The New Republic

To believe that there is such a thing as race in the first place is a necessarily racist belief. Similarly, to regard race or gender as such as a factor in choosing a candidate is a racist or sexist action. This should not be a controversial statement. And I'll be the first to admit to the twinge of racism that is inherent in my support for Obama as a black man and to the twinge of sexism inherent in my general bias in favor of women candidates at all levels. I happen to think that holding a black person's race or a woman's gender in that person's favor is an acceptably palliative act of racism or sexism. But it doesn't stop my biases from being expressions of racism and sexism.

Also, the fact that someone would say that race is a factor and then vote against Obama doesn't tell us anything about whether that person is an anti-black bigot. Could be that they mark Obama's race as a point in his favor, but mark other things in Hillary's favor sufficiently to prefer her on balance. That's exactly how I feel with regard to Hillary and gender. The one and only entry on my mental list of Hillary's positives is the fact that she's a woman, and all else being equal I prefer women candidates to men. If she were a man, I wouldn't even consider voting for her in November, no matter who her opponent is. Her gender buys her a second look from me if she gets the nomination.

- rhubarbs

March 5, 2008 at 2:24pm

It doesn't even matter anymore, I hope you guys see what's happening in this race, even when Obama loses, he WINS.

It's like nothing can stop this guy, he's got the magic touch.

- AaronBBrown

March 5, 2008 at 2:27pm

People lie in polls all the time because people lie all the time, to themselves, friends, strangers, you name it. I've been involved with focus groups for over thirty years. People lie like crazy in them. That's why smart marketers rarely use them anymore. Ethnography is now in vogue.

There's an old saying in real estate, "buyers are liars". You never end up selling them the house they say they want. So do people lie about race? Probably more than just about anything, probably only second to their sexual habits.

I wouldn't believe any polls or research about race in this election. Gender is different: I think you'd get a better reading on the role of gender in the campaign.

- fougasseu

March 5, 2008 at 2:35pm

Rhubarbs - your definition of racism is incorrect.  Racisim is the belief that race is a, or the, major deteriminate in one's success, abilities and so on, or a belief that society should promote policies that recognize that one racial group is superior to another.  

Recognizing races, although arguably unscientific, is not racist.  More to the touchy point, voting for a person because it disproves the notion of racial superiority or deteriminism is NOT racism.  It is the opposite of racism.  Likewise, with sexism.

If you vote for [Obama/Clinton] because you believe that a [woman/black person] because of [her/his] [gender/race] cannot handle the presidency than you are being [sexist/racist].  

- Sirhc

March 5, 2008 at 3:17pm

I don't know. One of the shrill, rapid HRC supporters who posts here a lot implicitly endorsed the characterization of Obama as a monkey by Rush Limbaugh and one of his listeners.

- WoodyBombay

March 5, 2008 at 3:27pm

Older and working class Dems are reluctant to vote for Obama, and 25% of that cohort (that is HRC supporting Dems) claims it would choose McCain over Obama.

Of course race is a factor.

Why are we still asking?

- mmathog

March 5, 2008 at 3:34pm

Sihrc, there is no biological basis for the social concept of "race" as Americans know it. One who acts as if there is such a thing as "race" is in fact a "racist." Essentially all native-born Americans are racists. Most of us are not bigots, and many of us recognize the inherent racism of acting or believing in any way as if there is such a thing as "race," and therefore work to reduce or even eliminate the degree to which our racist biases affect our actions.

It's a further step to act on the basis that one's race (or one's gender, which has the advantage of actually being a "true" characteristic in some meaningful way) as such matters is a form of manifesting internal racism into racist actions that affect the real world. Believing that Barack Obama is "black," and then counting his "race" as such in his favor is no less a racist action just because you and I would agree that it's the right thing to do and neither of us would join the KKK.

Voting for Obama because you think it's good to promote a "black" candidate is not the opposite of racism. It's the opposite of bigotry. And the chief barrier to ending racism in America is the false belief that bigotry and racism are the same thing. All racial bigots are racists, but most racists are not bigots.

- rhubarbs

March 5, 2008 at 4:08pm

Rhubarbs, there's no biological basis for the social concept of "nationality" or "religion" either, but they exist.  

- newdex

March 5, 2008 at 4:34pm

When one votes, everything is a factor.  If Obama were a red head and a caucasian he'd lose a certain number of votes because some people don't like red heads.

On the other hand, if hew were white, anglo saxon protestant, and everything else in his background were the same, including a foreign father who disappeared to former Rhodesia, and a stepfather who took him to, I don't know, Serbia or maybe Russia for four years where he attended local schools, all that exoticism would go against him.

