Does Race Still Matter?
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.
And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position.
He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."
Geraldine Ferraro, 1984 Democratic nominee for Vice President
The former New York congresswoman was obliged to resign as a leader on Senator Hillary Clinton's finance committee because of this comment: not because it was false, but because it was politically incorrect. But is there any truth to it?
Barack Obama is an African-American, but in a different sense than the vast majority of black people in this country. His father was a Kenyan, and his mother a white Kansan. None of his ancestors were slaves in America. He never even lived in a predominantly black neighborhood until after college, when he took a job as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago.
Although his first elective office was as an Illinois state senator from a largely black district, he was never a "racial politician" like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. His record of co-operation with white colleagues made it possible for him to win the Illinois Democratic Senate primary in 2004. Just as Senator John F Kennedy famously remarked in 1960 that "I am not the Catholic candidate for President; I am the Democratic candidate for President who happens to be a Catholic", Obama is a Democratic senator and presidential candidate who happens to be bi-racial.
But even though Obama has never "played the race card", might he still benefit from it politically, as Ferraro speculated?
Consider the results of the March 11 Mississippi Democratic presidential primary. The Illinois senator won the primary by taking 90% of the black vote and 25% of the white vote. (1) Since Hillary got only about 10% of the black vote, whites were about two-and-a-half times more willing to vote for a black candidate than blacks were willing to vote for a white candidate. And this is in Mississippi, where in 1964 people got killed just trying to register black voters!
Early in this campaign many important black politicians declared their support for Senator Clinton. But once Obama started winning primaries, these same officials began to switch to his side. No matter who wins the nomination, these politicos could not afford to be perceived as supporting a white candidate when an African-American had a real chance of winning.
Overwhelming black support has also been crucial in Obama's victories in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana.
But Obama has also won in states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Vermont, where the black vote has not been a significant factor. Were these victories due entirely to the senator's positions, youthful good looks and articulate elocution, or was his bi-racial identity also a factor in attracting the votes of white Democrats?
I think the key to the answer that well-educated and upper-income whites choose the Democratic Party because it is the party that stands for justice for the poor and minorities. Upscale white voters know that Democratic policies such as welfare, government-paid health care, and affirmative action programs do not benefit them very much; those who vote Democratic are not voting their self-interest but their concern for the less fortunate. (Democratic support for legal abortion is an exception-----that benefits the middle and upper classes more than the poor.)
Among the field of about ten candidates that originally sought the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama's positions did not stand out as the most liberal; John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich were clearly to his left. In fact, Obama (along with Clinton, Richardson, Biden and Dodd) was always in the center of the Democratic field. But by voting for Obama, the only African-American in the field, the voter was affirming his commitment to racial equality in a way that could not be duplicated by backing any one of the other contenders.
By the same token, a vote for Hillary Clinton affirmed the voter's feminism in way that could not be matched by voting for a man who was equally committed to women's rights. It is no wonder that the two living emblems of identity-politics, Obama and Clinton, have emerged as the surviving contenders for the Democratic nomination.
But what about Ferraro's speculation that "if (Obama) was a woman, he would not be in this position"? But then "he" would be "she".
The best answer is the Yiddish adage:
"If my grandmother would have been a male, she would have been my grandfather!" (2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Associated Press, March 12, 2008
(2) The original "Oib meine bobeh volt gehat ayer, volt ze geven mein zadeh!" has been intentionally toned down in the translation.
And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position.
He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."
Geraldine Ferraro, 1984 Democratic nominee for Vice President
The former New York congresswoman was obliged to resign as a leader on Senator Hillary Clinton's finance committee because of this comment: not because it was false, but because it was politically incorrect. But is there any truth to it?
Barack Obama is an African-American, but in a different sense than the vast majority of black people in this country. His father was a Kenyan, and his mother a white Kansan. None of his ancestors were slaves in America. He never even lived in a predominantly black neighborhood until after college, when he took a job as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago.
