Trump offended his Black audience. Mistake or part of the plan?

17

Hello and happy Thursday. There are 95 days until the election and today we’re starting with a PSA about the dangers of mixing deep-fried butter with politics.

There’s an ad playing on my Hulu feed, disrupting my reruns of “The Rookie” (my teens have a weird obsession with Nathan Fillion), and it’s making me big mad.

It’s about California Assembly Bill 886 — a measure by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an ex-Obama staffer who represents a district that includes Berkeley. The bill, in my opinion as someone whose job seems to be in daily jeopardy, is the last great hope for the news business in California, and maybe the United States.

Basically, it forces Google and other internet platforms to share the money they make off selling advertising against the news that this paper (which supports the bill) and every other news organization produces. Instead of just stealing it.

But a trade organization representing Google and other internet companies is running a streaming spot that is Trump-level disinformation about the measure, making it seem as if companies such as this one are out to crush little guys.

“Tell lawmakers, support local journalism. Not well connected media companies. Oppose AB 886,” the ad warns.

Wuuut??? Are you kidding me? These internet companies have spent more than $1 million to kill this bill. The Times, like other newspapers, has laid off hundreds.

So here’s my PSA: This ad is like deep-fried butter — looks good, but swallow that crunchy goop and you’ll be full of regret.

OK, on to Trump and that insane interview at the National Assn. of Black Journalists conference. So much to unpack.

The new Abraham Lincoln

Here’s the recap: Trump did a panel interview at the National Assn. of Black Journalists’ convention Wednesday. Before he showed up on stage, there was controversy among Black journalists about whether Trump — with his long and documented history of racist remarks and lies (think “fine people on both sides”) — should be platformed at the Chicago event.

Some said yes, it’s the job of journalists to get answers from anybody and everybody. Others said giving a racist a microphone gets you nothing but bigotry at full-blast.

Turns out both sides were right. He was thunderous in his rambling. He attacked ABC News reporter Rachel Scott. He dog-whistled racist tropes about Black people being disorganized or late when the panel didn’t start on time, then claimed (as he has many times before) that he’s done more for Black people than Abraham Lincoln, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

He was, in short, himself — putting all of his own fried-butter theories on full blast. Which I suppose is good?

OK, you say, nothing new.

Why does this matter? A couple reasons — all involving wedges (not butter!).

Stolen ‘Black jobs’

First, Trump has updated his favorite “invaders” line with a new threat — immigrants are now stealing “Black jobs” (and even “Hispanic jobs”).

Immigrants are “taking the employment away from Black people. They’re coming in, and they’re coming in. They’re invading. It’s an invasion of millions of people,” he said with his usual crisp clarity.

Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University, told me that Trump is trying to tap into the reality that there is concern in the Black community about the border — a concern that is nothing new, but often overlooked.

“There isn’t uniform, widespread support for immigration in African American communities,” she told me.

That division has California roots, said Ange-Marie Hancock, executive director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University. Proposition 187, a Golden State ballot measure, demonized immigrants long before MAGA picked up the banner.

Back then, politicians used the fear of immigrants taking jobs and benefits too.

“Somebody is reading Pete Wilson’s playbook” Hancock said, referring to the California governor who rode anti-immigrant hate to reelection victory.

Sadly, that tactic is proving just as effective today as it was in the 1990s, and Trump is attempting to capitalize on it in the hopes of peeling off even a few Black votes.

Harris pivoted this week to tackle immigration, detailing her record of going after drug and human traffickers. But Trump still owns the rhetoric (along with the implication that “Black” jobs are unskilled labor).

“It does resonate especially in some of the cities where asylum seekers have been dumped by GOP governors, and cities have swung into motion to provide some services that ordinary Black people have either had to wait or continue to wait to receive,” Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, told me.

“But it is utterly cynical on his and other elected officials’ behalf,” she said.

Black enough

That cynicism was also apparent in his attacks on Kamala Harris, whom he tried to paint as not Black enough — somehow illegitimate in her Black identity because she is half South Asian.

“I’ve known her a long time, indirectly, not directly,” Trump said. “And she was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black, so I don’t know, is she Indian, or is she Black?”

Of course, Harris has never been anything but clear about her mixed race heritage, with a mom from South India and a dad from Jamaica. And there are 34 million mixed-race people in the U.S. (including myself and my kids) who constantly have to deal with the absurdity of having others decide who they are allowed to be. But her heritage isn’t really the point.

It was again another attempt to leverage an existing wedge in Black society, in a heavy-handed outsider way. But it fell flat. By Monday afternoon, a former “Daily Show” correspondent, Roy Wood Jr., had #WhenITurnedBlack trending on Twitter, (which I will never call X).

“Obviously the most alarming thing was his attempt to take Vice President Harris’ Blackness away from her,” Rachel Noerdlinger, an advisor to Win With Black Women, the Rev. Al Sharpton and others, said. “I can’t say I’m surprised by anything he said today, because of his past remarks, but it still doesn’t make it any less disturbing.”

The nasty lady problem

Beyond the racism, I’m going to point out that there was a thick sauce of misogyny covering the whole mess, especially in his attacks on Rachel Scott, the ABC journalist who tried to ask him a tough question about his past racist remarks at the beginning of the interview. He’s still attacking Scott on Twitter — and of course never answered her question.

It was reminiscent of his attacks on Megyn Kelly after the 2015 Republican presidential debate when she asked him about calling women, “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”

Trump was furious, and later told CNN, “There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

We’ve been through so much Trump trauma since that you’re forgiven for not remember that charming quip. But Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t like women who challenge him, whatever their race.

But here’s where we really drill down into the cynicism. Because Trump isn’t out of control. He’s calculated, and knows his audience. So why go to the NABJ conference, when it’s clearly a hostile crowd?

“It was clear that he was not there to truly win or persuade anyone,” Hancock said.

At best, Trump was grabbing headlines that in recent days have slipped out of his grasp, with Harris and even his vice presidential nominee, J.D. Vance, stealing a spotlight he loathes sharing, Hancock said.

At worst, the whole thing was meant to show off to his base, proving “he is willing and able to stand up to Black people and to make a case that he is the same person wherever he goes.”

Racist in a house, racist with a mouse, racist here or there, racist anywhere, to steal from Dr. Seuss.

His base may love his belligerence in a Black crowd. But Gillespie, the political scientist from Emory, thinks it may not play so well with average voters.

Her mom was texting her during Trump’s entire performance, she said — a rarity for an interview at a professional conference. People were paying attention.

“I suspect that this one is going to go viral,” she said. “It was a very unflattering earned media moment.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump’s first try at pivoting to Harris blows up in his face
The boots on the ground: Autoworkers Union Endorses Kamala Harris for president
The L.A. Times special: Harvey Weinstein may be extradited to California after Newsom signs warrant

P.S. Watch for yourself.

Here’s the full interview.

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.