By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following widespread condemnation, a video posted by President Trump depicting former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as apes has been removed from his social media. Initially defended by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt as a misinterpreted internet meme, the post was later attributed to an unnamed White House staffer who “erroneously” posted it. This explanation came after prominent Republican Senator Tim Scott publicly denounced the video as “the most racist thing” he had seen and demanded its removal.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a recurring theme when controversial content, especially content that leans into racist tropes, appears under the purview of certain political figures. In this instance, following the sharing of a video depicting the Obamas in a dehumanizing, ape-like manner, the immediate response from the administration was to disavow the post and, more pointedly, to point the finger at an unnamed “staffer.” This swift deflection, almost immediately after the video was taken down, paints a picture of frantic damage control, a characteristic that observers have come to recognize.
The narrative that a low-level staffer acted unilaterally and erroneously to post such inflammatory material raises immediate questions. If a staffer truly had the access and inclination to post such content, it points to a severe lapse in oversight and security within the White House communications apparatus. The fact that the post remained up for a significant period, roughly 12 hours, before being removed further undermines the idea of a simple, isolated mistake by a junior employee. It suggests a lack of immediate awareness or, perhaps, a period of endorsement before the fallout became too significant to ignore.
This pattern of blaming subordinates or external factors for questionable actions is not new. It appears to be a well-rehearsed playbook designed to shield the principal from direct accountability. When faced with the reality of a racist depiction and the inevitable public outcry, the immediate move is to find a scapegoat, a nebulous “staffer” who can absorb the blame without the need for the individual at the top to confront their own role or, more significantly, their own potential biases.
The argument that the outrage over the video was somehow manufactured or fake, only to be followed by its removal and a blame-shifting tactic, creates a clear contradiction. If the initial stance was that the video wasn’t problematic, its subsequent takedown and the explanation for it suggest a strategic recalculation rather than genuine belief in its harmlessness. The press secretary’s assertion that the outrage was fabricated, juxtaposed with the swift action to remove the post and blame a staffer, highlights a clear disconnect and a lack of consistent messaging.
The notion that the president himself could be unaware of or not involved in content posted under his name is particularly strained when considering the nature of such platforms. It begs the question of who truly controls the social media accounts and the messaging emanating from the highest office. The defense that it was a “staffer’s” error also inadvertently raises concerns about the judgment and vetting processes for individuals entrusted with such access. If a staffer is capable of such a egregious error, it reflects poorly on the leadership that hired and retained them.
Furthermore, the repeated instances of similar accusations and the lack of tangible consequences for those involved, even when faced with seemingly undeniable evidence of wrongdoing, foster a sense of impunity. This environment, where accountability seems optional, allows for such incidents to recur, leaving many to question the motivations behind them and the complicity of those who enable this cycle of blame-shifting. The very act of blaming an unnamed staffer, rather than identifying and disciplining them, further fuels the suspicion that the explanation is a convenient fabrication.
The idea that this was an accident by a staffer is further complicated by the history and public perception surrounding the individual. The underlying sentiment expressed in the discourse is that this behavior, including the use of racist imagery and the subsequent deflection, aligns with a pre-existing perception of the individual’s character. This makes the “staffer” explanation less believable and more of a predictable tactic to sidestep responsibility for actions that many believe are not only attributable but perhaps even intentional. The absence of any named individual, disciplinary action, or a sincere apology only solidifies the belief that the blame is being manufactured to protect the principal.