I guess I should start by saying I have no dog in this fight. I wouldn’t care if the winning ticket was Keyes/Forbes or Nader/Kucinich.
I’m also interested in a rational (you know, a kinder, gentler kind of thing) discussion on what the Obama candidacy is revealing about America.
It has been my view and position here that the Civil Rights “Battle” is over. (with the emphasis on “battle”) Of course, that doesn’t mean I think racism is dead. (a default response often thrown about) But I can’t think of any society that is free of some form of bias, nepotism, racism or discrimination. There will always be racists and other miscreants among us. But from the courtroom to the Congress, to the school cafeteria, to the break room, to popular music and entertainment, to popular culture and how it is represented in inter-racial relationships, racism has come under relentless pressure from good people of all stripes.
Of course, the work can never be done. Yet, in my view, the Civil Rights Struggle has been won.
Some time ago, we had a thread where it was proffered that the life of Jackie Robinson (et al) and that of Michael Jordan (et al) were both emblematic of racism. Another poster posited that the difference between 1960 and 2007 was so slight as to to me meaningless.
Yet look at Obama’s accomplishments:
He won in Iowa, a state that is 98% white.
He is racking up wins in states that do not have the largest urban (read: black) centers like California. (Illinois is of course the home to Chicago (and heavily Democratic), and is his “home state.”) Look at the diversity in the states he’s won.
While young people are participating at a much higher rate than previous elections, Obama polls well and has shown an ability to win significant votes from all age brackets. It’s worth noting that no one has ever won on the strength of the youth vote. Older people—particularly the AARP crowd—vote at the highest frequency of any age group. And yet Obama continues to win.
The Republicans want Clinton to win the nomination! Few people fully realize just how good the Clinton machine really is. The are very skilled politicians. And yet it is common wisdom that Obama is a stronger national candidate.
The Clinton campaign is now actively courting the Asian and Hispanic vote; blocs they see as vital is beating back the Obama campaign. There is no expectation that Clinton has the white vote. None.
Obama hasn’t just shown an ability to compete with Clinton, but beat a handful of well known white men along the way. The best known among them was a [Bill] Clinton like John Edwards—a young, handsome, articulate and wealthy southerner. Obama beat Edwards in his home state.
Among news interviews in primary states, it is extraordinary to see the diversity among those people backing Obama. It is both refreshing and startling. Last week, NPR interviewed a middle aged, LDS man (that’s right, LDS) who was backing not Romney, but Obama.
Obama may not be the pick of the suits at DNC, but his candidacy is hardly restricted to blacks and kids. The list of non-Oprah politicians and other illuminaries willing to go out on a limb to endorse him is impressive.
Obama has consistently polled ahead of every Republican candidate, or been competitively close. He’s currently polling ahead of McCain.
The incidence of whites crossing racial lines to vote for Obama is higher than that of blacks voting for Clinton et al.
Yet in spite of the stunning successes, little is said about this. Instead, in another thread we’re lamenting that Obama isn’t winning the nursing home constituency.
Hence the quote at the top of this post.
What say you? What does the Obama campaign say, if anything, about racism in America?
I think it’s interesting that Obama is not running as a “black candidate” and neither is Hillary running as a “woman”. This is so different from the days of Jesse Jackson and Ferraro.
You hear talk about the “historic nature” of their campaigns, but it seems secondary to their positions.
Seems to me that the historic nature of their campaigns resides in the very fact that gender or race is secondary. This country has indeed come a long way on the road to (unattainable) perfect equality of opportunity.
I agree with the general statement that it’s encouraging that Obama’s race does not seem to be a huge deterrent for him.
But I also think that it would be a mistake to measure societal racism by the response to a single individual. Especially a politically skilled individual of uncommon charisma.
Yeah, we don’t go out and lynch Black guys who stick out. But do we let the common Black guy get ahead in life? Or does he have to be as smart and charismatic as Barack Obama?
A good point, Menocchio, which is why I posited that perfect equality of opportunity is unattainable, what with human nature being the sorry bedraggled thing it so often is.
