In Defense of White Americans
"[W]hite Americans are not remotely the bigots the G.O.P. would have us believe. Just because a campaign trades in racism doesn’t mean that the country is racist. It’s past time to come to the unfairly maligned white America’s defense."
"[D]espite the months-long drumbeat of punditry to the contrary, there are not and have never been enough racists in 2008 to flip this election. In the latest New York Times/CBS News and Pew national polls, Obama is now pulling even with McCain among white men, a feat accomplished by no Democratic presidential candidate in three decades, Bill Clinton included. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey finds age doing more damage to McCain than race to Obama."
"Nor is America’s remaining racism all that it once was, or that the McCain camp has been hoping for it to be. There are even “racists for Obama,” as Politico labels the phenomenon: White Americans whose distrust of black people in general crumbles when they actually get to know specific black people, including a presidential candidate who extends a genuine helping hand in a time of national crisis. "
"Such human nuances are lost on conservative warriors of the Allen-McCain-Palin ilk. They see all Americans as only white or black, as either us or them. The dirty little secret of such divisive politicians has always been that their rage toward the Others is exceeded only by their cynical conviction that Real Americans are a benighted bunch of easily manipulated bigots. This seems to be the election year when voters in most of our myriad Americas are figuring that out."
Frank Rich in the NYT. For more on "racists for Obama" see this and this. Apparently McCain is so incompetant he's persuading racists to vote for a black man.
"[D]espite the months-long drumbeat of punditry to the contrary, there are not and have never been enough racists in 2008 to flip this election. In the latest New York Times/CBS News and Pew national polls, Obama is now pulling even with McCain among white men, a feat accomplished by no Democratic presidential candidate in three decades, Bill Clinton included. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey finds age doing more damage to McCain than race to Obama."
"Nor is America’s remaining racism all that it once was, or that the McCain camp has been hoping for it to be. There are even “racists for Obama,” as Politico labels the phenomenon: White Americans whose distrust of black people in general crumbles when they actually get to know specific black people, including a presidential candidate who extends a genuine helping hand in a time of national crisis. "
"Such human nuances are lost on conservative warriors of the Allen-McCain-Palin ilk. They see all Americans as only white or black, as either us or them. The dirty little secret of such divisive politicians has always been that their rage toward the Others is exceeded only by their cynical conviction that Real Americans are a benighted bunch of easily manipulated bigots. This seems to be the election year when voters in most of our myriad Americas are figuring that out."
Frank Rich in the NYT. For more on "racists for Obama" see this and this. Apparently McCain is so incompetant he's persuading racists to vote for a black man.
Here's MSNBC's Rachel Maddow talking with Melissa Harris-Lacewell on the declining influence of racism in America.
Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain, Racism, US Presidential Election 2008
posted by David Wearing at 9:49 AM
23 Comments:
Mr. Wearing,
This is the Chomsky foe again.
Mr. McCain is not my candidate.
McCain might have had a better shot at winning - assuming, as I do here, that he will lose the election and rather handily at that - had he actually made a race appeal. He did not.
In fact, he could have appealed directly to race by racing legitimate issues regarding Obama's background, most particularly his alliances with his bigoted and Antisemitic preacher and with the Nation of Islam. McCain chose not to do that and has been roundly criticized by many of his vocal supporters for not doing so. Moreover, such would have been a legitimate issue, since the backgrounds and alliances of candidates always becomes an issue, just as it has with Palin's husband, who belonged to a separatist party.
Instead, McCain fumbled on dealing with the economic crisis, as the evidence clearly shows; and on William Ayers, with whom Obama may have had an alliance - along with Obama's friend Rashid Khalidi - at one time but which McCain has allowed Obama, like Mrs. Clinton did before, to escape unscathed.
The most interesting fact about this election is that an inexperienced senator with a resume which shows no public accomplishments at all is likely to win the presidency. The most likely explanation for his rise to prominence is his race, since he seems to attract voters who, up to now, have never voted in large numbers. That, after all, is how he beat Mrs. Clinton - most particularly in the Southern states.
You might note that there are now left wingers - e.g. at CounterPunch - who claim that Obama intends to give Iran an ultimatum and, thereafter, to attack Iran if Iran does not give in. If that is true, such makes his background and his present all the more mysterious, since he previous associations were typically of the view that the US ought not do such things. I tend to think that such interpretation of events is disconnected from reality and that Obama's past will be prelude for him, as it is with most other politicians. Hence, it is certainly fair game to explore that past, including his relationships with his bigoted and Antisemitic preacher, the man he called his mentor and great life influence. One has to wonder about such alliances, just a little bit. Don't you think so? Or, do bigots and Antisemites not bother you?
