On Demand
The Language of Race in the White House Race
Friday, April 25, 2008
Recent New York Times op-ed contributor Colson Whitehead talks about how public perceptions of race influence voter choice for the next president.
OPEN PHONES: We want to hear from you.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
The most honest, thoughtful and articulate discussion of race is by Shelby Steele in his 2006 book 'White Guilt - How Blacks and Whites together destroyed the promise of Civil Rights'.
http://www.amazon.com/White-Guilt-Together-Destroyed-Promise/dp/0060578637/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209097214&sr=1-1
He also wrote why Obama can't win, published late last year. But many of us know the truth is that like Obama's former aid said - Hillary is an evil monster (who will continue the same old post civil rights affirmative action policies which artificially uplift blacks, but really keep blacks from real achievement) who will do anything to win.
Weird that you're having Colson Whitehead talk about this - I always thought his novel "John Henry Days" was more about the corruption of media/technology than about race. (I guess that's why the John Henry parts. Doh.)
These days it seems like race is being viewed increasingly as a spectrum, and Obama is as good an example of that as anyone else. Or look at today's military families, VERY mixed, so who's to call how they're going to vote? Here in SF every other kid in a stroller is half-and-half; one toddler even had half-and-half parents. I used to think black people got the spectrum idea before anyone else, they are, like us, also mixed, and usually more relaxed about discussing all the odd parts of how that spectrum is defined.
I think a lot of the perception of HRC as being old-guard is that she has to stand against to someone who looks a lot more like the "changing face of America" (hate that expression.) Of course, her use of GOP talking points just feeds into that...
White Guilt's Thesis from the book jacket:
As the Civil Rights victories of the 1960’s dealt a blow to racial discrimination, American institutions started acknowledging their injustices, and white Americans – who held the power in those institutions – began to lose their moral authority. Since then, our governments and universities, eager to reclaim legitimacy and avoid charges of racism, have made a show of taking responsibility for the problems of black Americans. In doing so, Steele asserts, they have only further exploited blacks, viewing them always as victims, never as equals.
This phenomenon, which he calls white guilt, is a way for whites to keep up appearances, to feel righteous, and to acquire an easy moral authority – all without addressing the real underlying problems of African Americans.
Steele argues that calls for diversity and programs of affirmative action serve only to stigmatize minorities, portraying them not as capable individuals but as people defined by their membership in a group for which exceptions must be made.
Exceptions are what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, two people who have twisted King's original message of unity.
Er, Glenn, are you sure whites don't need affirmative action? have you visited UC Berkeley lately? They eliminated affirmative action - and as a result it's majority asian (2002 showed 46% asian undergrads vs. 29% white undergrads.) I swear, I fully expect white people to start demanding affirmative action soon. (I may start demanding it for them.) Actually, many white people already receive affirmative action with the ivy leagues. But they have a different name for it - it's called legacy admissions.
I had a black colleague who was a beneficiary of affirmative action policies. But she hadn't needed it. Her test scores for the GRE and all 3 parts of the CFA were excellent - through the roof. But she constantly worried that people would see her only as an affirmative action hire.
How much is Hillary Clinton's campaign pandering to or at least comfortable with American racism, including statements like "Obama can't win." Do she and McCain have an obligation to assert that they reject whites-only support?
Brian,
I am insulted by the way you have framed this question and the simplification of the issue.
It is one thing for people to vote for someone like them - It is DIFFERENT for people to vote AGAINST someone because of their race.
Hillary Clinton should be receiving 40-50% of the African American Vote right now if she had not introduced the racial overtones in order to rally ethnic white to vote for her.
Obama has appealed to blacks in a positive way. The rest of the blacks that have voted for Obama have done so in reaction to the Clinton's campaigns race baiting in order to marginalize Obama as 'the black candidate' and by using innuendo to bring old fears of older whites against blacks
I'm a PA resident, Registered Democrat and voted for Hilary. I will not vote for Obama. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. Experience within Congress and government in general. I may have to vote for McCain in the fall. It's a real struggle.
This raises the corresponding question of sexism regarding women voting for Hillary Clinton and men voting against her. A woman recently told me that she is voting for Hillary in the primary because "all men in suits are liars".
What about white people who vote for Obama because of race? Yes, I like him for other reasons, but to me an important reason for my vote will be the prospect of a black man leading our country, and perhaps, perhaps, merely by holding that position, doing something to lessen the pervasive racism in our country.
The notion of Blacks being racist by voting for Obama is ridiculous. Blacks have voted for White candidates for centuries. Also, Black find Obama to be a completely legitimate candidate meaning that there are for more factors in choosing Obama, he race being only one of them. Lastly, voting against someone because of their race seems to me far more offensive.
I disagree with Leo 2, I think the question was framed quite clearly: that there is a difference between voting for someone because of race than voting against someone because of their race (or gender or religion).