And, in fact, if Obama were a WASP, he probably would not in close contention for this nomination.  It is obviously cutting both ways for Obama.  And for McCain, being an old white guy with a traditional white American establishment pedigree (old Navy family, fighter pilot, etc) that works against him as well as for him in the current climate.

I guarantee you one thing, if this were Colin Powell at the height of his prestige, before Iraq 2, race would be discussed far less.

Powell's credentials are far more traditionally presidential.  Add to that his "blackness" and you would be giving people big time permission to demonstrate that they were not bigots.

- ChanRobt

March 5, 2008 at 5:12pm

"And, in fact, if Obama were a WASP, he probably would not in close contention for this nomination."

I actually agree 100%, he'd be a slightly more gifted Edwards.

His racial background is cutting both ways, in complicated fashion.

I'm convinced that 'old white people' remain in America the crucial swing vote. I've flip-flopped, I now think Obama can't beat McCain, but HRC would have a decent shot (because she can wrestle ol' John for the oldies...)

I will say though Chan that I think McCain's race/gender is largely working for him, rather than against him.

- mmathog

March 5, 2008 at 5:31pm

Yes, but nationality and religion do have the one important other characteristic in that they can change.  You can stop being a Russian or a Peruvian and become an American, that is, you can divest yourself of one citizenship and assume another; religion is likewise something that can -- with a lot more difficulty than nationality, which isn't easy itself -- be abandoned or adopted.  So while the logic of your objection is accurate, newdex, race is nevertheless non-analogous to nationality and religion.

I can't convert from caucasion to Native American,  however.  Nor can Obama become Asian even though being Asian might fit his personality more than being African-American.  Even if race is biologically unsupportable, it clearly has not only a meaning in the U.S. but a very rigid meaning, and not only a rigid meaning but also a sense of unchangeable identity -- for example, if somebody passes as white, they have only done so by disguising their race, not by rendering it non-existent.  Indeed, even mixed-race individuals are invariably designated according to the darker of the two races of their parents.  As Obama himself said once, if he's trying to hail a cab in Manhattan, the driver isn't thinking "oh he's mixed-race therefore he's 50% white," he's thinking "hm, that black guy wants a cab . . ."

Which brings us to the interesting question that everyone avoids even after walking right up to it:  WHY are older Democrats "reluctant to vote for Obama" on race grounds?  What is the nature of this reluctance, assuming there is one in reality?  Do they believe that

(a) he is going to have crack parties in the White House and bring down the neighborhood?

(b) that he is going to make Al Sharpton ambassador to Britain?

(c) that he is going to wear a pink suit to give the state of the union address?

or possibly (d) that he is going to make foreigners think that there's no white folks left in America?

It's got to be something.  Any help out there . . . ?

- ironyroad

March 5, 2008 at 5:50pm

What if people vote against Obama because they see the his candidacy  -- rightly or wrongly is beside the point -- as an appeal to affirmative action, that they are being asked to vote for him as a gesture?  Now, would voters who resent someone's running as a black man or as a woman say that race or sex is a factor in their vote?  They would.  Does that make them racist or sexist?

One might say that it's impossible for a black man or a woman not to be preceived by some as running because they are black or a woman.  But Obama's problem is that his substantive credentials are so thin -- unlike those of, say, a Colin Powell or a Nancy Pelosi -- that other factors -- the name, the race, the peregrinating childhood -- inevitably assert themselves.  Thus, it would be surprising if race, simply by default, were not ONE OF the factors in a vote.

And so, the bastards of the media will continue to chatter about the race issue.  They could give it a rest, so we could be allowed to forget about race.  But they won't.  It's just not in their DNA.

- jm_rice

March 5, 2008 at 6:50pm

"They could give it a rest, so we could be allowed to forget about race."

I agreed with most of your post jm, but do you really think that if the media shut up about race we'd forget about race?

- mmathog

March 5, 2008 at 7:04pm

Somewhat along the lines Chan argues, I think race is pretty much always a consideration if not a reservation or a prejudice. It's automatic and only God and possibly evolution contains the secret.

Rhubarbs, I follow your arguments in your first post above, but it strikes me that when you have said all there is and might be and the theoretical underpinnings of it all, you're either not saying anything distinctive or you're not saying anything at all. Perhaps I got lost somewhere. Do you have a simple way of putting your ideas?

There is also the strange matter of prejudice toward one's own race. For example, I can't quite put it exactly in words why but "I (emphatically hate white people" (being a white person). Perhaps it's more of a matter of feeling out of sync with with one's societal and cultural values and attitudes. Generally, I feel more at ease and safe around people who are not Caucasian, than around Caucasians, no matter how familiar and close personally they may be.