There are certainly Americans who will not vote for a black man. There is no doubt about it. But, they are more than balanced out by the numbers of voters who are voting for him almost entirely because he is black. After all, no one points to a single accomplishment he has made as a reason to vote for him. Rather, it is (a) that he is not a Republican (which is a big factor now), (b) that he says he wants change (a message tried very successfully in Massachusetts by his friend Duval Patrick (and, by the way, Patrick's popularity plummeted in my home state, Massachusetts [and, note, I voted for him although, at this point, I have to say that he is a pretty awful governor], because there is not much substance to Patrick's "yes we can" agenda) and (c) because Obama is an African American and, hence, attractive to a very large segment of the vote, exactly for that reason.
And, by the way, I mention Patrick because his campaign was, in fact, a model for Obama - one Obama consciously chose to mimic. In fact, I believe that his campaign advisers were also connected to Patrick. And, Patrick and Obama are friends.
anonymous poster, thanks for your comment.
I don't have you down as a foe. In my view, productive discussion and combat are very different things.
I had a particularly close look at two substantive polls at the start of this month, and it was very clear that the public prefer Obama to McCain because they prefer his policies and personality.
I doubt that there are many beyond the paranoid conspiracist fringe of the hard right who genuinely think (or could be persuaded to think) it credible that Obama might be some secret radical terrorist-sympathiser/anti-semite. Or that the Republicans putting more stress on that angle in their campaigning would in any way help them.
Mr. Wearing,
I know a great many Democrats. Concern with his past alliances, in fact, is a serious undercurrent in the US - even among Democrats. I know of many people who have said this and that they have serious misgivings about him. This may not be picked up by polls but, beyond all doubt, it is there.
Moreover, there is no doubt that he garners most of his support from African Americans because of his skin color. Otherwise, why not vote for Mrs. Clinton, who clearly was an advocate for African Americans and whose husband was, by a long stretch, did more to advance African Americans in the US than any other president in a very long time?
I wouldn't say that anecdotal and impressionistic analysis has no value at all. Not if its done sensibly. But social science research like opinion polling is designed to give a more reliable overall picture (not 100% perfect of course). The polls show a public that is broadly comfortable with Obama. That's probably why GOP scaremongering about his inexperience/closet radicalism etc has got no traction. The claims have no credibility as far as most of the public are concerned.
I don't find the view that black America supports Obama mostly because he is black a persuasive one. I suppose whether you take that view or not depends on your assessment of your fellow human beings and how they make decisions such as this.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/14/race_and_gender_in_presidential_politics
anyone interested in hearing more from melissa harris lace-well should check out this debate.
Mr. Wearing,
The fact that Obama has the support of maybe 95+% of African Americans might suggest that race is the determinative factor for African Americans. That he has higher support among African Americans than any Democrat has ever polled might suggest that as well. That such interpretation is reported in the US media - and has been discussed at length on NPR, with interviews with African Americans, who confirm such view - might be helpful as well.
As for polling, such technique only can find answers to the questions asked. I suspect that polling, if any has been done on the issue, would confirm such fact. In fact, I suspect that there is polling that confirms such fact.
Samuel - thanks for that, I'll take a look.
Anonymous poster, perhaps you misexpressed yourself earlier, but your comment about choosing Obama over Clinton did rather seem to suggest that "most" black voters were choosing racial allegiance even over their own self-interest.
If that is indeed your view then its one your entitled to, of course. But one can appreciate why a polling organisation wouldn't consider it persuasive enough to be worth testing for.
Mr. Wearing,
In the US media, it has been reported over and over again that African Americans support Obama by record numbers. It was, as reported repeatedly, the African American vote which carried him over Mrs. Clinton, most especially in the South. And, most important of all, it has been noted that the percentage of African Americans who have voted - which was the basis of his victories in the South - is basically 4 times what is normal for African Americans, going by historical precedents.
yes, the question is then whether this supports your conclusion - which you appear to stand by - that "most" black voters are choosing racial allegiance even over their own self-interest.
Again, I suppose whether you take that view or not depends on your assessment of your fellow human beings and how they make decisions such as this.