I also think that Obama's candidacy is tremendously empowering for a lot of people and that may be the main reason some vote for him.
the difference is that white people have been voting for white candidates for our entire history. now that they have an opportunity to vote for a black person, what most of us already know is coming to the forefront. this is a first for black people. we have a candidate who actually has a chance. he is a strong candidate regardless of race, and we are PROUD. most of you can not even imagine how that feels.
What about women who feel they have to vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. And men who don't trust a women in office.
What about GENDER in this race? Gender has not been discussed nearly as much as race in the election. I'm sure there are just as many people not voting for Hillary because she is a woman.
It doesn't matter whether you call Black support for Obama racism or not. it's disturbing that in 2008 the Black community can act as a monolith in such matters as the election, the OJ case and Sean Bell. It shows that our society has a long way to go before Blacks feel comfortable enough to exercise independent thought as opposed remaining in an intellectual ghetto.
The question is wrongly premised. The motivation of the two sets of voters are probably in the main different. A vote based on a sentiment of something like "I will never vote for one of them...." regardless of positions on issues or party fits squarely within our traditional racial system.
However, A vote based on a presumption that a candidate is more likely to understand their problems is hardly racist. To even attempt to characterize such a sentiment as "racist" shows where we are at in this country.
#5
I agree...which is why I am so disgusted with Hillary's campaign...I expect that of a Republican but Hillary's exploitation of race in code has been absolutely shameful.
I don't really understand the point of the first comment that Brian read...I mean the point of reading it as if it was profound or insightful.
Of course it's fundamentally different...for one important reason: Every viable candidate throughout the whole country's history has been white. End of discussion, end of segment. If things were equal then blacks voting en masse for the candidate of color would be analogous but...uhhh....hello that's not the way it's been so the first comment that Brian read seems incredibly ludicrous and quite frankly just a silly argument to me.
Of course its different. Black voters who would vote for Obama because he is a black candidate running for President does NOT mean that they would not vote for Hillary because she is white. Blacks have been voting for white candidates their entire lives.
Websters defines racism as:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Thats prejudice or discrimination FOR or AGAINST someone. It can go both ways.
Either way, making a decision based on race against a candidate or for a candidate is racist.
Call a spade a spade people.
One thing to remember is this. Black people have been voting for white people for a long long time. So as a group, it can't be said that we have a problem voting for white people.
I think there is a (thankfully small) part of the population that won't consider Obama mainly because of his race (1/2 of his racial makeup at least).
Yes, Brian, it is racist for Black people to vote for Obama because he's Black. The guy in Harlem has a point, but it's just a different kind of racism. Many black people say they want a conversation about race in this country, but this usually amounts to little more than they want a forum to air their complaints. White people shy away from this because if they express any reservations about Black racism, they are called racist for bringing this up. In short: At this time in history, the denial of Black racism, even though it is qualitatively different, is the biggest impediment toward progress on racial issues in this country. Just for the record: I am white and an Obama supporter. And yes, race is a factor, albeit a minor one, in my support for Obama.
I haven't chosen who I'm supporting yet. I was whole hearted for Kucinich, and then Edwards. Coincidentally I'm a white male, but I more believed in what they were saying. I will vote Democrat when the time comes, but as far as Clinton or Obama. I'm not voting for him because he's black. (that doesn't mean I'm not voting for him, it means if I do, it will be on his merit, not his skin color).
That is democracy. voting on beliefs and representation, not on who will be the likely best contender to beat the other guy/girl, and not on voting for someone who will set a precedent.
I don't think Clinton asking if he "has what it takes" is code for "is he white enough?" That to me seems very clearly an experience issue she's getting at. She's implying that because he's NOT one of the beltway insiders and hasn't gone through numerous elections, that he'll buckle under the pressure.
I disagree with that assessment, but I don't think she was saying race was the factor. Doesn't mean it's not on anyone's mind or even her mind. I just don't think that was code for his electability based on race.
If 90% of blacks in the primaries vote for Obama, surely some are voting based on race. For me race is the wrong criteria in all cases. The primary criteria should be: who will make the best president.
This is absurd. It's electoral politics; people vote for a candidate for all sorts of non-rational, personal, subjective reasons. It's not like hiring a someone, where the "best qualified" person deserves the job. It's more like choosing a mate than choosing a new receptionist.
The first most obvious qualitative difference between the two groups is that blacks have a history of voting and electing white candidates. In contrast, it is quite rare for whites to elect black candidates as their representatives. Think about it, we can name on one hand the number of black Senators or governors in the entire history of this country.
Furthermore, it is important to note that Obama had to win over black voters. Initially, most black voters supported Clinton.
