The biggest canard in this election is the one that asserts that if Obama loses it will be because of white racism. Now, I'm not foolish enough to argue that there aren't some whites who will vote against Obama strictly based on his race, but I would argue that that number is relatively small.
Why do I draw that conclusion? In the first place, Republicans will not vote for Obama in any case - not because he's black, but because he's a democrat. I for one haven't knowingly voted for a democrat in 32 years (I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976, lord forgive me). Thus, by definition, to the extent that racism plays any role at all in this election, it must be understood that it comes from democrats and so-called independents, and not from Republicans. However, there's no credible poll to indicate that democrats and independents are inordinately concerned about Obama's race - at least not in a negative sense.
What the polls do suggest, to the contrary, is that certain percentage of white voters (presumably democrats and independents) are more predisposed to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. Burdened by white guilt, this class of voters gives Obama a boost that he might not otherwise receive. These guilt-ridden white voters have dismissed the McCain candidacy out of hand - not because they disagree with him (his policies vs. Obama's policies are irrelevant) - but because they've already decided they need to assuage their guilt by voting for a candidate of color.
I think one can legitimately make the case that white guilt will be a bigger factor in this race than white racism.
This racism canard is a very reckless one - it may be the most damaging single lie that's ever been spread in a presidential election. (It's certainly the most dangerous lie that's been broadly disseminated by ostensibly legitimate media in the nearly 50 years I've been watching these things.)
Long before the votes have been cast, the opinion movers and shakers have already created a dishonest narrative that feeds into African American resentments and suspicions. (And let’s be honest here: African American have had – and still have – legitimate grievances about their lot in this society. It’s still a tough lot, probably tougher than I fully appreciate.)
So what about this lie regarding racism’s role in this particular election? It’s a lie that plays to African Americans’ collective despair, a lie that legitimizes their despair.
Obama supporters of color have not been prepared to accept the simple fact that the nation may reject Obama because of his political views, his ideas about how society should be ordered. Rather, they have been stoked to accept as gospel that if their candidate loses it will be because the white man will never, never, never allow a black man to rise up in this racist country.
Obama, to his shame, has done little to nothing to discredit this lie. Rather, he has made it clear in many ways, in many venues, and on many occasions, that for all his talk about being a "post-racial" candidate, he will use race - and white racial guilt – any time it can give him an advantage.
Why do I draw that conclusion? In the first place, Republicans will not vote for Obama in any case - not because he's black, but because he's a democrat. I for one haven't knowingly voted for a democrat in 32 years (I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976, lord forgive me). Thus, by definition, to the extent that racism plays any role at all in this election, it must be understood that it comes from democrats and so-called independents, and not from Republicans. However, there's no credible poll to indicate that democrats and independents are inordinately concerned about Obama's race - at least not in a negative sense.
What the polls do suggest, to the contrary, is that certain percentage of white voters (presumably democrats and independents) are more predisposed to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. Burdened by white guilt, this class of voters gives Obama a boost that he might not otherwise receive. These guilt-ridden white voters have dismissed the McCain candidacy out of hand - not because they disagree with him (his policies vs. Obama's policies are irrelevant) - but because they've already decided they need to assuage their guilt by voting for a candidate of color.
I think one can legitimately make the case that white guilt will be a bigger factor in this race than white racism.
This racism canard is a very reckless one - it may be the most damaging single lie that's ever been spread in a presidential election. (It's certainly the most dangerous lie that's been broadly disseminated by ostensibly legitimate media in the nearly 50 years I've been watching these things.)
Long before the votes have been cast, the opinion movers and shakers have already created a dishonest narrative that feeds into African American resentments and suspicions. (And let’s be honest here: African American have had – and still have – legitimate grievances about their lot in this society. It’s still a tough lot, probably tougher than I fully appreciate.)
So what about this lie regarding racism’s role in this particular election? It’s a lie that plays to African Americans’ collective despair, a lie that legitimizes their despair.
Obama supporters of color have not been prepared to accept the simple fact that the nation may reject Obama because of his political views, his ideas about how society should be ordered. Rather, they have been stoked to accept as gospel that if their candidate loses it will be because the white man will never, never, never allow a black man to rise up in this racist country.
Obama, to his shame, has done little to nothing to discredit this lie. Rather, he has made it clear in many ways, in many venues, and on many occasions, that for all his talk about being a "post-racial" candidate, he will use race - and white racial guilt – any time it can give him an advantage.
3 comments:
Guys: Now that I've published this, I see that it's probably too long. I'll try to keep entries a bit tighter.
Bill, feel free to go as long as you like. My observation over the years has been that when you write, every word has significance. BTW, I continue to find it fascinating that two years ago Lynn Swann (an African American) lost the race for governor here in PA to a white man, yet no one decried the racism of the electorate (not even John Murtha). And the same year Michael Steele (an African American) lost his bid for the US Senate to a white guy, yet again, no accusations of white racism. I suppose it is only racism when the African American is a liberal Democrat.
Guys, the double standard to which Dave refers is the result of the atrocity that is visited upon any black man or woman who dares to think for himself or herself and rejects the left-liberal agenda. This policy of ostracization is enforced by the vast majority of blacks and the mainstream media and intelligentsia.
These guilty whites are going to realize that the price for the healing of their guilty souls is more than they are willing to pay. By then it might be too late.
Forgive me for using an overused term, but we might be witnessing a "perfect storm" for socialism this year: a suave, phony black man, Clinton fatigue, Bush fatigue, and an absolute fool of a loser (for whom we nevertheless must vote--I think) as a candidate for those on the right. After all, Lenin and the gang didn't prevail because they were right or because the people demanded Bolshevism, but because an opportune moment finally arrived. What ever happened to those sanctimonious voters who always say, "I vote for the man, not the party [or race]"?
Post a Comment