Obama, our first president by quota

Topics: Campaign2008
17 Mar 2008

From: Ervan Darnell

Someone I never thought I would agree with, Geraldine Ferraro, spoke the truth last week:

> If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. [1]

This is doubly true.

First, it's true because of the overwhelming support he gets from African-Americans. If you add up the numbers, he'd lose both the primary [3] and, were he nominated anyway, the election (according to the latest polls) without black support. I already noted how racially aligned Democrats are. It's worth noting that Clinton has low-income Democrats supporting her. African-Americans are typically low-income, but still overwhelmingly support Obama. Thus, the racial alignment aspect seems the driving force here, not some subtle policy resonance.

Second, Obama gets the white-guilt/quota-sympathy vote. He looks black without acting stereotypically black, just what middle class America wants to assuage its guilt without addressing the substance. Obviously a biased source, but a good quote:

>Tom Davis, [Republican congressman] ... said, "With one vote, you can eliminate 400 years of guilt with that vote." [4]


I'm sure Obama also loses some votes because of race, but it seems a lesser effect (perhaps less so in the general election where the most anti-black racism is concentrated in states sure to go Republican anyway). I'll take it as limited evidence that both Shields and Brooks (left and right pundits) agree that Obama's race is a net benefit because of the guilt bonus. [4]

So, Ferraro's comment was a simple bit of truth, but an intolerable bit for Democrats:

>" I said yesterday that I rejected what she said and I certainly do repudiate it," Clinton said

Ferraro resigned from Clinton's campaign committee (was forced to?). I thought the Democratic complaint against Bush was that he shut down dissent by firing people for speaking the "truth" about Iraq? (okay, a campaign aid is not the same as an advisor, still...) And, of course, complaining about the pro-white racial alignment of white voters is fair game.

I like this perambulation from Obama himself:

> "The notion that it is of great advantage to me to be an African American named Barack Obama and pursue the presidency, I think, is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public," he said.

Ah, it's not what _is_ true, it is what people think is true. That sounds like a summary of his campaign strategy (never mind his economics are totally wrong, people have hope they will work). In fairness, the man himself has always spoken inclusively.

Given that the current political system is a spoils system, I think it's rational for blacks to support Obama. It's white liberals I think less of. The particular mechanism that worries me in all of this is that I can see many legitimate criticisms being shot down under accusations of racism. I see the WSJ made the same point:

> he [Obama]'s using race as a shield to shut down important and legitimate arguments. [2]

I think also of comments Bill Clinton made in South Carolina that a black person winning there was unsurprising [5] and earlier comments by a Clinton aid that Obama would be attacked by the Republicans about his drug use. Both comments were deemed racist, when both were objective statements. This overwrought PC opprobrium gives Obama an undeserved boost that may be enough to send him to the White House.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHUN31609820080313?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112


[2] WSJ editorial, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1


[3] http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/race_emerges_as_issue_in_democ.html

[4] 3/14/08 Newshour w/ Jim Lehrer, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june08/sbspitzer_03-14.html

[5] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/hillary-clint-7.html

_______________________________________________
Ragnar mailing list
Ragnar@ragnar.kelvinist.com
http://ragnar.kelvinist.com/mailman/listinfo/ragnar

Home