Then again, maybe it's because I'm gay and I feel less estranged around other groups' prejudices toward gay people than my own "kind." Whatever it is or may be, it's definitely not rational.

- tomeg

March 5, 2008 at 8:28pm

Of course race was a factor.  Come on, this is Ohio--the Mississippi of the midwest.  People made a lot of noise about how different it is from Wisconsin, but in fact OH is quite different, far more "southern" in much of the state and far more racist in the northern cities.  (Though I live outside the state now, my family has been from Ohio for over a hundred years, and I love it.)  Plus it's an "older" state--with more old folks--and, sorry to say, age is a very good index of racist attitudes: the older you are, the more racist you are, presumably because you were raised in a time when racism was more casually acceptable.

And in Texas, the old tensions between Hispanics/Latinos and African-Americans reared their ugly head again, but less so than in OH, because the demographics of age and social mobility are better there (in TX).

Isaac, you seem to me to favor HRC over BHO.  Is this true?  Many of your posts seem to have a pro-HRC slant.

- CTMathewes

March 5, 2008 at 9:07pm

mmathog, I hear ya.  One might argue that we'd still think about race if they shut up.  We'd think about it less, don't you think?  On the other hand, it's certain that we'll never forget about it if they don't shut up.

- jm_rice

March 5, 2008 at 9:21pm

jmr:  I think what you say has some weight, especially the lack of substantive individual history in electoral politics (but that objection applies to e.g. Hillary Clinton too) on Obama's side.  Nevertheless, what election is NOT about "affirmative action" in some way?  What act of voting for someone ISN'T a "gesture" of some kind?  If you vote for Clinton it's another kind of affirmative action.  Indeed a vote for McCain will be a kind of affirmative action for crusty older white guys with a military record and a tendency to irascibility.  Nothing wrong with that, but it's no different to exercising any other kind of political loyalty or taste.

One has to ask why, for example, Catholics voting for JFK in 1960 and especially people voting for him because they thought that a breakthrough for Catholics was needed in American political life are never tarred with "affirmative action" labels.  You can argue that Kennedy had a war record and a sharper national profile, but in some ways it looks like there was a gesture being made, and -- interestingly enough -- JFK drew attention to that in the same way as Obama has, by saying that he wasn't apologizing for his religion but that it wasn't going to be an element in how he would carry out the job of president.  Obama has clearly sent the same message regarding his race.  Don't these people believe him, or what?

My question is still why some people would be so "reluctant."

- ironyroad

March 5, 2008 at 10:10pm

CTMatthewes' account jibes with this post, from today's TPM:

talkingpointsmemo.com/.../181704.php

- tomeg

March 5, 2008 at 10:17pm

It's a revealing post but it still doesn't address whatever the roots of this problem are -- why, in 2007, are these attitudes still active?

- ironyroad

March 5, 2008 at 11:16pm

Or even in 2008.

- ironyroad

March 6, 2008 at 12:11am

CTMathewes, I've been really surprised, in reading the history, how racist the Northern states have been.  One of the most notorious photos of a lynching was from Indiana.  Then, I see that the worst rioting -- race rioting -- of the Civil War, was in New York City.  And now, your "Mississippi of the North."

Then, I came across a quote from Abraham RIbicoff, gov. of Connecticut and JFK cabinet member, that when it comes to race, "the North is guilty of monumental hypocrisy."  And the hypocrisy continues.

- jm_rice

March 6, 2008 at 1:41am

Irony, actually, my post was addressing the question of to what use are the media, e.g. these TNR guys, putting the exit polls.  Are they trying to contrive a race issue with their inferrences?  Specifically, if, to the question of whether race was one of the factors in someone's vote the answer is Yes, then we are to infer racism.  I was giving an example -- not very far-fetched I believe -- where race would be a factor, though the voter was not racist.  Thus, if the media tries to make a story out of a significant number of Yes responses, then I say they are contriving the story, because a Yes response doesn't necessarily infer racism.

As to whether an "affirmative action" vote is common, this may be so.  Certainly, if a candidate says or implies, Vote for me because I'm black or Catholic or a woman, then there will be those who do just that.  In fact, there are probably lots of voters who would do that, even if the candidate tried scrupulously to avoid such an appeal.  On the other hand, I think there are voters who would resent that kind of appeal, rightly or wrongly perceived.  I don't think Obama himself is trying to make that appeal, but I think the media and his cheering section are making that appeal which unfortunately redounds to him.  All this "feeling" that Judis et al. talk about, as if they are saying that a vote for Obama is a feelgood vote.  Some may go for that, others may find it insulting.

