Latest On The Race
According to USA Today polling, a majority believe Obama's election would make race relations better in America. If they think this is because he has better ideas on race, then I'm not sure if I agree. But if they think things'll be better because of his skin color, then I fear they'll be very disappointed if he wins.
Racial problems, and their solutions, arise from the ideas and perspectives that people have. No matter how groundbreaking they believe Obama's election is, I don't think blacks, whites, or any other groups are going to support solutions they'd otherwise disagree with just because Obama has a black father.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:05 AM
16 Comments:
I believe the thinking behind the "it'll get better" view is that some white people hope that some black people will finally accept that most white people are not crypto-racists. I know several black people -- mostly of an older generation -- who strongly believe that once you put them behind an anonymous voting booth curtain, there's no way most white people will vote for the black man. At least some of those cynics would have their eyes opened.
I mentioned this a few months ago, but the boomerang effect of an Obama presidency could be that it will give arguments to opponents of race-based preferences and affirmative action that they are no longer necessary (though opponents may say it was never necessary) and that racism is over. Some things you can just see coming. Probably as bogus as the argument that his election will improve radically race relations but disingenuous political arguments about race are an equal opportunity phenomena.
The only racial benefit I see coming from an Obama Presidency is that it will remove the argument "a black man can't be President" from any discussion about race.
But even that won't satisfy the Jesse Jacksons of the world, who apparently think Obama is too "uppity".
Beyond that, Obama has already played the presumptive race card during the election (by claiming that criticism directed at him will have a racial bias) and that does not bode well for his Presidency.
VG, I'd be interested in the basis for that last point. I thought he'd gone way out of his way to not attribute every criticism to racism, out of fear that folks (such as you, apparently) would jump on it and say "aha!"
June 21st:
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.
“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.
“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
He said he was also set for Republicans to say “he’s got a feisty wife,” in trying to attack his wife Michelle.
Two days later, in the AP:
Obama adviser David Axelrod said the Democrat's campaign will be on high alert for code words or innuendo meant to play on voters' racial sentiments. "We're going to be aggressive about pushing back on anything that we feel is inappropriate or misleading," he said.
It's not enough for McCain to say he cannot control independent groups airing racially charged ads on his behalf, Axelrod said, noting that the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" was independent of President Bush's campaign.
"We've seen this movie before," he said. "And we're not going to be passive in the face of those kinds of tactics."
QG, by doing this, Obama has made it clear that every criticism of him will be viewed through a prism of racial bias.
Sorry, VG -- that's ridiculous. He and his campaign said they would be on the lookout for efforts to make people afraid BECAUSE he's black -- veiled references to his color. That is not the same as saying EVERY criticism is based on his color. If he and his campaign were not prepared to defend themselves against exploitation of racial fears and prejudices, they would be utterly incompetent and would be disqualified from the presidency on that ground.
I am always amused by the seeming confidence on this blog (by certain members) that racial and other group-based prejudices are just figments of liberal imaginations. Apparently, you only talk to elites.
"I am always amused by the seeming confidence on this blog (by certain members) that racial and other group-based prejudices are just figments of liberal imaginations."
I don't recall this ever happening once on this blog. If you have a specific example where it has, please let us know.
By warning of (so far unseen) racial attacks (from Republicans) Obama has made certain that his race will be kept front and center during the campaign.
That's interesting, coming from someone who was supposed to be a "post-racial" candidate.
From what I can tell, it's the Democrats who just can't seem to leave race alone:
The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former Governor of Vermont contrasted the two parties’ presidential candidates, saying that with a woman and an African-American as the two front-runners, the Democratic field “looks like America,” while the all-white male Republican field “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.”
VG, I see a meaningful distinction between "criticism directed at him will have a racial bias" and his campaign being "on high alert for code words or innuendo meant to play on voters' racial sentiments." Expecting that there will be no veiled racism at all that needs to be dealt with is living in a fantasy. See, e.g. Fox News.
Oh, and in case silence seems like implicit agreement, I am with LAGuy on this one -- I have never seen the "figment" attitude on this blog, and sincerely hope I never do.
I looked at Queens Guy's link of "veiled racism" at Fox News and it was hilarious. The assumption behind every lame example was that in reporting the horse race between two candidates, there should be no differences in how Obama and McCain are talked about (pretty small sample there to prove much) and, furthermore, that any difference is proof of racism. All the bullet points were pretty funny, but I think the best was:
"Have used 78 percent more sports terminology in describing Obama's campaign than McCain's."
Please give a specific example of acting like racism does not exist:
1. I find the following to suggest that racism is not a real thing to be defended against: "Obama has already played the presumptive race card during the election" by suggesting that the Republicans will try to make you afraid of him because he's black and by his staff being alert to fight back against racial innuendo. By arguing that this preparation is "playing the race card" this line suggests that there is not a very real probability of exploitation of actual prejudices.
2. In a previous comment, I told a true story about a doctor whom I personally heard say he gave less novocaine to black patients during race riots in Philadelphia because he was so tired of seeing white patients coming in hurt and needing novacaine. I believe it was Michigan Guy who said this story was ridiculous, and said that doctors never act this way and treat all patients alike. It may be a ridiculous story, but it is true because I was there. Again, any suggestion that racial prejudice is a real phenomenon is belittled.
I honestly don't see the logic in point 1. Obama made a preemptive claim that his opponents would use his race against him. I think you can criticize him for this without assuming there's no racism. You can have lots of racism and still have someone play the race card.
In fact, let me go on the record: yes, politicians, especially Democrats, do use cries of racism (among other things) as a way of deflecting honest criticism. And even if they're not doing it consciously, that doesn't make it better.
As to point 2, I'm not sure what you're referring to, so I'll let AnnArborGuy (I assume you mean him) defend himself.
I guess you're saying that if a defense is preemptive, that makes it more suspect. That all depends on how real the threat is -- as you have said many times about the Iraq War. That's why this argument assumes the threat of using racism against Obama is not very real.
QG, this has nothing to do with being on "high alert for code words or innuendo meant to play on voters' racial sentiments.". The Obama campaign could easily be doing that without announcing it.
By saying “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”, Obama is attempting to control the discussion.
Any and all criticism will now be parsed for anything "inappropriate or misleading" and John McCain will be held accountable. Anybody who says anything negative about Obama will have to think first "now wait a minute, is there anything in what I just said (or wrote) that could possibly be construed as racist?".
The net effect is to make it more difficult to criticize him and that's exactly what Obama wants. Or has anyone else noticed that he doesn't take criticism particularly well?
And Anonymous, the "exploitation of actual prejudices" - racial or otherwise - is a very real thing. The irony I find here is that the people doing the majority of the exploiting are on the left, not the right.
We'll see.
Post a Comment
<< Home