Mr. Wearing,
I see nothing unusual here. When John Kennedy ran, Catholics tended to be attracted to him in larger numbers, in part for that reason. When Joe Lieberman ran as the VP candidate, Jewish voters tended to find that to be a reason to vote for Gore.
In the case of Obama, there is increased interest in him by African Americans that is not explainable wholly due to his policies, since they were more or less identical to those of Mrs. Clinton. And, the civil rights community lined up, early on, behind Mrs. Clinton, only to fall off sharply after Iowa, when it was shown that an African American could win white voters. And, he did win most African American votes, notwithstanding the great contributions by the Clinton family toward African American economic progress. And, the numbers of African Americans who voted in the primaries is unprecedented in US history.
I find it bizarre that you even consider it a serious question that an African American would be more likely to vote for an African American candidate. In the US, it is standard fair for an ethnic group to favor a candidate of the same background. That has a very long history.
ok, so apologies if I wasn't clear.
The question was not whether ethnic demographics tend to favour candidates of the same ethnicity. Or whether the fact that they do is pure co-incidence.
The question was the validity of the assertion that "most" black voters are choosing racial allegiance even over their own self-interest.
If that latter statement were true, then it would follow that a Presidential race between Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton would have seen the historic desertion of "most" African American voters from the Democratic ticket. Under your argument, this would have occured even if we assume that black voters would generally continue to see their self interest being served by voting Democrat, as has traditionally been the case. They would have voted Rice anyway, and four more years of a Republican White House, on the basis that Rice is black.
It would also follow, from your assertion, that a Presidential race between John Edwards and Gary Coleman would have led to a mass African American defection to the Coleman ticket (followed possibly by a Coleman Presidency and the inevitable "what'chu talkin' 'bout, Ahmadinejad?")
Sorry, but I did ask if you really meant that "most" black voters are choosing racial allegiance even over their own self-interest.
So in seriousness, of course certain religious/ethnic groups tend to line up behind candidates from the same group, but its more reasonable to assume that they do so because they believe that person will represent them particularly well - not through blind racial allegiance.
The belief that the candidate from the group will represent the group well, or at least better than others would, may often be accurate. But if it is obvious that they will not, then it is reasonable to assume that those voters will support a candidate not from their racial/religious background, even where one is available, because they have rather more important concerns on their minds than racial allegiance, and because they're rational, intelligent human beings.
If black America overwhelmingly votes Obama then I would assume that for most of those people its because they've made a rational decision about what serves their self interest and probably some higher concerns and ideals as well. I would assume that they chose him over Clinton on the same basis. Whether you personally thought Clinton was the rational choice for black America is not relevant to this question. The issue is what black America thinks (and the acknowledgement that it does).
Mr. Wearing,
The assumption that draws a person to vote for someone of their own background is that such a person would favor that person. Which is to say, such a vote is the ultimate in voting on a self-interested basis.
If, on the other hand, you mean that someone would vote for policies which are objectively against their own interest, solely due to ethnic affinity, that assumes that there is a way to be objective about all of this. I tend to vote for Democrats. But, my self-interest, if we go by my economic situation, would clearly have me vote for Republicans. But, since I am in a minority, I perceive Democrats as better protecting my interests. But, will that be what Democrats do? Maybe. There is, I think, no way to be objective about any of this.
So, I think your question makes no sense.
its my question now?
Well, whatever. We can certainly agree that a voter's choice is a complex one.
Mr. Wearing,
Now you do not even read what you wrote - your question, as you will see below. Here are your words:
The question was not whether ethnic demographics tend to favour candidates of the same ethnicity. Or whether the fact that they do is pure co-incidence.
The question was the validity of the assertion that "most" black voters are choosing racial allegiance even over their own self-interest.
wow
ok, anonymous poster, I'll assume your confusion is genuine and just make the gentle suggestion that you carefully re-read the thread from the beginning.
Mr. Wearing,
The question of self-interest overriding interest in support people of the same ethnic background was, in fact, your question, not mine.
extraordinary.
So, why not address the point I made, which is that such distinction between voting for a person of one's own ethnic background versus voting for a person who has the same self-interest as the voter is not logically sustainable, since the very reason for supporting a candidate of the same background is the expectation that such candidate will advance that voter's self interest?
