I read a great piece this morning from Ari Kaufman that said something I've been thinking all along after the rise of Barack Obama. There is an ongoing, casual smearing process quite evident in the mainstream media that is not going to sit well with the majority of Americans. Liberals are tossing out article after article, column after column, calling into question the average white voter. They mistakenly believe they are providing some kind of service to Obama and advancing his cause. Quite the contrary.
Today's exhibit A is the curious Washington Post column by Kevin Merida. What makes it so curious? Consider this:
Anyone reading the full article might then request clarification to determine whether the Obama folks felt there was a lot of racism — as the opening of the piece and its title suggest — or whether the positive experiences far outweighed the isolated incidents of racism. When the most liberal senator in America receives nearly 49% of the vote in a historically red state, the latter rings more true.
There are certainly racists and bigots in America. In the 42 months since President Bush’s re-election, I have visited all the lower 48 states and can tell you some level of racism exists in all colors in all states. But as a historian, I can’t help but think America is the least racist nation ever created, in spite of the stain of slavery. Many immigrants I know also concur. They’ll cite European history for ethnic insensitivity, and the racial intolerance in their native lands of the Middle East, Asia, or South America for examples.
In two years as an Indiana resident, I have been to 91 of the 92 counties in the Hoosier State, and have enjoyed conversations with all sorts of genuine folks who epitomize “Hoosier hospitality.” The three cities in question in Merida’s article — Muncie, Kokomo, and Vincennes — are all college towns, the former two with ethnically diverse populations. Muncie has a major land grant school (the very liberal Ball State University), while Kokomo is a working class city with a Democrat mayor. Vincennes is a historic city — Indiana’s first (and its first territorial capital) at 275 years old — and also has a Democratic mayor. No facts show these Indiana cities being any more racially insensitive than Eugene, Oregon; Rutland, Vermont; or Duluth, Minnesota.
Exactly.
The Merida piece is part and parcel, in my mind, with the Marie Cocco piece deriding what she believes is sexism in the treatment of Hillary Clinton during the Democrat race for the nomination.
Cocco correctly notes the disparate treatment between Clinton and Obama in recent months but fails to acknowledge how normal this is when a shooting star appears on the political scene. Her real complaint, it seems to me, is that race has trumped gender. Isn't that what occurred in the Democrat's primary race? My prediction is that this is going to be the story of this election, along with the necessary end-result: the "Mommy" party is going to see a mass exodus of the female vote.
However, back to Merida and Cocco: neither writer seems to appreciate the rough treatment all manner of people receive around the political spectrum and the Ari Kaufman column demonstrates this nicely. The race for President, the highest office in the world (to be quite frank about it), is a contest that has to be engaged. Kid gloves will not suffice. Any woman entering the arena had better have on her big girl panties. Any guy daring to apply to be Commander-in-Chief had damn well better man up and deal with whatever confronts him.
To hell with worrying about the roughness of this, that or the other. Can you deal with it? Can you???
Americans are not going to be "shamed" into voting for Barack Obama. It simply isn't going to happen nor should it.
Barack has peaked in popularity and will never be as popular as he was two or three months ago. The primary reason for this occurrence will be the hard lesson Hillary learned in her primary race: the bottom line in America is that race trumps gender. Unfortunately for Barack's enablers on the left, the great progress we've made in this country (unattained anywhere else, I maintain) in the last forty years is that we've been allowed to go at least one step further: class trumps race. In my book, that makes America essentially race-neutral.
That is the factoid which is going to really cook dear ole Barack. Another column for another time will be the observation that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trumps class -- which, in my personal opinion, Europeans so often fail to comprehend about America along with far too many on the American left.
One core belief common on the political Left is that you must be white in order to be a racist. If a white person votes against Barack Obama solely based on the color of his skin, it is not outside the pale to label that person racist.
If, however, a black person votes for Barack Obama solely because of the color of his skin couldn't a reasonable person label that voter as racist? Barack both benefits from and is hurt by racism.
Is racism to be villified when it hurts a black person and politely not mentioned when it benefits him? What, then, happens to Dr. King's vision of a society that judges a man by the "content of his character" rather than "the color of his skin"?
What of those blacks who, early in Barack Obama's campaign complained that he was "not black enough"? Were they making racist remarks, or was Barack being racist by "acting white"?
We are framing this primary as the racists vs. the sexists. Whoever wins the nomination, the Democrat Party's big tent will end in tatters.
We live in a society where refusing to react to a person's skin color will get you quickly labeled as a racist. How do we get back through the looking glass? I don't have the answers.
Posted by: Peter Grynch | May 17, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Interestingly, I asserted on the "No Left Turns" blog on November 16, 2007 in response to a great post by Julie Ponzi that the Clinton establishment would have to figuratively "kill" Barack Obama -- their glorious child of the 1968 counter-culture.
Ooops!
It looks as though Barack is the one doing the figurative killing. Isn't that interesting? I still think the point is apt: their coalition may not be in tatters after the November election, but it -- the Mommy party of America -- may never be the same. Will white female Democrats of middle age and older ever look at "their" party the same???
And, mind you, I have a close personal friend who is 100% convinced that right-wing white people are going to kill Barack Obama before he can ever take office. Absolutely convinced. As for me, I'm not worried about that but if it was to occur I'd be more suspicious of left-wing zealots trying to incite their long-awaited race war.
That said, Peter, and my friend who thinks Barack will be killed notwithstanding, I do think there is something of a political growing-up process occurring. All across the board. Two steps forward, one step backward, and so it goes.
Posted by: RattlerGator | May 17, 2008 at 09:45 PM
There is an excellent black racist reason to oppose Senator Obama -- the first black man to become President must be a significantly better man than Senator Obama. Imagine if an Obama presidency becomes a disaster. What then? Somehow, I think it would be more comforting to imagine a dignified old black patriarch such as Bill Cosby as the President of the United States.
One aspect of America that people often take for granted is culture; during the twentieth century, black culture epitomized fashion and "coolness" in America. In contrast, French culture epitomized fashion in America during the nineteenth century. With an Obama presidential candidacy, let alone an Obama presidency, I am concerned that the power of black culture in America may significantly decline.
Somehow, I sense that American fashion is at a crossroads. I don’t know which direction American culture will go, but the time will soon come when the fashion sense of Obama and everybody associated with him will become old and dated – and distinctly “uncool”. The more organizational power Obama gains, the more he becomes the “organization man”, and the more he defines the antithesis of “coolness”.
I think there are black politicians who could achieve the power of the Presidency without undermining black cultural power in America. Cultural power is nothing to be sneezed at; without cultural power, I don’t think the civil rights movement would have succeeded.
Posted by: Alexis | May 18, 2008 at 05:15 PM
In India, when you mix a caste system with afirmative action you get this bizarre result:
Under India's traditional caste system, the Gujjar tribe is very low. It rates among the "other backward classes," which puts it "one rung from the bottom of India's social ladder," London's Daily Telegraph reports. The Gujjar are not at all pleased with this, and they are rioting about it:
More than 45,000 police fired tear gas as Gujjar mobs burnt tyres, hurled stones at passing cars and squatted on roads.
The rioting began last week in Rajasthan, when 39 members of the Gujjar tribe died in clashes with police while protesting the government's refusal to "downgrade" their caste.
It turns out that although India supposedly bans discrimination by caste, it also practices "affirmative action"--i.e., discrimination in favor of the lowest castes. If the Gujjar manage to get knocked to the bottom, they stand "to gain preferential treatment for university placements and government jobs." Hmm, sounds familiar.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121216686895533099.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today
Posted by: Peter Grynch | May 30, 2008 at 09:00 PM