It’s The Reflexive Laziness, Stupid
McWhorter at NYSun states perfectly the case re race in this race, and the lack of racism.
There are going to be books about this Democratic campaign. Presumably, a few will address a staple question pundits are to attend to these days: “the role of race in the campaign.”
There are going to be books about this Democratic campaign. Presumably, a few will address a staple question pundits are to attend to these days: “the role of race in the campaign.”What people really mean by that usually is the role of racism: the thinking person is supposed to be dutifully watching for evidence that white people are “not ready” for a black president, or that criticisms from Mr. Obama’s opposition are rooted in racism.
What seems to almost frustrate some is that the answer to the question as to what role racism has played in this campaign is: none whatsoever.
Already many are wondering whether Mr. Obama’s inability to “close the deal,” as Mrs. Clinton has put it, with less educated whites indicates that they don’t like black people. To conclude that racism is the issue here is, however, reflexive and even lazy.
There is just one problem with McWhorter’s argument. It’s all the reflexive laziness. While he states that the role race has played in this election is “none whatsoever,” racism has in fact played a huge role in this election. It’s the variety McWhorter describes in some detail, but only in the negative, for the purpose of dismissing the notion that traditional white-on-black racism has been a factor. It’s the reverse racism that has plagued this campaign, diminishing Obama’s candidacy and putting him at serious risk of winning as the affirmative action candidate … not something anyone but themost narrow of special interests should desire. No less insidious a form of racism than the traditional variety, reverse racism does no favors to the victims of traditional racism, and in fact stigmatizes any effort to effect true equality and open race relations. Obama at different times overtly attempted to squelch the reverse racism, though there is some evidence his campaign welcomed it, and then there was that wretched speech. That’s overlooking the fact the unsubtle use of “hope” and “change” not simply to refer to an end to Bush policies but to his own person, and the fact that he has unsubtly played to race, describing himself as the embodiment of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. It’s a legitimate enough claim for any viable black candidate to make given how far this nation has come in the last 40 years … though arguably that makes John McCain and Hillary Clinton equally the embodiment of that dream if they meet Obama on level ground, and color is not used by them or against them.
But if as a white politician or commentator, you dare to say the things that McWhorter has said, you risk being called a racist. Just ask, of all people, Bill Clinton. The role that racism has played in the first American presidential election to feature a viable black candidate is this: If you dare to point out that while intelligent, accomplished and charming, Obama has extremely limited political experience, a naive agenda, a very poor choice of associates, and would not be in this race still if not for his race, you will be called a racist. Just ask gun-toting, religion-clinging, not-same-unwelcoming Pennsylvania.
Anyway, this election could become a useful rinse cycle for America, no matter what the outcome. Pitting a traditional liberal icon of a woman against a liberal, iconically idealistic black man, both with only tenuous claims to useful experience, may well prove to be cathartic when the dust settles, if people are able to look at the situation clearly. That may be asking a lot. But if as McWhorter suggests, traditional racism is not the problem here, but as I’m suggesting, reverse racism is ultimately recognized for the hindrance that it is, then that’s a big step forward.
Thanks to Betsy Newmark for the catch, by the way. Her thoughts here.
Meanwhile, Bob Herbert at NYT, who does see racism, mulls Obama’s woes.
Tigerhawk, off Herbert, remarks:
The problem is that the most determined candidate is not the most popular, and the line between them has been drawn more by identity and character, which are mirrors that project our self-image, than by meaningful differences in proposed policies or, for that matter, proof of executive experience or ability. It is a terrible bind for the Democrats, and a stroke of luck for the Republicans.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:59 am on Saturday, April 26, 2008
2 Responses to “It’s The Reflexive Laziness, Stupid”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
One of the things I would dearly like to see before I die, is a president of color, and/or a female president, if only to silence our critics when they say that America is governed solely by “old white men” who had no thought for the country beyond their own grip on power, to the detriment of all the other nations of the earth. This is a lie that should finally be laid to rest, because it denies that “old white men” have any incentive toward justice or fairness.
Barack Obama, for all his ambitions, is not that man. Nor is Hillary Clinton (gender being another shibboleth I’d like to see ended).
I don’t know if I’ll see if in my lifetime. But I can hope.
In the meantime, in the name of practicality, John McCain is my man.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Rebecca,
That’s why I’ve always thought that the first black or woman President would be a Republican. The Packs tend to nominate people who have long experience, significant accomplishments, and paid their dues. This sometimes leads to tired old warhorses getting the nod on the basis of “Buggins’ turn”, like Dole in 1996. But in that case Powell had the nomination sewed up if he wanted it. I was looking forward to his candidacy, and would have enthusiastically supported it. Unfortunately he lacked the moral courage to seize the golden ring. I think this was a very bad thing, leaving the way for a lightweight like Obama to try. Had Powell been elected future black candidates would have to have some substance to offer, not a tissue-thin resume like Obama.
As for a woman President, I wanted to vote for a woman in 1992 but for some reason Margaret Thatcher’s name wasn’t on the ballot. That is the kind of woman candidate to look for, one who can beat the men at their own game, not one piggybacked to power on her husband’s shoulders. Maybe Sarah Palin will turn out to be a good candidate for that.
I’m looking forward to a Bobby Jindal candidacy in 2012 or 2016. I think that he will be a good candidate to get behind.