It amazes me that the media has taken the opinions and biases of the people of PA and OH to somehow reflect the country as a whole. They are both depressed states that have somewhat "fallen behind" the rest of the country. Let's not forget the 40 or so other contests that have shown the support Obama has received from people of races and classes. Look at Virginia. Look at Wisconsin. Look at Minnesota.
Can we please stop looking at politics of the past and accept we are in the 21st century?
I was going to make the same comment as #9 - I am white and am for Obama, in part because he is black, part-African, w/experience of the world outside the US. The idea that the American public could choose a black man is deeply moving to me. Just to imagine all the children of every race who could really dream that they could grow up to be President. But beyond that, to imagine what this would do to change the perception of the US beyond our borders, to regain the esteem that we have lost during these past 8 years. Clinton, from that perspective, is yet more of the same.
I would fall, I think, w/in your 16%. But this is radically different than whites voting against a candidate because of race.
The greater irony is that there are so many white people voting for Obama because they think it proves that they're not racist. In my experience in the supposedly liberal arts circles of NY racism is alive and well among educated white people most of whom think they're free of it but demonstrate it in their everyday lives and language clearly. One visit to a singer-songwriter venue on the LES or a rock club in Billyburg will tell you everything you need.
Furthermore there's a huge danger that if Obama does become president that these same 'liberal' people will declare racism a dead issue along with the right wing, basically "see you've got a president so stop complaining".
Steven Mark, you make some assumptions there. Particularly when you mention OJ... believe me, a whole lot of black folks know and knew the dude was guilty.
Bravo to this caller for finally giving me the wordage I've been looking for: "Washington Tenure and Connections" do not equal "Experience".
I think the question should be did black voters not vote for Clinton because she’s white. If so, then yes, its no different then white people not voting for Obama because he’s black. It would also be true that it would be sexist if women did not vote for Obama because he’s a man. If you want everybody to be equal, you have to treat the issue as everyone being equal.
If a black votes for Obama because he's black, that means he's simultaneously voting against someone who isn't black. To me, that's the same as a white voting against someone because they're black, which are both obviously racist actions. I always thought racism was simply treating someone different solely because of their race? Funny how Brian jumps through semantic hoops to muddy this issue.
Thank you to the previous caller
Yes their amount of relevant experience is basically equal...so it comes down to character and judgement...which is why I'm not for Hillary.
The same comparison can be made about sexism. A lot of people are not voting for Hillary because she is a woman. There are a lot of women-haters, even among women.
Hillary Clinton has been in the senate twice as long as Obama.
The best candidate doesn't have to look like you.
People are prejudice against both women and black men. In some ways this election is a test about the prejudices of the american electorate. I believe that press has been more genteel in dealing with Obama (other than Jon Stewart who made a brilliant joke of it, asking Obama if his agenda was the enslavement of the white race)
however the press has been sexist in its reporting of Hilary and I wonder how many people are "afraid" to vote for her because she is woman.
Does this make the republican the default candidate- I certainly hope not...
Paulo,
I agree: when she says he "doesn't have what it takes" isn't the code. I think when she says "he can't win" is code.
obama doesn't win white votes in swing states (PA Ohio.) obama will not win in november.
Brian u ask a question and the person answers...then u re-ask the question a different way to get the answer u want...your talents are wasted on public radio
So when are we having the discussion about whether or not it's sexist for women to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman????
Let's get real. Given actual history and demographics, Black Americans have all voted for many many white candidates. The reverse is NOT true of most whites. This has to be the starting point for any discussion of "whose behavior is racist."
it seems to me that those who refuse to vote for obama due to "his inability to win" [due to his blackness] are causing institutional racial discrimination to remain in the system.
they just may be guilty of passive racism, by allowing the old constructs to rule their decisions.
let's move on to a better political day!
hahahha he wakes up with a glow in the morning from Obama speech...sheesh
This conversation needs to distinguish between racism and prejudice.
I believe the term racism is conventionally used in terms of institutional and environmental mechanisms of prejudice based on race.
#45
Good point
Brian,
This segment has turned quite offensive. I try to think you are objective, but the more I hear over time, the more it becomes obvious that you have a bias against Obama.
It's also NOT voting AGAINST anyone. It's voting FOR SOMEONE ELSE. If someone regardless of race or color says the only reason I'm voting for him is cause he's black, or her cause she's white then yes that is racially bias. It's not Yay and Nay, If someone doesn't vote for someone, then aren't casting a Nay vote at them and negating a yay, beign AGAINST them, they are just voting for someone else.
I think it's easier to be racially bias for, than it is to be racially bias against.
Why is WNYC ignoring the gender issue in this election? Sexism is playing just as big a role as racism. I'm surprised that the topic has not been covered very much.
The obama voters act like sheep [around race and Lib guilt] and this is what bothers the rest of us real voters. These people who "never voted before in their lives" -- where were you at the time of the last two pres. elections, times the rest of us were pulling our hair out trying to defeat that Republican?
