5/8/08
Eventually we won't be so political on this blog, but for now, it's like crack and we can't seem to stop. My brother Kent wrote something I'd like to post below, but first, I had a moment in the car today that perfectly encapsulates why this election is so charged for me. It's tiny, I admit, but here goes:
Rebuffing calls for her to quit from most Democrats who are capable of simple math, she said "I believe all fifty states should be counted... they told me to quit after Iowa, and then I won New Hampshire, and then we had big victories on Super Tuesday, and then I won Texas and Pennsylvania, and I was never supposed to win Indiana!"
And so, in one quote, Hillary summed up why I can't stand her brand of politics. The "all fifty states" comment is about Michigan and Florida, and all of you know why counting those votes - or even clamoring for them - is reprehensible on her part. The "quitting after Iowa" is not even accurate; nobody called for her to quit, but that's not even the point. We are in a very different place right now, after Obama's huge lead in delegates and popular vote, so the two situations aren't remotely comparable. That's like justifying a box full of Krispy Kremes by starting out with a Diet Coke.
Going further, Hillary did not "win" Texas. Obama got more delegates there, and that's what counts in a primary. And of course, the kicker is Indiana, where she had polled ahead by double digits for months before the primary.
You can call this sort of behavior "playing the game", "hard-nosed politics", "asinine cherry-picking", "egregiously disingenuous" or even "lying", but all I know is that I'M SICK OF IT. Is Obama a saint incapable of fault? Of course not, but in all the mud-slinging, I've never heard him rattle off a laundry list of half-baked bullshit and tried to sell it as reality.
You may think his mantra of "hope" is half-baked, sure, and you might mistrust his flowery oratory, but he's not trying to pull a fast one. You can opt in or opt out of his message, but he's not trying to alter your perception of truth for his gain. That is what we've endured for eight years, it's what Hillary has shown us for eight months, and I just can't stand it anymore.
If you think I'm an asshole now, take a look at an entry from four years ago when we were going through Bush-Kerry. I had a pretty silly theory about the Martha Stewart verdict and Democrats, but I did think that Americans were eventually going to tire of The Lie. I just thought it would happen sooner.
Anyway, here's the mystical, magical, Buddha of our family, Kent:
***
OK, my man Obama said we should have a national dialog about race.
Here I go into the breach.
Commenter Matt recently said: "There's no difference between voting
for someone just because he's the same color as you and voting against
someone because he's not."
So first let me rebut that: Group Solidarity is not the same as
Blanket Prejudice. Matt was also disappointed that black voters went
over 90% for Barack, out of what he presumed was 'racial solidarity.'
That is oversimplification to the point of caricature and stereotype.
As any African-American person will tell you, a person who has a
father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas is not someone with whom
they would automatically feel a affinity. Obama's book "Dreams From
My Father" is substantially about his struggle to find a cultural
identity for himself. He is a man who as a young adult chose to
identify with African-American culture, and to live and work in a
black community. Given his background, education, and even the words
he uses and the accent he speaks with, Barack Obama does not
automatically strike many African-Americans as "one of them."
I've no doubt that many, if not most, black folks are thrilled to be
able to vote for an African American candidate for President for the
first time. But if you actually look at what has happened this year,
his popularity with African-Americans came because the Clintons
engaged in what many African-Americans viewed as race-baiting.
Hillary Clinton lost her support in the African-American community by
her own actions. Barack Obama never had their support as some sort of
birthright.
Barack Obama is winning the black vote overwhelmingly for three
reasons: 1) Hillary Clinton alienated black voters by her own words
and deeds. 2) Barack Obama showed he was a viable candidate by winning
races in very white states. 3) Black voters have found a way to
identify with Obama. Yes he's a brown skinned son of Africa, but more
than that, his message is one of a country united to solve our
problems -- an inclusive coalition where diversity is celebrated.
Barack Obama describes the United States as the sort of place
African-Americans have always wanted to live: someplace where they're
judged by the content of their character and not the color of their
skin.
Barack Obama doesn't get a free pass from anyone, especially from
African-Americans. In fact African-Americans are arguably his
toughest audience. If you're African-American, and your family
background is culturally African-American, and the majority of the
people you associate with are African-American, you will know one
thing for sure: Dark skin confers no special qualities on those who
wear it. Black folks know black folks they love, they hate, they
trust, they distrust, they fear. In other words, if you're
African-American, other African-Americans are as individual as
snowflakes to you. If you aren't a fool, you trust no one just for
being black.