Although his first elective office was as an Illinois state senator from a largely black district, he was never a "racial politician" like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. His record of co-operation with white colleagues made it possible for him to win the Illinois Democratic Senate primary in 2004. Just as Senator John F Kennedy famously remarked in 1960 that "I am not the Catholic candidate for President; I am the Democratic candidate for President who happens to be a Catholic", Obama is a Democratic senator and presidential candidate who happens to be bi-racial.
But even though Obama has never "played the race card", might he still benefit from it politically, as Ferraro speculated?
Consider the results of the March 11 Mississippi Democratic presidential primary. The Illinois senator won the primary by taking 90% of the black vote and 25% of the white vote. (1) Since Hillary got only about 10% of the black vote, whites were about two-and-a-half times more willing to vote for a black candidate than blacks were willing to vote for a white candidate. And this is in Mississippi, where in 1964 people got killed just trying to register black voters!
Early in this campaign many important black politicians declared their support for Senator Clinton. But once Obama started winning primaries, these same officials began to switch to his side. No matter who wins the nomination, these politicos could not afford to be perceived as supporting a white candidate when an African-American had a real chance of winning.
Overwhelming black support has also been crucial in Obama's victories in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana.
But Obama has also won in states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Vermont, where the black vote has not been a significant factor. Were these victories due entirely to the senator's positions, youthful good looks and articulate elocution, or was his bi-racial identity also a factor in attracting the votes of white Democrats?
I think the key to the answer that well-educated and upper-income whites choose the Democratic Party because it is the party that stands for justice for the poor and minorities. Upscale white voters know that Democratic policies such as welfare, government-paid health care, and affirmative action programs do not benefit them very much; those who vote Democratic are not voting their self-interest but their concern for the less fortunate. (Democratic support for legal abortion is an exception-----that benefits the middle and upper classes more than the poor.)
Among the field of about ten candidates that originally sought the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama's positions did not stand out as the most liberal; John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich were clearly to his left. In fact, Obama (along with Clinton, Richardson, Biden and Dodd) was always in the center of the Democratic field. But by voting for Obama, the only African-American in the field, the voter was affirming his commitment to racial equality in a way that could not be duplicated by backing any one of the other contenders.
By the same token, a vote for Hillary Clinton affirmed the voter's feminism in way that could not be matched by voting for a man who was equally committed to women's rights. It is no wonder that the two living emblems of identity-politics, Obama and Clinton, have emerged as the surviving contenders for the Democratic nomination.
But what about Ferraro's speculation that "if (Obama) was a woman, he would not be in this position"? But then "he" would be "she".
The best answer is the Yiddish adage:
"If my grandmother would have been a male, she would have been my grandfather!" (2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Associated Press, March 12, 2008
(2) The original "Oib meine bobeh volt gehat ayer, volt ze geven mein zadeh!" has been intentionally toned down in the translation.
Labels: Ferraro, Hillary Clinton, Obama
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 8:44 AM
1 Comments:
I think you and Ferraro have entirely missed the point with regard to Obama's success.
As you point out Obama has had success in some primarily white states, so his race was not a factor. You suggest that politics was the reason. That is, that white upper class democrats favor welfare and other issues that support minorities, but this surely was not the reason for his success because time and time again voters were polled and policy positions were never a factor in choosing Obama (they don't know his positions on anything) and anyway Obama and Hillary have the same positions on almost all issues.
The main issue regarding Obama is not race or politics, but charisma. Every poll has shown that the voters for Obama cannot name a single issue which swayed their vote and they cannot even name a single issue that Obama holds.
Obama's success is totally due to his charisma. People like him regardless of his race or politics. He would have been succesful if he ran as a Communist, Libertarian or Whig. He would have been succesful whether he was yellow, blue or hermaphroditic.
Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, is the poster boy for the value of charisma in American politics. This campaign has clearly demonstrated that in the USA anyone can get elected no matter what they believe or say or don't say as long as they have charisma. The reason for this of course is that we are now totally a TV culture where substance is devalued and image is everything.
The success of Obama has nothing to do with race or politics, it is a manifestation of the banality of the American mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home