There is a difference between racial pride and racism and only the voter can actually know which is motivating them. If someone votes for Obama because they feel pride in an African American being considered for the highest office in the world, that is not racism. If they vote for Obama because they dislike Clinton because she is white, that is racism. Also social status of members of our society count when we apply a standard for acceptable behavior. For instance, if one Korean green grocer lends money to another to help facilitate the expansion of their business, we say that is industrious. If that same grocer refused to lend money to someone who wasn't a member of their group, that is their right. But if a well established bank refused to lend money to the grocer because they were Korean, it would be red lining and illegal. Double standard, maybe; acceptable, yes.
Hello Brian:
As a Black person, I have voted for white candidates (city, state, and federal)
for decades-- and this is also true of every other voting black person that I
know, particularly my parents who have voted for white candidates all their
lives. Very few whites can make the similar claim of having spent their
voting lives voting for blacks election after election.
So how come charges of racism are raised every time black folks take
a rare opportunity to vote for a black candidate?
Ron
I don't know if they are both equally "racist" or not, but I would say the reason people of color for FOR a candidate of color for reasons of that color is because historically people have voted AGAINST a candidate of color for reasons of that color.
It is changing, but the sad reality is that voters, black and white, are still voting for candidates for reasons of color rather than competency and appropriateness for the job.
The syndromes is the same for reasons of gender, religious background and other oppression dynamics.
black people did not vote for alan keyes in '96, '00, '04. black people are strategic voters, and vote democratic, because the democrats "seem" to advance progressive policies. or are the lesser of two evils. and the clintons better beware of further marginalizing that vote as gullible brown children following a brown pied piper!
Brian Lehrer, please address the sexism issue and give it the same airtime that you have given racism in this election. NPR, please don't forget us gals.
LOL! Will, Please.
I voted for Obama in the primary, and I voted for Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Not every Obama voter is a first time voter.
However, shouldn't Democrats be happy that Obama is able to bring in new people. Maybe that why the Democrats have been on a 30 year losing streak in this country--the republicans have been able to motivate, inspire, and create a strong base. Which is a really good argument for Obama because he seems to be able to do that.
BTW--Doesn't Howard Dean want a 50 state strategy? Why should Democrat give up on the middle of the country and spend all of their time talking about NY and CA?
Does anyone remember '76?
Nixon was so hated, Repulicans reviled, the Democrats had the election in the bag.
Jimmy Carter steps up as an outsider, with positive, wonderful messages. If I had been old enough at the time, I would have voted for him.
HOWEVER, as I remember, his presidency couldn't get anything done. Congress nearly stonewalled the guy. He hadn't learned to cross the 'aisle'. This is what I foresee as Obama's problem, if elected president.
#36
Barck Obama served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004 then elected to the U.S. senate in 2004
Hillary was sworn in as a US senator in Jan 2001. before that she was married to the President (I don't consider that a qualification to be president,sorry)
Their relevant experience is really not that far apart.
Just because the candidate might "look like you" doesn't mean they AREN'T the best candidate either.
I am african american (a term I hate by the way) and the most important thing is to get the republicans out of the white house, whether a woman or black man does is a tertiary concern at best.
And to the caller saying that black voting for Obama is reverse racism, first reverse racism is a misnomer, racism is racism, and that leads to his line of thinking. Voting to see a 'black' man is -not- the same a voting to keep a 'black' man out of office.
And why is it not acknowledged regularly that he is bi-racial.
What sexism? White, despite your sex, wins out over black.
No one noted this morning that white voters even in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania--states "tailor made" for Hillary for various reasons--have been drifting inexorably into Obama's column. He was up something like 10 points in PA among white men from the contests last month, and has posted similar gains among women, Hispanics, and union households. Meanwhile, Clinton enjoyed something like 50% support among African-Americans back in December, and now gets about 10%.
This does not just speak to the subtle race-baiting of Bill Clinton et al and the astonishing negativity of Hillary's campaign, but to Obama's record of showing superior judgement on almost every issue. Furthermore, HRC's claims of experience notwithstanding, her campaign is a broke, divisive shambles. Meanwhile, Obama's campaign is 50 million in the black, ahead by every measure, and steamrolling to victory.
Blacks and whites, whatever their race loyalties, are not blind. We know who our next President ought to be.
THere absolutely is a difference between someone voting FOR someone based on race than AGAINST someone based on race.
That being said, there is a media-spawned myth that Obama has been hurt more by his race than he has been helped. As a white PA voter, I find the racist accusations launched against my state extremely insulting. It's myth not supported by the numbers. Obama has received the majority of white voters in numerous precincts. But Hillary doesn't stand a chance in certain states where there is a certain threshold of black voters. Race has clearly hurt her more than it has hurt him.
