Tuesday, October 21, 2008
In Perspective
Greenwald is right that it's absurd to baselessly assert that a given person's decision to support a political candidate can be boiled down to race. In fact, this canard that African-Americans are only supporting Obama because he's black has to be put to bed entirely.
For decades it has been in the self-interest of most African-Americans to vote for a Democrat for President; the GOP's history of race-baiting hasn't done much to change this. Thus Obama's overwhelming support from blacks isn't inconsistent with past Democratic candidates. To the extent that black support for the Dem has increased this cycle, it is 1) almost entirely attributable to bringing new voters into the fold and 2) in line with Obama's increased support across all demographics. If there's evidence of a huge cadre of conservative blacks who are throwing their support behind Obama because of his skin color I haven't seen it.
That said, there are plenty of African-Americans voting for Obama who would not have voted otherwise. Here Obama's race sometimes probably does play a role, but this is nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Members of any distinct segment of American society, particularly one that feels marginalized, naturally tend to be excited to see 'one of their own' on a national ticket. This is a pretty rational response predicated on the presumption, right or wrong, that the candidate in question will better represent their interests than other politicians have in the past. In this black excitement for Barack Obama is no different than evangelical excitement for Sarah Palin.
The real argument here, which even folks like Rush won't come right out and say, is the inverse of Greenwald's rhetorical question. Why is it okay for black people to be excited by a black candidate because he's black and not for white people to be excited by a white candidate because he's white? The obvious-bordering-on-glib answer is: because we haven't had a black President before. But there's more to it than that.
Speaking very (very) broadly, African-Americans represent a distinct demographic with distinct interests within the greater American polity -- they are a political subculture. Whites, however, are not. Granted, there are some distinct demographics within American society which happen to be white; nevertheless, 'white culture', as a whole, is essentially identical with 'American culture'. The only distinct political subculture that self-defines as 'white' is the explicitly racist white nationalist movement. Thus it is more acceptable for African-Americans to support a black candidate in part because of his skin color than for white Americans to support a white candidate for the same reason.
I've seen plenty of conservatives shed crocodile tears over this kind of 'double standard'. So what if it is a double standard? Conservatives of all people should understand that we need more than one. And speaking as a white guy I frankly think I got the long end of the stick on this. I'm not discriminated against in everyday life. My ancestors weren't slaves. I can't imagine any rational person would trade that for the ability to make a politically acceptable endorsement on the basis of skin color.
Then again, I'm not Rush Limbaugh.
Powell, Politics, and Race
Written by Matthew Locke at 3:16 PM
Read more on Gordon Campbell's incendiary cartoon here.
Glenn Greenwald poses a strong and obvious counter-argument to right-wing bloviating about Colin Powell's 'race patriotism':
[W]hy isn't this race-based analysis being applied to others who are endorsing outside of their party? I don't recall Joe Lieberman endorsing any hard-core conservative national politicians before this year, when he has spent much of his time cheering for and appearing with the McCain/Palin ticket. Using the Limbaugh/Buchanan/Halperin logic, isn't it fair to assume that at least a significant part of Lieberman's motive in endorsing McCain -- if not his entire motive -- is that he and McCain are both white, whereas Obama isn't? What's the difference between making that race-based assumption about Lieberman's endorsement and making it about Powell?
Greenwald is right that it's absurd to baselessly assert that a given person's decision to support a political candidate can be boiled down to race. In fact, this canard that African-Americans are only supporting Obama because he's black has to be put to bed entirely.
For decades it has been in the self-interest of most African-Americans to vote for a Democrat for President; the GOP's history of race-baiting hasn't done much to change this. Thus Obama's overwhelming support from blacks isn't inconsistent with past Democratic candidates. To the extent that black support for the Dem has increased this cycle, it is 1) almost entirely attributable to bringing new voters into the fold and 2) in line with Obama's increased support across all demographics. If there's evidence of a huge cadre of conservative blacks who are throwing their support behind Obama because of his skin color I haven't seen it.
That said, there are plenty of African-Americans voting for Obama who would not have voted otherwise. Here Obama's race sometimes probably does play a role, but this is nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Members of any distinct segment of American society, particularly one that feels marginalized, naturally tend to be excited to see 'one of their own' on a national ticket. This is a pretty rational response predicated on the presumption, right or wrong, that the candidate in question will better represent their interests than other politicians have in the past. In this black excitement for Barack Obama is no different than evangelical excitement for Sarah Palin.
The real argument here, which even folks like Rush won't come right out and say, is the inverse of Greenwald's rhetorical question. Why is it okay for black people to be excited by a black candidate because he's black and not for white people to be excited by a white candidate because he's white? The obvious-bordering-on-glib answer is: because we haven't had a black President before. But there's more to it than that.
Speaking very (very) broadly, African-Americans represent a distinct demographic with distinct interests within the greater American polity -- they are a political subculture. Whites, however, are not. Granted, there are some distinct demographics within American society which happen to be white; nevertheless, 'white culture', as a whole, is essentially identical with 'American culture'. The only distinct political subculture that self-defines as 'white' is the explicitly racist white nationalist movement. Thus it is more acceptable for African-Americans to support a black candidate in part because of his skin color than for white Americans to support a white candidate for the same reason.
I've seen plenty of conservatives shed crocodile tears over this kind of 'double standard'. So what if it is a double standard? Conservatives of all people should understand that we need more than one. And speaking as a white guy I frankly think I got the long end of the stick on this. I'm not discriminated against in everyday life. My ancestors weren't slaves. I can't imagine any rational person would trade that for the ability to make a politically acceptable endorsement on the basis of skin color.
Then again, I'm not Rush Limbaugh.
blog comments powered by Disqus
