Will Racists Cost Obama the Election?

Over the past few moths, I've heard many people complain that Barack Obama may lose the presidential election, not because of a lack of experience or good ideas, but because of racial prejudice. On the other hand, others have argued that this is an inappropriate complaint. Such individuals insist that the fact that Obama has gotten this far, with the help of white primary voters, is proof that if he looses, it will be the fault of the candidate, and not his skin.

As you can guess, I personally fall into the first category. This is because I believe that race is still a powerful force in our society, wielding an influence greater than most Americans are willing to admit. However, I have another, stronger, less abstract reason for felling this way: the facts.

The facts are as follows:

• Barack Obama is running against John McCain. McCain is a Republican, the same party as George Bush, one of the least popular presidents in U.S. History.
• John McCain also has a history as a senator of voting in line with Bush's policies.
• Most Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Obama wants to pull troops out of Iraq, and has a plan to do so in a timely manner. McCain is more committed to long-term occupation of Iraq. He feels that leaving in equivalent to loosing (loosing what, I'm not sure).
• Our economy is in the toilet. I mean a disgusting, unwashed, public toilet. Most Americans, especially in times like these, would support an Obama economic plan. Lower taxes for the middle class. Reward companies for keeping jobs in the U.S. Create more jobs. Regulate big business. You know, things that actually make sense.

I could go on all day, but I'll sum it up like this: on the issues, most Americans overwhelmingly agree with Obama, not McCain.

Yet, each and every poll shows a big gap between agreeing with Obama on the issues and actual support for Obama. In other words, people want a president who will do what Obama will do, they just don't want Obama.

This leaves one to question, what is it about Barack Obama that makes him so difficult for people to vote for? Well, what's the most obviously unique thing about him? What makes him different than any one who has ever held the office of President of the United States? HE'S BLACK! (actually he's brown. or some shade thereof, ask Crayola)

Of course, no one wants to attribute Obama's lack of a larger lead in the polls to race; that would be like saying Americans are racist. But, when one looks at the facts, one will find that we kind of are. No, not all of us, not even most of us, just enough of us.

I'm not making this up. Actual polling data shows that many Americans harbor negative opinions of blacks, and this could very well be a deciding factor in the election. Consider the following excerpts from this AP article appearing in Newsweek:

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about 2.5 percentage points.

What does this mean? It means that 33.33333....% of white DEMOCRATS think that black people are bad things. No wonder he's having trouble “closing ranks.” Thats one in every three, folks. That can turn an election. Here's more:

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

Wondering where the lead that Obama should have is? Well, there you have it. Get rid of prejudice, he's up 6 points (OK, its an estimate, but it's an educated estimate based on real, scientifically derived numbers).

What does this all mean? It means that this election is what I knew it would be from the moment it began: a gut-check for America. If we really value the content of a person's character rather than the color of his or her skin, than when a capable black leader comes along who reflects our view of the way a country should be run – the way a leader should act and the policy initiatives that leader should pursue – than that person should be elected. Right now, we stand at the threshold of failing that test.

I'll leave you with some more results of the poll. They should make voters' inability to value character over color less shocking.

Adjectives associated with blacks:

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

The plight of black America is black America's fault:

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Independents:

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

Voting for Clinton because Obama's black:

Just 59 percent of her [Senator Hillary Clinton's] white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The Oppression Sweepstakes

Well, here we go again. During the Democratic Presidential Primary, lots of people got caught up in what came to be known as the “Oppression Sweepstakes,” a fight over which was more historically significant and barrier-breaking: the nomination of an African American or a woman. The nomination of Sara Palin by the GOP for vice president is sure to revive this debate.

Personally, I am not comfortable with the way such a conversation usually goes.

First, the totality of the people involved is often ignored. When people talk about the hurdles a Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin have had to jump and compare them to Barack Obama, they make a woman-man comparison. Such a comparison overlooks the fact that the women involved are not just women, but white women, and the man involved is not just a man, but a black man. So, conservatively speaking (little-c conservative), for all the struggles that Clinton or Palin face as women, they also enjoy many advantages as white women. Some would argue, logically so, that for all the struggles Obama faces as an African American, he enjoys many advantages as a man.

However, I would argue that while the latter claim is true to some extent, Obama's blackness prevents him from fully partaking in male-privilege. From what I can tell, all men enjoy some aspects of male privilege, but they way we typically think about such privilege really only applies to white men. Furthermore, we often overlook the fact that the combination of Obama's blackness and his maleness leads to unique set of challenges. African American men are perhaps the most vilified subset of the population in our nation's history. It doesn't help that he's running against at ticket that contains a white female. Black male-white female combinations don't usually go well in American history (what comes immediately to mind: any slave and his master's wife, the Scottsboro Boys, Emmett Till, O.J. Simpson, Terrel Owens, miscegenation laws, segregated proms, I think you get the point).

It's also important to remember that racism and sexism aren't parallels. They don't operate in the same way, and you can't compare them in a 1:1 relationship. Racism and sexism don't manifest themselves in the same way. One very visible sign of sexism during the Democratic Primary was seen at Hillary Clinton rallies, where attendees would show up with shirts and bearing “iron my shirt” and other sexist and objectionable comments. Now, does this mean that if there were no racist signs at Obama rallies that there was also no racism during the race? Certainly not. It just means that racism manifested itself in quieter but equally – if not more – pervasive and destructive ways.