FUrthermore, sexism IS more acceptable than racism. Hillary's 3 am phone call ad was absurdly called racist ina NYTimes column. The notion that Obam ais unelectable is some type of racist "code" is preposterous. Obama is unelectabel because he is too liberal and too inexperienced. (See Krugman article for more.)
Finally, why isn't there mroe tlak about the millions of disnfranchised voters in Michigan and Flroida? Can you imagine for a second if it were Georgia and Mississippi that were disenfranchised?
Well, I remember before the primary season got in full swing, Blacks were very much for Hillary Clinton. I know of many who didn't really trust Obama, didn't think he was a viable candidate, myself included. Blacks I think are voting for Obama not necessarily because he's Black but in reaction to the comments Bill Clinton made in SC and how Clinton's campaign was run as a whole. We're turned off by that. I don't think it's racist for Blacks to vote for the Black candidate (he also happens to be a pretty good candidate) and not all Blacks just vote for the Black candidate. If that were the case, don't you think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Lenora Fulani would have gone further in their presidential campaigns in the past if we all just voted as a group for the Black person? Black people have been voting for white candidates for years and were ready to vote for another one this year if Clinton's campaign had not gone where it did.
There is no doubt that Clinton's gender has affected her candidacy, but personally I think it is highly unlikely that there are many voters (especially white male voters) who would not vote for a white woman in order to vote for a black man.
It is really hard to make the gender comparison when the counterpart is also of a different race.
There are two main types of people, in relation to this subject.
One thinks that Blacks and Whites are, for all intents and purposes, equal, and that any disparity in poverty and salary are because Blacks "don't try hard enough".
The other thinks that Blacks and Whites don't have it the same at all, and it is the role of the government to help equal the playing field.
It is basically an exercise of mathematics to see that the latter is true, and that saying Blacks need to try harder to gain equity in our society is racist. Therefore it is OK for Blacks to vote for the candidate most likely to address this issue, and in most cases, but not always will be the Black candidate. If a Black person votes for a Black candidate only because the candidate is Black, not considering whether or not that candidate will do anything about disparity between Blacks and Whites, then that Black person is racist.
This is also why Jews voting for a Jewish candidate based on race is racist. Jews, by percentage of their population are already among the most privileged people in the United States, perhaps the most.
I don't agree that black people voting for Obama is "racist" - they are not rejecting Clinton because she is white, but rather choosing a candidate who they feel better represents their interests. But, supposing that I am wrong, and this is somehow an example of "reverse" racism against Clinton, it would still be qualitatively different from white voters voting against a black candidate because of his race.
The power relations that exist between white and black Americans make these two situations completely different.
Hey Will,
"Sheep?"
I guess "real voters" have the luxury of being able to ignore blatant lies like this one:
"I remember landing under sniper fire... there was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
But it was a moment of great pride for me."
If this doesn't trouble you than you are the true woolen animal.
There is alot of twisted, ignorant garbage here…
The question was about white people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black. The question arose from polling data. Somehow it's become "black people will only vote for Obama because he's black and they're emotional and racist and stupid"
A poll of voters is a little more reliable than a bunch of ignorant white people and self loathing black people who perceive millions of others as one giant, angry single brained beast, which is a purely racist viewpoint.
Let’s indulge in facts. In Pennsylvania blacks make up 10.7% of the population. If you factor in the number of these that are actually voting age and, of those, those that are registered to vote and, of those, those who voted in the PA primary, the amount they altered the election is negligible, even with 82% of black voters going with Obama. Blacks make up 13% of the US population, now try to use the unbiased part of your brain and apply this nationally.
And listen Hillary supporters… Hillary ran a bad campaign, pure and simple. It's not someone else's fault, stop blaming everyone. She thought the nomination was hers, like you did. Now that it's slipping away she is lashing out because she feels that she is entitled to it, like you do.
There are bias's here. Human's respond that way. Most often unconsciously. I would be very happy with Obama making it. I'm voting for Hillery because I think she's been around longer (all other things being roughly equal). I do wish to say that there is much more gender prejudice that the great majority of us are aware of. It's so much a part of who we are (have been?) that we have a hard time stepping back far enough to know it (much less admit it).
I'm voting for Hillary but the day Obama wins the primaries, I'll be wearing an Obama t-shirt.
Just because I think Hillary has an edge doesn't mean I think any less of Obama
of course if we were being honest Senator Clinton wasn't 'only married to a president,' she had a policy making role, it is one reasons she was reviled in the 90's by the right wing. people there's a reason the right wing is afraid of her. I'd like to see the Senators working together to end republic rule.
Racism is racism - voting for a candidate on the basis of race is racism. What I heard on this mornings program was mostly attempts to justify racism ("qualitative reasons") i.e. voting for Obama because he is black is ok but voting for Clinton because her opponent is Black is racist.