Now I'm a white guy from Iowa. I'm not a spokesman for black folks,
by any means. I was raised by my mother not be racist, but I'm always
going to know capital B Black Culture from the outside. I do know
this: as a White American, I'm the default. My skin color confers
upon me a whole array of unearned entitlements in our culture. I'm
the guy that could shoplift with impunity while the salesgirls at the
Mall are following the black folks around the store. I can't presume
to know what it feels like to stand out as a minority member in
society. Well I can,somewhat, when I'm in black neighborhoods in
Chicago or Detroit, but if black folks were treated by white with the
kindness and hospitality I've experienced in those neighborhoods, we
wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Since I'm 50 years old, I'm old enough to remember the Civil Rights
struggles of the 60s, and the assasination of Martin Luther King was a
huge event in my childhood. I can only hope that my own children who
learn about the struggles of the past as history, not a lived-through
trauma, will be part of a multicultural society, where people are more
comfortable with each other. All of the old ideas and prejudices over
skin color are meaningless. Being African American, or European, or
Asian is much more about Culture than race. Culture is something about
which one can learn. Culture is something that you can share. Cultures
can get all mixed up together and form new Culture. To cling onto
divisions and categories of the past is to not see the world as it is
in front of your eyes. Yo Yo Ma is (arguably) the best 'cellist in
the world, Keith Richards backs up Chuck Berry, suburban white kids
get obsessed with Japanese Anime, and my African-American friend Dave
from Detroit is obsessed with early 90s British Shoegazer bands.
We're all individuals and unique and it's about time we really do
start judging people as individuals.
I heart Kent.
Amen, Kent!
That was a nice essay by Kent. Writing ability must run in the family. I agree with most of it, but still don't find his three points fully convincing.
Kent writes, "Obama is winning the black vote overwhelmingly for three reasons:
"1) Hillary Clinton alienated black voters by her own words and deeds."
This suggests racist behavior on her part. I thought Bill was certainly doing something fishy by comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson in South Carolina, and shame on him for doing so, but I think it attributes far more to Obama's black support than due from this instance. (Explained further in (3)). If it's true that "group solidarity is not the same as blanket prejudice" in an election between a black candidate and a white one, ask yourself... If Bubba from Alabama told a CNN interviewer that he was voting for the white guy because he was one of them, would that be viewed so benignly? Should it be different today because of this country's history of race relations prejudice against blacks? If so, for how long?
"2) Barack Obama showed he was a viable candidate by winning races in very white states."
True, but I don't see how that bears on the racial voting of black Americans.
"3) Black voters have found a way to identify with Obama."
Yes, I believe it is euphemistically referred to as the "one-drop" rule. Forget his background, education and wealth, with which very few Americans could identify, or even how he was viewed by blacks in general two years ago, he is universally seen now as the "first viable black candidate" (perhaps in no small part due to Rev. Wright -- his support among blacks actually went UP after that news) and has attracted monolithic support among blacks. I don't see that kind of racial solidarity as a step forward in race relations, though his widespread success in politics undoubtedly is. No group is well served when their votes can be safely counted before an election.
[Just to prove to Professor Manilow wrong, I won't charge up a few other hills I spotted in today's post.]
> "1) Hillary Clinton alienated black voters by her
> own words and deeds."> This suggests racist behavior on her part. I
> thought Bill was certainly doing something fishy
> by comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson in South
> Carolina, and shame on him for doing so, but I
> think it attributes far more to Obama's black
> support than due from this instance.I base my assertion on one data point, which I neglected to state explicitly -- Hillary Clinton was well ahead of Obama in polls of African-American voters before South Carolina.
> "2) Barack Obama showed he was a viable
> candidate by winning races in very white
> states."
> True, but I don't see how that bears on the
> racial voting of black Americans.It has direct bearing. Before Obama had a track record in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, no one knew if he was a serious contender. Black voters are like all voters -- some will vote for a loser out of principle, but most will perform their own calculus to select a candidate closest to their own politics with a real chance to win.
"Yes, I believe it is euphemistically referred to as the "one-drop" rule. [...] I don't see that kind of racial solidarity as a step forward in race relations..."
Fuck's sake Matt, you should maybe take a second to read your comments out loud before you hit 'Post.' I'm sure you'd hire a qualified black applicant for a job, and you've never used the N word in your life, but you seem incapable of writing anything on this topic without coming off completely clueless about race relations. That entire paragraph is, to me, patently absurd.