Surely, you are wise enough to realize that the point you have raised is not necessarily well considered.
yes, I addressed that in the comment above with the time stamp 4:49 PM
I have re-read what you have written. You and and have not answered my question.
I re-iterate a point that has been noted repeatedly in the US, by both people on the left and the right. Had Obama been Caucasian, there is virtually no chance he would have been the candidate for the Democrats. His lack of experience coupled with his lack of any describable achievements would have doomed him. What carried him, aside from his elegant speaking voice, was the fact that he was a new face and an exotic one. And, on top of that, in the Southern states, the unprecedented support of African Americans overwhelmed the Clinton machine.
Such is why there has been so much discussion, in the US, about the "new" voter - which is described as college students and African Americans. By that is meant that neither group has ever, before Obama, shown up in large numbers to vote. In fact, if the polling on the "new" voter turns out to be overstated, Obama will not likely win the election, since the polling has all been adjusted on the assumption that African Americans and young people will turn out in numbers never before seen in US politics.
Note: Mrs. Clinton was supported by virtually every person who claimed to be a civil rights leader. Her husband did more to improve the lives of African Americans than any president other than Lincoln and, perhaps, LBJ. The Clintons were loved and admired. Before the Iowa caucus, her support among African Americans was overwhelming.
Nonetheless, as soon as Obama did well in Iowa, the African American vote deserted Mrs. Clinton in droves. And, not only that, they voted for Obama at a rate beyond the rate ever seen for African Americans and, by percentage, more for one candidate than in any previous election.
So, clearly, race had a lot to do with his getting ahead, since clearly Mrs. Clinton was by all accounts as pro-African American as any candidate ever to run for office, including Obama.
I am not saying that supporting one's own is a bad thing. In fact, I see nothing wrong with it at all. I am merely saying that it is certainly the truth in this case.
Your comment at 4:49 suggests that you think that African Americans would not have shown up in large numbers to vote for an African American Republican. I am not so sure that is correct, were such a candidate somehow to get the nomination of the Republican party to run for President. I bet that Colin Powell would also have obtained overwhelming African American support, if he ran as a Republican, and would receive an unprecedented turn out.
Again, the fact that someone votes for a candidate suggests the voter thinks the candidate will serve the voter's interest, if not the voter's perception of what is that interest.
Its a theory. But if Obama has little going for him apart from his colour, then one wonders why so many non-black people have voted and will vote for him.
Have they been seduced by his "exotic face", as you put it? Well one can speculate about that if one wishes. But a rather more perusuasive (if boring and straightforward) explanation is that they agree with the policies and approach that he is proposing to take as President. Or at least that they prefer his proposed policies and approach to that of Clinton and McCain. This, at least, is what the evidence has been telling us.
Obama's ability to mobilise new, often young voters with his (in some ways pretty vacuous) message of "change", and his ability to mobilise African American voters with, amongst other things, his symbolic value as a plausible black candidate, is of course all part of the picture. I would just note that the picture is rather more broad and complex than that.
I would also note that "experience" has clearly been trumped by "judgement" in the voters minds. When the political class in general is held in such low esteem by the public (I believe Congress is even less liked that Bush) its understandable that the achievements of established politicians will impress voters a good deal less than the promise of "a different kind of politics" altogether.
Of course, whether Obama fulfills that promise remains to be seen.
Mr. Wearing,
You are confusing apples and oranges.
I am not saying that there is only one reason that people might vote for Obama. I said that his background is what likely trumped Mrs. Clinton, who has substantially more experience in the national spotlight - most particularly given that he has no relevant experience. And, it may be what would have trumped Mr. McCain, who has substantial experience in the national spotlight, had the economy not spun out of control.
I do not think that judgment has a lot to do with what is going on here. Rather, McCain is a Republican which is, as has been stated repeatedly on TV and radio, currently a toxic brand name.
Whether that is fair to McCain, I do not know, since he has a long history both, on the negative side (as matters now are) of being a conservative but, at the same time, being a believer - and this really is unusual for American conservatives of contemporary politics - in the honorable compromise. That latter part of his approach is certainly what has earned him close friendships with people like Joe Biden. They are known to hold rather similar views about the world and there families are very close. Such, in fact, is true among a large group of liberal democrats.
In fact, his friendships with Democrats are greater than those with most Republicans, which, to note, is a reason that, were this ordinary times, would strongly favor McCain to a very large segment of Americans.
Post a Comment
<< Home