Blacks voting for Obama is understandable but when 90% vote against Clinton, who formerly was very popular among Blacks, it is racist
As an independent, I view democrats and republicans more alike than different. Those who romanticized the Clinton administration (middle class people of all races) were fooled by Bill's personality, but betrayed by policies such Nafta and a Willie Horton approach to civil rights.
In this year's assembly, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich had the most progressive messages. In my view, Obama though espousing change, still isn't courageously progressive enough. But he does represent change. Hillary and Bill's effort to win at all cost, by unnecessarily racializing the primary is key to their strategy. It plays to peoples fear, rather than having them vote to the ideal of humanity. Saying Obama "is a Christian, as far as I know", invoking the F word (Farrakan), not denouncing the characterization of Rev. Wrights out of context remarks (he was the pastor called the White House during the Lewinsky affair) does more than reveal the character of the Clinton's.
It is also telling that the media participates
with the process of playing up fears that divide the potential for fundamental change.
Ever since Obama has established himself as a viable candidate for change, the media focus has changed from discussion of issues, to sensationalizing the fears we had all hoped we had outgrown.
It's sad...but clearly this is a blueprint for 8 more years of the same old stuff.
So many victims here...
I guess we have come along way in regards to equality... now EVERYONE can claim to suffer from racism.
You better do more than post on a message board! Act quickly! Your way of life is in jeapordy!
Someone asked if we remember '76. I do, very clearly. Several things happened during the Carter administration that were not entirely under his control. OPEC instituted an embargo on oil exports because of the '73 war between the Arabs and Israelis (at least that's the reason they gave). This caused gas lines and a big energy crunch. Then the revolution came in Iran in '79 and the Americans in the US embassy were taken hostage and Carter was unable to get them freed. Then Ted Kennedy ran a very bitter primary campaign against Carter all the way to the convention (he was losing by a much larger margin than Clinton is now) and that seemed to finish off the Democrats leaving the field open for Reagan with his "are you better off than 4 years ago" message.
Well, even though no one agrees with my logic, I don't see any counter-argument other than our history of discrimination. However, I was just using reason to show that if you think that there are different rules for 'racism' based on your race, well, that's not the definition of racism me and Daniel Webster are familiar with. And correct if I'm wrong, but in a primary with only two candidates, a vote for one most definitely is a vote against the other. Yay/Nay, only two possible outcomes, like flipping a coin.
Jerry Nutter:
I think that is is possible to express a preference for one candidate over the other without necessarily dismissing the one you are not supporting. Unfortunately, here and elsewhere there is a lot of invective being hurled by supporters of one at supporters of the other. It has divided us to the point where I see only a muted response to the awful NCGOP ad being run against the two gubernatorial candidates in NC, using their endorsement of Obama as a club against them.
It's funny (and a little weird) that so many commenters who identify themselves as white seem to have so much repressed (and unrepressed!) hostility/disdain for black people. As if blacks were a kind of monolith. There's finally a GREAT black candidate (a great candidate period, although he's not PERFECT, no one is) - why should black people want to turn out in droves for him?
This whole affirmative action discussion is different if you insert another ethnic group. I'm thinking of Woody Allen's 1965 double album: Standup Comic, wherein he describes being hired as "the token jew".
eva,
The hostility can probably be explained by an unwillingness to face uncomfortable and inconvenient truths. I think that there are a lot of people who feel disenfranchised and diminished, and this is not limited to black people. Most unpleasant human interactions can be traced to that. I wish that people were more willing to listen to each other and less willing to just dismiss another person's point of view.
Apropos to the affirmative action "discussion", here's Woody Allen's 1960's riff on being an affirmative action hire (adjust the $95 for inflation):
"I was thrown out of college, and when I was thrown out of college I got a job on Madison Avenue in New york. A real dyed-in-the-wool advertising agency on Madison Avenue wanted a man to come in, and they would pay him $95 a week to sit in their office, and to 'look jewish'. They wanted to prove to the outside world that they would hire minority groups. You know. So I was the one they hired. I was the 'show jew' at the agency. I tried to look jewish desperately, y'know. I used to read my memos from right to left all the time. They fired me finally, 'cause I took off too many jewish holidays."
I think we are 'healing'.
It could take a long time.
This, apparently, is what it looks like.
I'll need to practice tolerance and patience as best I'm able............
........hoping others will meet me half way.
MCH,
I hear you on that. But unfortunately, it tends to spill over onto folks who aren't in the least bit culpable. I see this happen to black people more than I see it happen to other groups. It's still a monumental problem in this country. Sexism is obviously a huge problem too, but less so, IMHO. I've worked for so many powerful women (who I usually find to be equal managers to men, sometimes better, sometimes worse) but I've never had a black boss. Adjust for demographics, it still doesn't make sense. I actually went to a school with a lot of black kids, and with few exceptions we totally self-segregated. Ridiculous.