Who are YOU to tell ANYONE who they should support in an election? Especially African-Americans. Even if you do not harbor any specific prejudice against African-Americans, it's clear you have little first hand knowledge of them, and even less affinity or empathy with them.
And seriously, how big a step forward in race relations will it be for you and all of your upper-middle-class white friends to vote for John McCain? Talk about racial solidarity! The Republican party is overwhelmingly white, and they always nominate rich white men, and when those rich white men get in office, they do everything in their power to concentrate wealth and influence in the hands of rich white people.
I think it's perfectly OK for you to be skeptical of Obama, or anyone else, and I'm sure by your lights you have perfectly consistent philosophical reasons to vote the way you do. But I'd a whole lot rather see you try to cogently present the case for what you're for, than to see your patently clueless analysis of how black folks think and vote. Every time you write about it, you dig yourself in deeper.
"Eventually we won't be so political on this blog"
No need to say that -- these discussions are important, as "politics" goes to who will be the person who protects us from terrorism, helps the sick, decides education policy for our children...it's not like we analyze the music in campaign ads here.
Plus, there are plenty of wonderful non-political entries here too.
The passion on this blog is so much better than apathy on the part of the rest of the public.
I don't care if you disagree with my views, at least everyone here has strong opinions, which is more than I can say for a lot of people who would rather only comment on American Idol.
This blog is what's right with the blogosphere.
For a second there, I thought we just might be able to have a mature intelligent discussion of the subject matter, but no... Some folks are way too quick to allege racist motivations to a POV with which they disagree and devolve into character attacks or attribute stupidity or some ulterior motive to them with righteous indignation. Nothing I wrote is offensive. NOTHING. And you shouldn't presume to know me or what experiences I've had. Your last comment only reveals a lack of confidence in your own position.
*chuckles at Matt*
I have to say that my first reaction is that Matt's position has a lot going for it (*sound of world ending*)--except for the conclusion that blacks voting for Obama is somehow racist.
A full-court press defense, like Kent's, while admirable, tends to lead to some bad sound bites, like: "in fact African-Americans are arguably his
toughest audience." (This was one of the uncontested hills, right Matt?) I mean, I see what you are getting at, but he's getting 90% of their votes. My Uncle George is a rock-ribbed republican farmer and businessman. He will argue politics with me and criticize my views for hours. But I'm sure he would vote for me for any office, at the end of the day. Uncle George is not a tough audience.Overall, my response to Matt's accusation would be to admit that there is in fact a double-standard at work (good on you for spotting it, Matt). But it is not a pernicious double-standard. The whole story of race in this country is that of almost 400 years of thousands of interlocking double standards. To pick this one out as being somehow equivalent to the hypothetical white person who will not vote for a black person no matter what seems simplistic.
(And I think that's what sets me off so much about peoples' arguments sometimes, and is why I am so mad at Hilary's faith-based delegate arguments. I will gladly die on any hill that is occupied by an intentional simpleton.)
Chris Rock had a great line about pastor Wright: (something like) "He's a 77- year-old black man who doesn't like white people? Shocking. Show me a 77 year-old black man who does like white people.") That doesn't mean that 77 Year Old Black Man is any less racist than Hypothetical West Pennsyltuckian Old-fashioned Negro-Hater. But the impact of his racism is far less, and the conscious or unconscious motivation for his racism is completely different. Perhaps in a Platonic sense it is just as deserving of our contempt, but in the actual world in which we live, its not on the list of great social problems.
In fact, I'd argue that instead of being a pernicious double-standard, you are in fact seeing two different standards in a place where there should be two standards. At least two. Because I don't think that the Irrational Racist and the "I'd like to get me some of that Affirmative Action" Resenter are suffering from different degrees of the same mania, and to treat them that way is a tragic mistake.
(This could probably make a little more sense, but I'm trying to pack for vacation, and don't have a lot of time. And it is being written by me.)
Um, the chuckle was in reference to the funny line at the end of this first post. Not the dust-up with Kent, which happened after I started writing.
kent, tell your pal that the shoegazer bands are back. check out the silversun pickups on itunes. they are really good.
