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.

Jews in Palestine: Why Not?

The Milwaukee chapter of Americans for Peace Now (APN) sponsored a program at UWM on March 9 featuring Ghaith Al-Omari, former security advisor to Mahmoud Abbas, and Steve Masters, President of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom. Most of the audience was Jewish, including a former Israeli, but there were also a few Muslims and Christians present.

The speakers urged American Jews to support the current negotiations between Abbas and Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert . Mr Al-Omari outlined a proposed two-state solution to the Middle East conflict, similar to the offer that Yassir Arafat rejected in 2000. To his credit, he asserted unequivocally that there would be no "Right of Return" of Arabs to Israel (1). The discussion following the formal presentation was very amiable until I asked this provocative question:

"Mr Al-Omari, over a million Arabs live in Israel, and they are not considered an obstacle to peace. Why, then, do Palestinians insist that every Jewish settler leave the West Bank before a Palestinian state can be set up there? Why must the area be Judenrein?" (2)

The Arab spokesman bristled at the reference to "Judenrein". He insisted that the issue is not religion, but citizenship. "The settlers are Israeli citizens---that is the problem! Jews could apply to immigrate to Palestine (after independence) and they could be admitted on a case-by-case basis."

"But why couldn't the settlers become Palestinian citizens, and be governed by the same laws as everyone else?" I inquired.

"Because there would be attacks on the settlements, and maybe the settlers would attack the Palestinians. Every time the idea was discussed,it was shot down. Even the Israeli negotiators shot it down!" Al-Omari replied.

The Palestinian speaker admitted that the proposed state could not (or would not) protect Israeli settlers from terrorists. ( If he is really afraid that the settlers would harm Palestinians, he should be glad that the Israeli Army is there now to stop them, but he is not. ) In Al-Omari's view, there should be no "path to citizenship" in Palestine for Israelis now living in the West Bank.

There are about 250,000 Jews living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank; many younger residents were born there, some older ones have lived there up to forty years. The idea that these people would leave their homes and fields to seek housing in Israel (or elsewhere) is a "poison pill" for the peace-talks. Expelling a just few thousand settlers from Gaza in 2005 was a painful process, and the consequences have not been encouraging. Imagine dragging a quarter of a million from their homes!

APN and Brit Tzedek believe that Israelis and Palestinians can and should work together for a peaceful resolution to the ongoing crisis. They say that both sides should sacrifice for peace. But the plea is deceptively symmetric: Israel is asked to give up land that it has; the Arabs are asked to give up only demands for what they do not have, such as the "Right of Return." If even the most moderate of Palestinians, such as Ghaith Al-Omari, are adamant that no Jewish settlements should be permitted in the proposed State of Palestine, then how can Israelis trust their Arab neighbors to enforce a peace treaty? Will they stand up to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and tell them that absolutely no terrorism against Israel will be tolerated?

Many countries have either become independent or undergone fundamental political change in the past few decades: Lithuania, Serbia, South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), to name a few. All of these nations have included sizeable ethnic minorities . Those that have become true civil societies have accorded citizenship and equal rights to the minorities; those that have chosen the path of "ethnic cleansing" are justly reviled for their actions.

If the proposed State of Palestine is to become a civil society, it should accept all persons living on its territory at the time of its inception as full citizens. Dual citizenship should be permitted. All should enjoy "equal protection of the laws." Jews who would not feel safe under Palestinian rule could leave, but neither the Government of Israel nor that of Palestine should evict them.

But will the ongoing negotiations lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state at all? As noted in our January 1 Glazerbeam ("Dr No"), I do not believe that President Abbas has any intention of making the kind of concessions that would be necessary to achieve an agreement. Moreover, his term as President of Palestine expires in 2010, and he has already declined to seek another term. By that time, US President George W Bush, the prime mover behind the current talks, will also be out of office. I do not know who will succeed Abbas (if he actually completes his term), but my guess is that the next leader will not be more conciliatory toward Israel.

Though the Fatah leadership in Ramallah apparently does not realize it yet, Gaza has effectively withdrawn from the Palestine Authority and is waging its own war against Israel. If only a "peace now" movement would take hold there!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) It is a lot easier to forego this "Right" in Milwaukee than it would be in Ramallah. Last I heard, the Palestine Authority is still advocating it, though perhaps only to trade it for some other concession.

(2) German for "Free of Jews", a Nazi term.