A lot of comments saying black support for Obama is "racist" disregards the fact that more black voters would be encouraged to support Hillary if she could keep her husband from injecting race into the campaign, like "they played the race card on me" or comparing Obama's campaign to Jesse Jackson's campaign when not only are the campaigns run SO differently but the two men's backgrounds and experiences are so different. (I could see comparing Obama to Edwards more rationally.) Did I mention that Ferraro's comments were as foolish as Obama's "bitter" comment? IMO, the Clintons have repeatedly injected race in a very negative, creepy way. You want the black voters, it's the same as wanting the high-school educated white voters - you gotta court them and you can't offend them REPEATEDLY. I'm not blaming poor whites for being pissed at Obama for the bitter comment. But sure as heck not blaming blacks for being pissed at the Clintons.
if black people voted on solely on race, how come they stopped supporting a whole host of black candidates? Black people will vote for a black person if they think that person is 1) qualified and 2) stands a remote chance of winning.
The more I read these comments, the more I'm reminded of what Cleavon Little had to do to win over the good people of Rock Ridge in "Blazing Saddles". The screenwriters Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor nailed the absurdist sociology surrounding identity more perfectly than anyone has since. The brouhaha surrounding the current campaigns isn't rational enough to be racist or even sexist, it's just total absurdity.
eva,
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about Woody Allen's piece on affirmative action.
I agree that sexism and racism are psychologically very different. If someone wakes up black and leaves his/her house black every day the world treats him/her as black all day long. There is never an escape from it. With gender, it is possible to blend in a lot more because the sexes are basically 50-50. At the same time, I perceive a certain PC bent in the media when it comes to racist as opposed to sexist comments. I really believe that Imus, for example, would not have gotten into such hot water if he had left the "nappy headed" off his comments. All of what he said was odious but I see a double standard in what we might call "polite" society.
MCH,
The Woody Allen piece is an exercise in getting people to remember that affirmative action has benefited more than just black people. People get very weird tunnel vision on affirmative action. At different times affirmative action, tho it was not always called that, helped jewish people and women and asians and hispanics.
Also, it's a really, really funny album. And it's Friday.
:)
MCH,
I agree that gender is a lot more flexible. Women may not achieve the CEO position, but we move much more fluidly within society, which has traditionally given us access to power, if not power per se, throughout history. I often think of the empress dowager, Ci Xi, and her brilliant manipulations of a sexist court. How did she do it?
MCH,
As for Imus's comment, I actually disagree with you. The young women athletes of Rutgers and their female coach were always billed as kind of 'vestal virgins of basketball', whether they were technically virgins or not. They were marketed as purity and hard work itself, so conflating them with the word "ho" outraged a lot of people, including a lot of women athletes. There's a long history of "keeping women down" by restricting their activity, and linking women's athleticism with sex. Imus just reinforced the point, and a lot of us said "enough!" Nappy-headed didn't help his case. He pretty much outraged women and blacks simultaneously.
eva:
Now I get what you meant by the Woody Allen remarks. You are right, people forget what affirmative action was really for. It was not just about blacks. To my thinking it was never about quotas or rejecting someone in favor of someone else. Affirmative action means going out of one's way to make an opportunity available to someone who has historically been denied that opportunity.
Who is CiXi?
eva:
I agree with you about the history, but I don't think that Imus would have been kicked off the air even for the brief time he was if had not included that particular phrase.
MCH,
Cixi was a concubine who machinated her way to the top. She was, in essence, the ruler of China for many years. She was a good machiavelli, but a bad leader. Then again, it's not as if the chinese courts prepared people to be good leaders. She may very well have reached for power just for literal survival - the lives of concubines, children and wives were at the mercy of their husbands and fathers.
I think the best affirmative action would be to give all kids a preschool through grade 12 education. Also free lunch and breakfast. It would be cheaper than incarcerating them later. But I am usually dismissed as a naive pollyana rather than a fiscal conservative-pragmatist.
eva,
That reminds me of a comment that I read recently "the most powerful people in the world are old men and young, pretty women." Sounds like Cixi knew how to work the system.
I like your affirmative action plan. Seems to me that it should not be so complicated. But then again, the most neglected people in our society are children. Maybe we should give them the vote.
MCH,
yeah, but then we'd just have a President Elmo or a President Power Ranger. Or maybe we already do. Sigh.
Hang in there, the next primary is, what, early May? Maybe there will be a resolution. I'm not too excited about either candidate right now... but fortunately, for us Dems, November is still a ways off...
Have a good weekend.
eva,
Yeah, I would say we already have the equivalent of Pres. Elmo. The grown ups aren't acting very grown up.
Ditto to you - have a great weekend.
There can't be any mistaking that race is still a hugely divisive issue in the U.S.
92 comments, in one day, I'm not saying I read them, but I guess we'll need to keep the dialog open on this issue. Thanks Brian and Team Lehrer.
It is heartening to read that many here are offended by the idea that only whites have a lock on racism. This is what the much of the Rev. Wright controversy is about: A demagogic, conspiracy laden, rabble-rouser, neo-communist who admires Louis Farrakhan. If whites don't vote for Obama because of the laundry list above, what does that say about blacks? Does this mean that they are blinded by race, or are racist or un-American for wanting a neo-communist as President? Would they believe a David Duke had their best interest at heart just because he recently severed his ties to the KKK? This discussion is doubly interesting because of the insight it gives us into the white liberal's mind, and how duplicitous and laden with bad-will their thought pattern is with regard to a true sense of fairness. Do the new European immigrants deserve to be saddled with “white guilt”, does anyone who never had a hand in slavery or the Southern racist laws deserve the same? This is a country that holds individuals in our society responsible not groups. Thomas Jefferson warned that factionalization is a threat to the American way. Of course to many on the left that seems to be acceptable.
Again:
I'm still trying to figure out how black folks (the vast majority of whom have spent a lifetime voting almost exclusively for white candidates on the city, state, and federal level) can now be labeled as "racist" simply because they take advantage of a very rare opportunity to vote for a black candidate.
So what should we call black folks who spent all those years voting for white candidates: Were they self-hating fools?
Please explain. . .
Better Yet:
Let's do a survey: Let's calculate the percentage of whites who have NEVER voted for a black candidate (even when there was an opportunity to do so) and compare it to the percentage of blacks who have NEVER voted for a white candidate (even when there was an opportunity to do so).
What do you think we would find? Could we make any definitive conclusions about racism and the voting habits of blacks and whites in America based on such an analysis? It seems that drawing any conclusions on such a simplistic analysis is completely bogus.
Yet it seems that there are those who are willing to draw conclusions about "black racism" based on how blacks have voted in a single election without taking into context black voting habits overall.
Maybe it's just white guilt: "I'm a white racist. But, Ahah! Blacks are racist too!"
Haha R.J.,
Hung up on what white people haven't done? Are you interested in truth or guilt peddling? Firstly, white people cannot vote for black people who are not on the ballot, similarly, black people, who want to vote, must vote for the candidates who are on the ballot, and since the people who are on the ballot are almost exclusively white, it therefore follows that blacks will wind up voting for more white candidates than whites who vote for black candidates. So I can only hope you can see through your agenda long enough to appreciate the fact that we can only vote for those people, no matter what their race, who are on the ballot. But let’s get to some facts. David Dinkins won the Democratic primary and mayoral election in NYC by garnering nearly all the black vote and over 40% of the white vote. While Guliani received only a fraction of the non-white vote and “only” a little more than half of the white vote. But instead of asking why almost all blacks seem to have put race above anything else, you ask why half the whites didn’t vote for Dinkins. I think the former is the more important question as it shows in some ways, the political immaturity of the black vote.
Con't.
You certainly cannot say that about other large groups. John Kerry, a Catholic, lost the Catholic vote by 3 points. Catholics were split in the 2004 election along the same percentages as the general electorate. You fail to recognize that in a mature view of political questions it is a matter of philosophy that drives voting behavior not race. Which is why in the case of black Congressman JC Watts-R from the 4th congressional district of Oklahoma, he was elected 4 times to the House with succeeding increases in margin in each election from a district that is 95% white. His last re-election was with a whopping 65% of the vote, nearly all white! So if whites don’t vote for Obama don’t blame them, blame the neo-communists he has enjoyed the company of. It is no mystery to me.
Yep.
What you basically did was make my point-- a point you missed because apparently you were too busy being defensive about your views. My point being this: It is impossible to draw conclusions about the bias or objectivity of an entire people based on one election season.
Let me quote myself: "It seems that drawing any conclusions on such a simplistic analysis is completely bogus."
As far as "blaming whites for not voting for Obama"-- who whites vote for and why seems to be YOUR obsession, not mines.
Well as I pointed out, whites vote in every which direction, and while I may not agree with the way many people vote, including blacks, I do so for philosophical reasons, not reasons of pride, prejudice or hatred. My point is that it seems as though your implication, and more annoying is the implication continually made by the media seems to push the idea that now that we have an "opportunity" to vote for a black candidate, we should; and somehow if we do not, it says something about us. I am sure many people of my persuasion would vote for a half dozen black conservatives over McCain or any of the other Republicans who were in the primary this year. Are we ready for a black president? I think that is as a ridiculous a question as any I have ever heard, I think we are ready for a president who will uphold our values of equal justice for citizens, fairness in commerce, helping the poor out of a lifestyle of poverty and upholding the protection of political liberty and personal freedom.
This thread is closed.
1 | 2 | Next | Back to Episode