I kinda question the idea that gender and race are secondary in this race, if only because we can’t stop talking about gender and race and also because these traits still have influence on voting decisions. I think what is a more accurate statement is that gender/race hasn’t been treated as an automatic reason to dismiss the legitimacy of a candidancy. Clinton and Obama are viable even though they are different from the white male model.
Obama is a black candidate. But we’re living in a time where it’s okay to be a black candidate. That’s the difference between now and in the past.
I think that one reason Obama is winning is because he is black. White liberals, and many non-liberals, want to help heal the nation of the wounds of racism, and electing a black president would go a long way in this regard.
Aside from his clear gifts of intellect, rhetoric, oratory and politicla savvy, his being black has captured the imagination of many Americans. He himself is emblematic, symbolic of the notions of change and renewal that he advocates.
He and Edwards probably differ very little in their political views. I think Obama beat Edwards (and Clinton) in part because of his race, not despite it.
If Kerry taught us anything, it’s that you can’t win an election by pointing out what you’re not. Nobody will win a campaign based on reminding everyone that they’re “not” white, or a man. That’s part of why Jackson always did so badly.
I think it’s still despite his race. He’s just so much more likable and charismatic than any other politician we can remember that people who might have stayed home (like I have at every single primary election in the past) will take the time and bother to go vote for him.
What is usually lumped as “racism” is actually “groupism” or classism. Protestations to the contrary, it’s seldom as skin-color-driven as it is a sense of belonging to a group. Color itself is merely used a shortcut indicator of the class or group to which an individual might belong, and it’s rapidly discarded if it turns out not to be a good indicator for a particular individual.
Mr Obama has nothing except his skin color that makes him “black.” He fits substantially better into a “white” upper middle class grouping than he does any other group. And the idea that either of those groups are defined by skin color is silly; they are defined by common cultural interests, income, and so on to a much greater extent regardless of the background of their constituents.
In the end, the idea that skin color, per se, is very important is yesterday’s notion. Show me a guy who is verbally facile, well-educated, well-mannered, well-dressed and capable, and I’ll show you a guy with no barriers whatsoever, in either the Political or the Business world.
I think this is it. The Netherlands, in 2002, saw a sweeping, so far unparallelled political victory of politician Pim Fortuyn. Note that Pim Fortuyn was not only openly homosexual, but openly flamingly homosexual. He would unapologetically tell the press he liked to visit gay darkrooms to have anonymous sex. Nobody cared. The man’s charisma just blew everyone away. If Fortuyn had’t been murdered, he would have won Dutch national elections.
And in this case, it is noteworthy that Holland has a similar stance towards homosexuality as the US on race. In other words, it is both against the law to discriminate gays, and mainstream acceptance of homosexuality is a non-issue. Gay discrimination, like racism in the US, is the hobby of society’s fringe of losers and malcontents.
People see what they want to see. I see Obama surgin towards a win, and Clinton’s campaign in the beginning stages of death throws. Other’s clearly see it differently.
It exposes a generational divide, I think - clearly the fact that he’s black emphasizes the “new vision” aspect of his candidacy, which mostly calls to younger people. But I think it’s equally clear that some people believe or spread the e-mail rumors about him, for example, because they’re uncomfortable with the idea of a black President.
I wonder if more people are opposed to a black male president or a white female president? Would the people opposed to one be more likely opposed to the other as well?
My take is given Obama is a great orator, a positive force, a man (I believe) of conviction, more likely than the other candidates to successfully collaborate with the opposing party, and has a more welcomed perception around the world, if the white female candidate were anyone other than Clinton I believe we’d be looking at very different results now.
I think you may be right. You bring up an interesting point, Obama’s perception from foreign leaders. Walter Veltroni the mayor of Rome is using Obama’s “Yes we can” catch phrase to entice voters in their upcoming elections. He’s also following much of Obama’s leads when it comes to sending a voice for change to the masses. I’ll surmise Barack is becoming well known around the world…