Decision ‘08

Race and the 2008 Election, Part Two

Though this surely won’t be the last word, as we have a long way to go until November, I wanted to follow up on last night’s post and give some of my own thoughts about what role race will play in this election.

First, and I mean this with 100% sincerity, let me say up front that it is absolutely thrilling as an American to see a woman and a black male as the two Democratic frontrunners. I have always been a believer in American exceptionalism, meaning not (as commonly assumed) that I think Americans are ‘great’ by the mere virtue of their accidental location of birth, but that the ideals America is founded upon give it a unique place among the nations of the world, not just now, but throughout recorded history. Nevertheless, for too long access to the practical application of these ideals has been limited for women and minorities. The Democratic Party has made history with this election, and I hope Republicans will follow suit…if the GOP is the party of rich white men only, as its enemies assert, that’s not the club for me.

It is condescending, however, to view Hillary as ‘the woman’ and Obama as ‘the black candidate’. They are unique individuals of great accomplishment and all the strengths and flaws that attach to each us. They deserve to be judged on their own merits, and not as representatives of a race or gender.

Given the above as a preface, the question of Obama’s race and the effect it will have on his electoral prospects can be viewed from a number of angles. The generic question is this: can a black man be elected President of the United States? The specific question is: can this man, Barack Obama, be elected President of the United States in 2008? I believe both can be answered in the affirmative.

As we have seen from the exit polls, most recently in West Virginia, the ugly truth is that some Americans will still, even in the 21st century, refuse to vote for a black candidate for President. Period. On the basis of that fact alone. Appalling, yes, but undeniable. How large a faction is probably unknowable, but when a sizable number of Democratic primary voters make that statement, you can be sure that there are many more Republicans who feel that way, as well.

Tempering this fact, however, is the knowledge that a sizable number of Americans would refuse to vote for (a) a woman, (b) a Jew, (c) a Mormon, (d) an atheist, (e) a single man, (f) a divorced man, (g) a homosexual, (h) a Muslim, and (i) a beagle. The happy news is that opponents of most of these groups almost completely overlap. That’s not true across the board - my gut feeling (ruling out the beagle by virtue of legal impediments) is that b, c, and d would face more backlash than the others, with g and h probably facing the most opposition…but if you’re bigoted enough to disqualify one person based on a single trait like race, religion, marital status, or sexual preference, you’re probably going to come out against the whole lot.

Yet a presidential election does not require unanimous consent, or even a majority - a plurality will often do, and I have to feel, based on the public reaction to the Obama and Clinton campaigns, that we can say, at a minimum, that we have reached the stage where we can realistically talk about a woman President or a black President. Both Hillary and Obama have won the support of millions, and while it is true that each runs better in their own demographic (Obama tends to win the black vote pretty convincingly, and Hillary is solid gold with white women), they both have proven that they can get millions of votes outside of that demographic, as well.

Moving to the specific case, I first want to make one thing clear. To vote against Hillary or Obama does not make one a misogynist or a racist. I’ve already dismissed the idea that we view these candidates through the narrow prism of “woman” or “black”. I will not vote for Barack Obama. I wish I could. It would make me very proud to pull the lever in the historic election of the first black President. But I can’t do it for this man. I admire much about him, but every voter has issues that take primacy, and my readers know that I’m very big on foreign policy and economic policy, and I have no confidence in Obama’s public stance on either of these areas.

I will not vote for Barack Obama…but it won’t be because of his race. And it certainly won’t be because of peripheral silliness like the Wright affair. I regret to say that many of my fellow Republicans will be dragging Obama through the mud, and I will hate every minute of it..but we know it’s coming. And given the intensity of the inevitable onslaught of negativity, the principled opposition because of policy or party, and the unprincipled opposition because of bigotry, an Obama victory will not be the cakewalk many on the left (and some on the right) assume it will be.

Here’s the thing, though: I still think Obama can, and probably will, win. Against all of the above, Obama will wield an impressive array of positives:

He’s young, charming, and (sometimes) dynamic.
His election would be historical in every sense of the word.
His populist protectionism, while poison to me, plays well in the current economic climate.
He’s on the right side, popularity-wise, on Iraq, a much-reviled war.
He’s a Democrat at a time when Republicans face enormous party-identification hurdles (anyone paying any attention to the recent special elections in the House?).

In other words, the Democratic candidate is going into this election with a huge structural advantage - maybe 10-15 points on the mere basis of party. Obama will lose part of that advantage because of knee-jerk, wrongheaded racial opposition, but not all of it. For personal reasons based on policy, I’m pulling for McCain…but I won’t be surprised if Obama wins - and despite our political differences, if that is the case, a part of me will be thrilled for what that victory means in terms of access to the American dream.

I have many readers on the right, and perhaps even more on the left (at least, the lefties are more vocal). I want to close this with a plea, especially to those on the right. When the unfair, racially-based attacks come (and we know they will), we owe it to our party and our country to condemn these attacks AND their messengers. I want John McCain to win, but I want it to be on the basis of a well-articulated vision for the future of this nation, and not on the back of a concerted smear campaign. Let’s keep it clean, because we know many others won’t…and it’s our party, too. Let’s make the fearmongers unwelcome, for a change…

10 Responses to “Race and the 2008 Election, Part Two”

1 Peter Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Who wouldn’t vote for a beagle?
2 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Well, that’s why beagles can’t run - it would be unfair to the other candidates…
3 too many steves Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 5:16 am
For whom you cast a vote, and why it is you choose to vote for them, is personal; there is no list of right and wrong reasons. For me, like you, that Obama is black, Hillary is a woman, and McCain is elderly, are irrelevant facts that have no influence on which, if any, of these characters I will vote for.

