are you in favor of law and order?”

Patrick Semansky/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Tuesday night, with the election just five weeks away, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden faced off in the first of three presidential debates. Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, the moderator of the debate, lost control of the evening early on and only intermittently reclaimed his authority. But in the end, nearly the entire evening consisted of the president shouting over and interrupting Biden, while Wallace attempted unsuccessfully to get the debate back on track. Individually and collectively the segments were often maddening to watch, as the former vice president struggled to get a word in edgewise over the rants of the middle-school sandlot bully masquerading as president of the United States. 

But even with the bar as low as it was, the segment on race and violence was especially infuriating. Unsurprisingly, the three white men on the debate stage failed to meet the moment.

When Wallace announced the topics for the evening last week, my alarm bells went off.

Records, check. SCOTUS, check. COVID-19, check. The economy, fine. And then, there it was: Race coupled with violence in cities. This wasn’t going to be a conversation about the persistence of racial injustice in this country, nor would it be about any of the issues facing Black America, like income inequality, health disparities, or police brutality. This would just give Trump a chance to lean into his racist narrative about this country and recite his greatest racist hits.

When Wallace announced it was time to discuss race and violence in the cities, he asked both candidates why Black people should support their bid for the White House. Biden gave an acceptable answer about racial equity—which Trump surprisingly didn’t interrupt—but when it became time for the president to answer, he focused on how much the police love him. Just to be clear, Black people should vote for Trump because law enforcement loves him?

Then, the president tried to paint Biden as The Real Racist. It’s true, Biden’s history with race relations leaves a lot to be desired. The 1994 Crime Bill, which he co-sponsored, helped create laws that disproportionately put Black and Brown people behind bars. But before anyone watching at home could begin to analyze why Trump was trying to attack Biden on criminal justice reform, the president engaged in one of his favorite indoor sports: Whenever someone mentions Black people, he takes a deep breath and starts screaming about “law and order.” Trump wanted Biden to profess his love for the phrase. “Are you in favor of law and order?” the president demanded. In Trump’s mind, it is perfectly logical to bill himself as the law and order candidate while assailing Biden for being too tough on crime.

“I’m in favor of it,” Biden responded. “Law and order with justice where people get treated fairly.” The ugly truth about “law and order” was revealed in the aftermath of the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Blake, a 27-year-old Black man, was shot in the back seven times for the crime of walking away from police. A few days later Kyle Rittenhouse, an armed white 17-year-old from Illinois, crossed state lines and killed two Black Lives Matter protesters who were demonstrating in support of Blake. Rittenhouse was revered as a hero on the right. As I wrote last month, when conservatives talk about law and order, they’re really talking about maintaining the racial hierarchy: 

Throughout history, we have seen how what is “law and order” for the dominant culture doesn’t apply to everyone. But as this era of pervasive corruption, state-sanctioned violence, and a pandemic that’s killed nearly 180,000 people makes abundantly clear, the harshest punishments for violating “law and order” are only doled out to certain people in certain places. When Trump and other right-wingers say they want “law and order,” they’re really sending a signal—less a dogwhistle than a bullhorn—to the other people guided by white supremacy: Break any law you want to maintain the current order. 

Unfortunately for the viewers at home, Trump was not done with the playlist of his greatest racism hits. Wallace also brought up the Trump administration’s recent plan to cancel the teaching of critical race theory in the federal government. “They were teaching people to hate their country,” Trump replied, adding that racial sensitivity training was “racist” and “sick.”

The “Race and Violence in our Cities” segment moved to the suburbs when the president yelled that the suburbs would be “ruined” under Biden. One of his talking points claims that Biden, with the help of Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), would allow low-income people to invade the suburbs. “It’s not the 1950s,” Biden responded, saying that the suburbs are diverse and integrated. The second part is definitely a reach, the suburbs remain segregated as ever, but it was the thought that counted.

As the segment wore on, it was easy to forget that somehow the candidates were supposed to be discussing race. Thanks to Wallace conflating race with violence (gee, no dogwhistle there), Trump was able to bellow about Antifa and blame Democratic governors and mayors for street violence, while not so subtly implying that everything would be just fine if those liberals could finally get their Blacks under control. 

As Trump bloviated, whined, insulted, and outright lied his way through 90 minutes, it became clear that this wasn’t a debate intended to sway voters, and the race segment certainly was not about appealing to Black voters. Trump’s talking points were familiar ones, essentially from his late night deranged tweet storms that usually appear after he’s overdosed on Fox News.

Everything Trump does, from his disastrous coronavirus response (once he found out who was dying), to his dog-whistling about suburbs, to his fixation on immigrants, is undergirded by race. So, it’s no surprise that the segment on race, with an able assist by Wallace, produced the most truly alarming  moment of the night. Wallace pointed out that Trump often falsely accuses Biden of not condemning violence from the left and asks him if he is willing to condemn right-wing violence. After Trump pretended that there is no such thing as violence from the right, Wallace name checked the Proud Boys, an extremist organization. “Proud Boys…stand back and stand by,” the president answered. It was far from a condemnation. In fact, it sounded an awful lot like an order.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate