Race in the Race
I have been dragging my feet for days on writing a piece about the role race is playing in the campaign between McCain and Obama, using the above title. Now I just finished reading an op ed piece in the NY Times online, by Charles M. Blow, entitled "Racism and the Race". Mr. Blow refers to polling on the disinclination of white voters to vote for a black candidate and on how many people those same white voters know who would not vote for a black candidate. The results reported are quite disturbing.
My prompting to write was spawned by the McCain ad with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, dismissing Obama as a similar celebrity phenomenon of no substance. To me the ad contained an appeal to white prejudice against black men in relationships with white blonde women. Race is a political card and so it will be played. But it was the McCain campaign that accused the Obama campaign of playing the race card when Obama said that some people are concerned about voting for a candidate who does not look like the face on the dollar bill. Technically that may have been a playing of the race card, but if so, it was a defensive play, attempting to address the attitude found on the polls referred to in the NYT op ed piece.
Whites are defensive, insecure and scared by discussions of race. A minority race candidate in a majority white electorate makes a mistake if he initiates a racial discussion. Obama has not made that mistake. Race will be brought up increasingly and more abusively as the election draws nearer, financed by disgusting mongers like those behind the Swift Boat disgraces aimed at John Kerry.
Racial code words like "arrogant" and "kid" [substituting for "boy"] have already been used against Obama, the latter by Bill Clinton. Obama has to be careful about not defending himself too aggressively, lest he be portrayed as another "angry black man", as his former pastor was. Surrogates could be employed to make defenses against racial attacks, but that has a triple negative effect, reminding voters of the racial difference of the black candidate, distracting attention from other important issues and reinforcing the inner racial apprehensions of white voters.
This election should easily go to Obama. Democrats are in demand. Change is in the wind. Obama is eloquent, McCain clumsy. Obama and the Democrats have progressive plans, McCain and the Republicans offer only more of the same failures. The race is Obama's to lose, and if he does lose it, it will probably be because of race.
posted by Tom Blake | 3:36 PM
4 Comments:
The Charles Blow article on racism in the election is very interesting. The poll makes a lot of sense to me. Now that Hillary is out of the picture, I intend to vote for a black candidate. But I would have to say that most of the people I know would not.
But how would I really know? In the society in which I live it is bad manners to talk about politics in any explicit way. I talk about the merits of the candidates or of the issues on the ballot only in the privacy of my home to my wife. That's safe because she is apolitical. My daughter is very religious, so any discussion of religion and politics is awkward for us. Her husband is libertarian like so many Arizonans. (Having libertarian beliefs does not mean you vote the Libertarian Party. Very, very few libertarians do. They vote for the most hands off Republican candidate. McCain may have a problem in Arizona because libertarians might stay home.) My daughter-in-law is uncomfortable when the military is criticised. Another son and daughter-in-law have no interest at all in politics. So if the subject comes up their eyes glaze over.
We held a dinner party and invited two couples. My wife thought the party was a failure because of the divisiveness of the conversation. I had no idea what she meant. She reminded me that a female guest called Bush an imbecile. I vaguely remembered that and said, "so what, he is?". The male partner in the other couple said something to the effect that he became president, what have you accomplished? This whole interchange went in one ear and out the other for me, but I guess it had an effect. The wife of the offending male called the next day to apologize.
It seems to me that the old dictum not to speak of religion or politics is stronger than ever.
I would also like to comment on your title. I like "Race in the Race". I'm not comfortable with Blos's "Racism in the Race".
I think people will more likely vote for people who are like themselves, or, more precisely, are like the visions they have of themselves. So I see myself as well educated, intelligent, well traveled outside of the US, loathe to look for military solutions to conflict in the world, etc. So I see Obama as a stand in for me. Other people may call me an elitist for saying that, but I don't think I am.
Someone else may look at Obama and see that his color, upbringing outside the US, and his suspicion of the military, makes him an alien. I don't think it is accurate or fair to call my strawman a racist. But race is a definite factor in how he forms his opinions.
Racism is an evil thing. We should leave that term for people or political factions that desire publicly enforced discrimination against people based on race. Personal biases based on skin color or accent, or hairstyle should be refeered to as just that: a peculiar bias.
John from Phoenix
Religion and politics are probably the most combustible topics for discussion. Whoever chooses to bring either topic up with another runs the risk of encountering disagreement, sometimes vehement.
Religion has a way of involving itself with politics, or of allowing politics to get it involved. If the involvement is based on values shared by the community at large and if does not violate human rights, then it is probably not harmful. But if the involvement is based on values that the community at large does not share or if the involvement violates human rights of others, then it is bad.
People are entitled to more privacy regarding their religious views than regarding their political views, so long as religion stays out of politics. Non-political religious views do not have a direct bearing on other members of the community at large, but political views do. Even apolitical people have an affect on community politics, so community members have a right to bring politics up to anyone entitled to register to vote. In fact, it is pretty hard to have a discussion on most any topic without a politically interested person being able to quickly and legitimately point out a political aspect to it.
Many Americans are sick of eight years of wrapping politics in religion and the flag, all under the ruse of probably the most unqualified and dishonest President we have ever had. I can understand how your diner guest felt the need to point to the Bush imbecility, however, if she was not sure what reception her remark would get, she should have toned it down out of respect for the hosts. But the personal attack that was made on her by the other guest was out of line. His wife recognized that and delivered an apology, something he was not man enough to do.
I just watched Pastor Rick Warren's discussion with Obama and McCain in front of an audience at his Church. He is the author of "The Purpose Driven Life", and is a somewhat progressive evangelical Christian. By a coin flip, Obama answered Warren's questions for the first hour, while McCain was sequestered, and then McCain answered the same questions. The contrast between the two candidates was stark. Obama had an intelligent conversation with Warren, thoughtfully considering his answers and delivering them with the sincere nuance many required. McCain delivered his answers turning toward the congregation and quickly wove all his stump speech fragments into the responses, turning many things as quickly as possible into an aspect of terrorism, war or patriotism. Obama gave only a little of his personal story, when it was most relevant to the question. McCain used his prisoner of war story several times.
People like you and I would say Obama did best at the Warren forum, because his answers showed he would be the thoughtful President we need. But the pundits are giving it to McCain, because he adequately sucked up to religious voters and was brisk enough to hold the intellectually challenged. If any reluctant pro-Hillary voters tuned in, they had to be wrenching at the thought of voting for McCain.
This is getting scary. In addition to the racial undercurrent, the Warren forum showed that McCain is experienced at telling people what they want to hear. Barack Obama said he has faith that the American people will get the President they need. We don't need McCain, but if he does become President, then I will say that the American people got the President they deserve - as a consequence of their own stupidity in voting for him.
That's what I'm most afraid of: That Americans will get the president they deserve.
Call me an elitist, but I don't have a lot of faith in Average Joe American.
Chris
Chris, it is scary to think how much racial prejudice still exists under the surface of many whites, particularly older ones. I just heard of a 76 year old white widow who hates what Bush has done to this country and is a Democrat in most all her views, but who says she may not vote this time. The so-called reason she gives is that Obama is too nice and not attacking McCain enough. I think she just can't overcome her prejudice about having a black first family. She has previously expressed antipathy for Michelle Obama, but did not even bother to listen to her speak on Monday. She prefers to stick with her pre-judgment [prejudice]and not be challenged by acquiring accurate information.
Post a Comment
<< Home