Yet, in the wake of Palin's nomination and inappropriate reactions to it, the media has shown a knack for pointing out instances of sexism, while at they same time marginalizing or even ignoring the impact of race on the election. It seams that the mainstream media has selective amnesia, forgetting the many smears (he's a Muslim, he's socialist, he's a terrorist, he's trying to infiltrate America, he's the anti-Christ) and threats of violence that have been hurled at Obama, and choosing to ignore the role that race has played in making these smears and Republican lies possible.

Personally, I don't understand how the media can take it as it's journalistic duty to hold Obama and Joe Biden accountable for criticism, issues-based or otherwise, of Governor Palin in the name of stopping sexism, while at the same time they stand silently while Palin and other extreme right-wing lunatics mock Obama, distort his record, and lie about him with a smile on their faces.

Listen, both white privilege and male privilege are topics that are in play in this election and deserve more serious discussion. However, it is clear to me that the term “oppression sweepstakes” is a misnomer, because with the current behavior of the media there's no contest.

Wow, sexism sucks

First of all, many apologies for the long absence. Between switching operating systems and preparing to teach this summer I haven't had much time to write.

However, I felt it important to post a video that a friend sent me that addresses the issue of sexism in the media. For those of you who think it doesn't exist, trust me, it does.

I felt it important to share this because in previous posts I have complained about cries of sexism in the presidential elections that seem to, in a very offensive way, ignore the historical and present significance of race and racism. I will continue to make that argument. However, after watching this video, I felt it inappropriate to make such an argument without also displaying the way that sexism has infiltrated our national duologue. I am convinced that sexism and run-away gender socialization permeate our collective psyche below the level of the superficial in a way that is quite detrimental to our society. Although I believe that racism and sexism operate in different ways and intersect in ways that are complex and quite uncomfortable for many to discuss, these are issues that we must confront. So, here's the video, thanks Will:

White, Working Class, Less Educated Voters: What's it All Mean?

It's gotten to the point that we don't even need to watch the post-primary election analysis that seems to happen every-other Tuesday anymore. We already know what will dominate at least the early discussions: “Why can't Barack Obama seem to win the white, working-class, less-than-a-college-education vote?”

It's as if this is all that matters in the election. OK, we get it already, Obama has had problems winning whites in certain states.

As a side note, MSNBC / NBC News points out that he does much better in states with almost no black population or very high black population, but just can't seem to win over white voters in states “in the middle.”

My question is this: when is the media going to move off of simply reporting these statistical facts or asking "What can Obama do to win over / connect with / convince these voters?" and move on to some real analysis? When are we going to really discuss what these numbers mean and what they say about American voters?

Yesterday I had an opportunity to see a clip from meet the press from a few weeks ago (usually I'm in church when it's on, and no TiVo for me). There was a round-table discussion going, and Gwen Ifill raised an interesting point. She noted that in this election, there has been a lot of talk about race but little talk about racism. (For the Hill-heads out there, I'm willing to concede that there's been a lot of talk about gender but less talk of sexism, but, still, the gulf is not as wide as in the case of race and racism.) Instead of trying to use Senator Obama's candidacy as way of claiming that a “glass ceiling” has been broken, or that we've finally moved into a “post-race society” lead by a new generation of wonderfully “colorblind” voters, we should acknowledge the ways in which his meteoric rise to the top of the Democratic party has exposed just how pervasive racism is in the American psyche.

Now, let me pause here to say that I'm not claiming that most American's are racist. I don't want to come off as saying that only racist people won't vote for Senator Obama. There are lot's of good reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton (or earlier on Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Bidden, even Kucinich), and I suppose there are good reasons to vote for John McCain as well, although I've not yet been introduced to them. But, we must ask, what does it mean that so many white individuals, and particular groups of white individuals are reluctant to vote for the African American male that is all but officially the party's nominee? Look at the split within the white community (probably the most generalizing term ever): old vs. young; rural vs. urban; those who live in states with sizable black populations vs. those who don't; those without college education vs. those with college degrees; “Regan Democrats” vs. “liberals.” In each of these comparisons, Clinton does better with whites in the first category, Obama with those in the second category. Why?

Why won't the media go there? Why don't the ask the uncomfortable questions? Why, for example, don't they ask if less educated whites are simply less willing to vote for a black man? Last night I heard Chris Matthews (who I like overall but who still annoys me often) reference voters with more “traditional” views on race. What? What a load of crap? Call a horse a horse, call racism racism. To me, if you won't vote for someone because they're black, or are reluctant to vote for them because they're black, that's racism (except for those special cases in which people won't vote for a black person because they don't want him or her to be assassinated; that's not racism, that's fear). Everyone's quick to say that demographics may keep Obama out the White House. When is someone going to get some courage and admit that RACISM might keep him out the White House?*

And then, as I referenced in the earlier post, there's the racism we can't see. Think about how much easier it is to paint a black man as a crazy, black-power-obsessed radical Muslim super-spy. Lots of people won't vote for Obama because they fear his “Muslim past” and don't want a president with the middle name Hussein. This is not limited to this election. Remember how a little more than a year ago everyone was freaking out over Congressman Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota) for being a Muslim. You don't think his blackness made it easier to paint him as “the enemy”?

But enough of my babbling. Do you think the media is letting the American electorate off the hook too easy? Leave a comment and let me know that you're out there, your reading, and you have an opinion.

* Now, this is different that Senator Clinton's not-so-subtle argument of a few weeks ago in that she essentially suggested that it was futile to nominate a black man for president because they country won't vote for him.Personally, I think in the right climate with the right campaigning, an African American can win. I'm simply saying that the media needs to put some pressure on the American public to really think about the fact that there is the potential for racism to determine the outcome of this election. American media, don't let us take the intellectually easy road.