If Obama had been raised in an all-Black family, and he he became a Black politician (instead of a politician who happens to be Black), then he probably would’ve lost. If he spoke with an AAVE accent, or was closely tied to civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson, he would’ve been toast. So, growing up mostly among Whites gave him better odds of not appearing “too Black” for certain Whites. But he could’ve turned out that way with two Black parents, too. It’s just that it was unlikely for that to happen given his life experience.
Is it possible for Obama to have been born from two black parents and not been branded as a black candidate instead of a candidate who happens to be black?
I don’t think so. Obama was able to market himself that way precisely because of his biraciality. A “100%” black man would probably have been readily cast as a non-transcendental black candidate, even if his message of hope and understanding was equal to that of Obama.
I wonder what his chances would have been if his wife were White.
As the campaign wound down, I couldn’t help but think how unfortunate it was that his mother and grandmother weren’t able to appear at events with him. Being able to have his mother at his side on stage in Grant Park would have been a powerful message to the wacko element, and may have helped diffuse some of this absurd “He’s a secret Muslim” talk earlier in the campaign. (And, I guess, replace it with attacks on his hippie internationalist Mom.)
The same is true to some extent of his dad, for different reasons obviously, although clearly they were not close.
I dunno about that. His mother would probably appear to be a whacko to a lot of people, from what I’ve heard about her. I think you’re closer to the truth with the hippie internationalist. The less we heard about his dad’s side of the family, the better. Seems like he had a very complicated family life.
You don’t know that. First, not all children of Black parents grow up in Black neighborhoods. Even when they do, it doesn’t mean that they will lack the empathy or social IQ to relate to all sorts of people. Second, the only thing all Blacks have in common is their skin color. There is no one thing to dislike about all of us aside from that, and acting as though growing up around White people will make the faults of some Blacks more obvious is suspect.
Again, the specific path of his journey does preclude others from coming to the same realization in a different way. Compare Obama to Deval Patrick. He grew up in a Black neighborhood with Black parents, and yet he was able to present a similar understanding of race relations to the public.
No it isn’t. He was not able to completely transcend race. I canvassed for him in PA during the primaries. I can guarantee you his race cost him several percentage points there as it did several other places. Furthermore, he was only able to avoid the historic land mines put before most Black candidates because things like affirmative action, welfare, and petty crime are not national issues anymore. Obama’s success is specific to this particular time in history. A weak incumbent President who destroyed his party, an elderly nominee with a schizophrenic strategy, and the political wind at his back. He is probably the best pure politician most have ever seen, he’s raised three quarters of a billion dollars, and spoken before countless millions of people. His personal story is compelling and his educational training and background are beyond reproach. And yet, he only managed to win 52% of the vote. Do you honestly think his race has nothing to do with that?
Who are you talking about when you say this? Does your depth of knowledge with regard to Black politics go beyond the Al Shapton’s and Jesse Jackson’s of the world? Do you honestly think people like Douglass Wilder, a true politician, ever built a platform on racial inequality in modern times. You are confusing activists with politicians. Activists like Jackson and Sharpton may occasionally run for office, but they are not politicians. Their agenda is fight racial inequality regardless of the opinions of people on the sidelines.
Can I get a cite that Black people want to expand welfare programs or affirmative action more than Whites. And I mean ALL FORMS of welfare. I don’t appreciate this modern idea that welfare is only the stuff we give to poor minorities, while things like tax breaks to big corporations and mortgage interest tax deductions are a different beast. Also, why don’t you guess who the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been, then reevaluate who is pushing for such policies. Lastly, Black people know they need to work hard, and the vast majority of us do. All most are asking for is a more level playing field.
Why does that sound bad? Honestly, I get that Joe the plumber doesn’t appreciate that ring of it, but explain to me why it’s bad to help the people who are hurting most in a general sense. It’s also funny to me that you say this about his policies when a center piece of his campaign is to raise taxes on rich people. What I am getting at is this notion that only some groups are worthy of attention and a helping hand, while the rest of us get what we get. You can’t do enough for the soldiers, small town folks, the middle class, or small business owners, and you can only do too much for Blacks, rich people, gays, and corporations. These perceptions are usually not based in reality, but rather some weird notion of entitlement from people on both sides. Obama is just more adept at working the middle ground. He has not attempted to fundamentally change the outlook most people have.
As a white person myself, I’m wondering what it is that Obama thinks that I dislike about blacks.
I think Obama is too smart to think all white people think alike.
Believe it or not, some people will support policies that don’t benefit them personally because they believe it’s the right thing to do.
I think his outlook would have been very different. On some level it changed how white people preceived him, however it certainly impacted how he preceived white people.
You’re right. It was a mistake for me to talk in absolutes. I think that in Obama’s case, his diverse background allowed him to understand white people better. This is not to say that other politicians with different backgrounds aren’t capable of this.
Like I said before, it was a mistake for me to say “never." It’s obviously possible for someone with black parents to have a good understanding of white people. However, I do think this is less likely than if someone were raised by white parents.
He transcended race to a higher degree than other black politicians were able to do. Not completely.
I did not say all black politicians, just a lot of them.
I don’t appreciate the idea that welfare is only the stuff we give to minorities either. I’m saying that if a politician isn’t careful about how he sells welfare reform, with an ear as to how most whites think about the issue, then this is the perception he will end up with.
There are a lot more people than Joe the plumber who won’t appreciate the ring of it. We aren’t talking about segregation or slavery anymore. The concepts of inequality have become a lot less visceral. It isn’t clear to Joe why a black person might need more help than he does. If he can’t pay the rent while working two jobs, do you think he’ll agree that we should help someone else because they need it more? If you were struggling to feed your kids, would you want the government to help out someone else who needs it more? Maybe you do, and from an abstract point of view I would agree with you. But if I’m ever put in a position where my kids are hungry, I don’t think I’ll give two thoughts as to how much anyone else is struggling.
Telling Joe that a policy will help a certain minority won’t cut it. You need to frame it in a way that helps a majority class. Not a racial majority, like white people, but other factors besides race that a lot of people share. Helping groups like middle class, small business owners and soldiers (not small towns) sounds better because they describe large classes of people according to real differences. Corporations and rich people clearly need less help. Small business owners all have a disadvantage against corporations. All soldiers put their lives on the line so that the rest of can live peacefully. Those are hard concepts to argue against.
While you can argue that all blacks get victimized more (and I would agree with you), the idea won’t sell politically. Joe’s not going to vote for you and you need Joe’s vote in order to pass your polices. So you say we need universal health insurance and a tax cut for 95% of the population. That way you can help both Joe and black people. Better yet, instead of framing an issue as one helping blacks, you could say that you are trying just trying to fight poverty. Is there any problem that is so unique to black people that you can’t sell it by saying it will benefit a much broader group of people?
That is why he is a good politician. He is not trying to sell policies by changing people’s fundamental beliefs, instead he is framing them so that they already fit.
He can sell his policies better to white people in part because his background probably let him have a better understanding of how they think about these things.
Good points.
It’s also occurred to me more than once during the campaign that Obama has the advantage of facial features closer to Caucasian than to stereotypically black.* In fact he looks a helluva lot like his maternal grandfather.
In an ideal world this should mean bupkis. In the real world, I believe that must have been subliminally reassuring to some percentage of an otherwise wary electorate.
- I know, I know, there’s no such thing as one stereotypical “black” face.