5 Reasons why my African-American friends (and I have MANY) support Barack Obama:
1) When considering his plans as they are laid out on his website and NOT just in his stump speeches, they think he would actually be good for this country. [As for these plans, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, at least one member of the monolithic group can actually articulate them!!!!: http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video-interviewer-picks-the-wrong-obama-supporter-to-try-to-railroad/]
2) He did not support this ridiculous war
3) Utter resentment at what they perceive as thinly-veiled race-baiting tactics employed by Billary. See e.g., http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeGallagher/2008/01/11/the_clintons_play_dirty_--_and_the_media_lets_them?page=1 (Um ... spadework?? Hey, if Townhall.org, O'Reilly, and the fat guy with the painkiller addiction can pick up on that as something to make you go, "hmmmmmmm," so can Af-Ams, I suspect ... )
4) One Black friend noted with approval BO's ability/willingness to see positives in individuals/policies that have generally been condemned by Dems - says it suggests (gasp!) a sincere desire to work across party lines in a way that is rarely done inside the Beltway. [Note to self: Remind this particular black friend that she is doing a severe disservice to the idea of blacks as a monolith - her card must be revoked.] She cited this from "The Audacity of Hope" (hard-core dems, avert your eyes):
"[T]he conservative revolution that Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan’s central insight – that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing the pie – contained a good deal of truth. Just as too many corporate managers, shielded from competition, had stopped delivering value, too many government bureaucracies had stopped asking whether their shareholders (the American taxpayer) and their consumers (the users of government services) were getting their money’s worth. Not every government program worked the way it was advertised. Some functions could be better carried out by the private sector, just as in some cases market-based incentives could achieve the same results as command-and-control style regulations, at a lower cost and with greater flexibility."
5) Stupid shiznit (don't worry, I got permission to say that) like this: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/gop-rep-refers-to-obama-as-that-boy/
I know these reasons don't comport squarely with the whole 92% of blacks voting for the black guy just because he's black thing that some folks have going here, but that's what happens when you actually talk TO folks you really know and not just ABOUT folks you really don't based upon some stats you saw.
Just thought I'd share ...
Oops! If a "Not Found" page comes up in the link associated with #1 in my post above, click on the post captioned "Video: Interviewer Picks The Wrong Obama Supporter to Try To Railroad" on the right side of the page.
marion barry
Prof. B makes a good argument and I thank him for elevating the discussion back to a more civil tone. My apologies for my own role in the little dust up. After doing some wiki-research, I've learned that the one-drop rule has a legal history of which I was unaware. I only knew of it from African-American commentators who mentioned it in reference to Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, etc. I do not endorse the term's negative connotations or associations, nor do I subscribe to or endorse it. The point was merely that black Americans (and nearly every one else) view Obama as being black, and the black community is voting for him primarily on that grounds, notwithstanding Prof. B's fair points.
As much as I'd like to argue the tangential suggestion that Obama is bi-partisan, when he has no track record of it (he's been to the left of most liberals in Congress on virtually every issue where there's been a chance of compromise, like the Gang of 14 and others, whereas McCain in fact does have a history of reaching across the aisle and taken many hits for it), I'll probably just upset folks around here even more. So I'll bow out. Have a nice weekend.
Here's my question.....Obama has taken hits for his association with Reverend Wright, but McCain has gotten very little blowback over his failure to repudiate the endorsement of John Hagee.
^ no one is paying any attention to McCain right now.. this will change.
Kent Williams for President 2012
Will Hillary try to undermine Obama’s campaign so she can run in ’12? Will Obama be able to capture the white working-class vote who will probably go against their own interests and vote for McCain? Will the youth vote actually turn out this time and make a difference pro Obama? Will the moneyed interests see Obama as such a threat that anything goes to keep him out of office? Will McCain have “senior moments” and appear senile? Will Cindy McCain be a major factor because she’s hot? Will Fear be the predominant Republican strategy when things really get rolling? (Rhetorical.) What will be the October Surprise? Will Americans really tire of The Lie?… Stay tuned. Curious minds want to know.
Definitely one of the more cogent blogs on race I've read in a looonnnnngggg time . . .
While I work to better the quality of education for African American youth, it is to, simultaneously, better all people in making a more beautiful planet . . .
One in UniTee and all the blessed . . .
R. Lee Gordon
UniTee Design, Inc.
www.uniteedesign.com
rgordon@uniteedesign.com
Toll Free: 888.OUR.RBG.TEES
Kent, anybody you know in this picture? I'm thinking the guy in the front has pissed his pants.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24530625/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/16/Happy weekend everyone!