I do not understand why so much ink is being spilled on this topic, any more than I understand why Romney’s mormonism was so widely discussed. I cannot understand how someone could feel as you do: “It would make me very proud to pull the lever in the historic election of the first black President.”. Proud? Of what? To me, competence is everything and so I will vote for the person I believe is most able to execute the job of President, of those available.

It turns my stomach to think of people focusing on such superficial characteristics as race, gender, and age.
4 mikebdot Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I just wish more news reports resembled the substance of this blog entry. Good job, Mark.

When can we actually start discussion race without kid gloves? Or atheism for that matter? Why can’t they put people on the TV that aren’t misinformed talking head fools? I guess that doesn’t get ratings?
5 mikebdot Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
*discussiNG*
6 Dan s Mcnabb Says:
May 16th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Here’s a Republican speaking up! Very well written article, and your right about why a person might vote a certain way because of beliefs or situations. That is why I am voting the way I am, it is very detailed, so if your interested you can read my opinion of the election at:
http://dansmcnabb.bloggerunleashed.com/generalnews/united-states-presidential-election-2008/
7 Mark Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
too many steves, when I say it would make me proud to see a black president, I say that from the standpoint of access to the American Dream. A big part of that dream has always been that anyone can grow up to be anything, including President of the United States. Who wouldn’t be thrilled to see that part of our founding sentiments so boldly demonstrated?

True, I believe, like Martin Luther King, in the dream of a colorblind society…but before we can reach the stage where it doesn’t matter if the President is black or white, we first have to prove that he (or she) CAN be black or white…
8 Andy Vance Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Excellent, moving post, Mark.

Being an irascible liberal egghead jerk, I can’t help but pick this scab: To vote against Hillary or Obama does not make one a misogynist or a racist.

People keep using that phrase. But I do not think they know what it means. I certainly don’t.

It’s a very funky syllogism. Stevie Wonder level funky. It leads to all manner of funky corollaries, such as, “To vote for John McCain does not make one not a racist.”

Putting aside such logical positivist claptrap, the phrase doesn’t even make common sense. It relies on contrived racist/not racist and/or sexist/not sexist distinction, a kind of ironically reverse and perverse “one drop of blood rule” for bigotry.

Racism and racist are loaded and incendiary words, evoking images of bombs in Birmingham and heavily armed Idaho hermits (or for those of a certain ideological bent, politically entrepreneurial inner-city preachers). This suggests there’s a threshold a person crosses in becoming “racist,” and therefore accusing someone of racism is an attempt to place them beyond the pale (so to speak). Obviously, the median West Virginian has never tossed a firebomb into a bus or stockpiled heavy weaponry for the coming race war (insert Robert Byrd joke here) and it’s therefore extremely offensive to implicitly make that implication if even through a few loaded terms.

But…

Attempting to place an arbitrary marker on the racism continuum, below which one is “not a racist,” explodes the whole concept and makes examination/discussion pretty much impossible. I prefer to think of the whole gamut of racism - from petty, everyday insults to full-blown, full-blooded hate - as stemming from the same source: irrational distrust based on distorted, stereotypical “biological” and cultural characteristics.

Paradoxically, such distrust can develop from both familiarity and unfamiliarity. This is the distinction Josh Marshall was trying to drive at - unlike typical “Southerners,” many “Appalachians” have long been isolated from African Americans, much less a citified African American with an exotic name and ethnic/family background and an air of Harvard liberal condescension. That creates a culture clash to say the least and a high level of distrust and fear. Cf. that now infamous West Virginian who told a reporter that she doesn’t believe Obama isn’t Muslim no matter what he says. Does she hate Obama? I’d say that’s highly unlikely.

This leads me to all kinds of obnoxious questions about the interaction between the McCain and Obama campaigns. Is the former trying to foment “racism” when it calls Obama’s measured, mono-toned response to Bush’s Nazi/Muslim-baiting trash talk “reckless” and a “hysterical diatribe?” Is this not a conscious effort to dredge up the (ironically hysterical) hubbub over Obama’s Nat Turnerish preacher and his hysterical sermons, or perhaps even link him to those hysterical Muslim terr’ists?

Tough calls, I think. Particularly because trust/distrust is not only the axis that racism turns on, it also happens to be the key ingredient in voters’ thought process in choosing a president. It’s very difficult if not impossible to separate emotion and logic when it comes to trust. Human beings are hardwired to take difference into account, and there’s no getting around the fact that Obama is quite different and in many respects unique. None of us has an emotional touchstone to reference in this case.

One might say expecting McCain to use kid gloves against a black opponent is also racist, and that campaigning is all about accentuating differences. But I do think that he should be accountable for more than just explicit racial and ethnic references.
9 too many steves Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Hmmm… ok. If and when a black or woman or some other non-white, non-christian person is elected president I think I will experience something other than pride, namely, relief —- relief that we don’t have to talk about it anymore.
10 Chris J. Breisch Says:
May 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Well, John McCain has certainly come out swinging in the last few days on his one good issue, foreign policy. And he’s made Obama back-pedal and look foolish.

I agree with all your statements about the advantages that Obama has, and you forget the biggest one, $$$. He’s going to be able to outspend McCain in every battleground state, most likely.

However, I still put his odds at winning at 2/5 (and falling), because I think he continues to show that he’s not ready for the big stage. He clearly doesn’t understand foreign affairs, or even history. He seems incredibly thin-skinned (say what you like about GWB–and he certainly has his share of faults, but being thin-skinned is not one of them) and too quick to take offense.

I won’t drag Obama through the mud, but I won’t ignore it when he crawls in on his own. Yes, this campaign is going to get negative, in spite of McCain’s wishes, and it increasingly appears that Obama and Obama’s supporters are much better at dishing it out than taking it.