- jm_rice

March 6, 2008 at 2:27am

CTMathewes is correct. Underlying racist attitudes among the older cohort of Democrats was absolutely a deciding factor in Clinton's Ohio victory. I work with the public, and that's one thing I heard consistently from people over 60- they weren't going to vote for a "colored man."  

Unfortunately, I see that kind of attitude every day in comments and asides. And what you may find most surprising is that those racist attitudes are most prominent among self-identified life long Democrats.

- vincentm

March 6, 2008 at 9:56am

But I'm still curious, vincentm, why these attitudes persist.  Or to put it another way, what is the underlying chain of thinking and feeling that emerges in such a comment.  That's what I've been trying to get at here -- what do these voters think is going to happen if they cast a vote for Obama?  If Obama wins anyhow, what do they think will be so different about his presidency that they would rather e.g. vote for McCain?  I mean, if they are worried enough about jobs and the economy that they display a clear signal for Clinton because she just connects more easily with blue-collar America than Obama does, why would they then transfer their vote to the candidate of a party that clearly has little to offer -- as it's currently in office, for one thing -- on jobs and the economy, and indeed despises most of the solutions that they just voted for now?  It doesn't make sense, on the surface at least.

So, bluntly -- if blue-collar voters in the NE especially are so against Obama that they would rather vote for McCain in the general election if Clinton doesn't get the nomination, then it is race, nothing more or less.  And if so, why?

- ironyroad

March 6, 2008 at 10:17am

Irony - your question is very interesting to me. Growing up in the South and being raised in an overtly racist  family, I find this a compelling question. Racist attitudes still exist because they're comfortable at the deepest level of the human soul. The outward behaviors (i.e., using the "N" word) are changed relatively easily. Social pressures usually take care that. But to change the racist attitude that affects how you pull the lever in the privacy of the voting booth takes recognition that there's a problem and the willingness to put in the extraordinarily hard work to change. Most folks just aren't that introspective, wouldn't you agree? And REAL change, the kind that goes to the root of who you are, is probably humankind's most difficult endeavor. So I'm not at all surprised that racist attitudes still exist and that they can push an individual voter to pull the lever for someone whose policies directly work against him or her. And as has been pointed out in many comments here and elsewhere, people just don't take the kind of rational, self-interested approach to political decision-making that you would think (and would hope) they would.

- chmclean

March 6, 2008 at 12:15pm

To Jim Rice's question regarding affirmative action:  If one were to assume a vote for BO was based only upon a desire to propel black people forward, then it is possibly a racist view point.  Ppotentially packed into that assumption is a belief that one could not believe that a black person is the best candidate.

In any event, the past 8 years as proven once and for all that the initial reasons for affirmative action were right on.  Could anyone now doubt that being related to a successful white man gives you a huge advantage in winning the presidency?  HRC and Bush are obvious, but what about McCain? Son and grandson of 4 star generals (very political positions).  And Romney?  Son of former presidential candidate.

Back to the point:  The "affirmative action debate" is often framed in a racist manner.  This presidential race is no different.  For whatever reason, it is easier for white people to view the son, wife or daughter of a rich successful person as self-made than it is for them to view others, who may or may not have been given a few points in a college admissions process as self made.  Odd indeed.

- Sirhc

March 6, 2008 at 12:58pm

tomeg, I think what you're saying is that as a gay, you fell like an outsider.  Therefore, you are more comfortable with other people associated with "outsiderness".  Namely, people in the minority population in America.

Conversely, you look on all other whites as being the insiders.  The establishment.  The ones who automatically wouldn't approve of you if they know you are gay.  

It doesn't seem peculiar in that context.  It all tracks.

- ChanRobt

March 6, 2008 at 3:53pm

Irony,

You ask  "what do these voters think is going to happen if they cast a vote for Obama?  ...why would they then transfer their vote to the candidate of a party that clearly has little to offer....indeed despises most of the solutions that they just voted for now?"

Racism runs deep in the soul, as chmclean so eloquently notes.  They think if Obama wins the election he will fill the top tiers of government with people they don't trust - i.e. people who aren't white.

As for an allegiance to ideas (or ideals), this may come as a surprise to you, but when most people vote, they aren't voting so much for the policies that the candidates are selling on the stump. They're voting for the person they think in their guts will be the best leader. They don't really believe much that the candidates say about what they're planning to do. When's the last time a President got anything he promised on the campaign trail enacted into legislation? The 1930's?  The kind of changes and legislation they trumpet on the campaign trail is the work of legislatures. It's the work of senators. And yet, none of the candidates has done one thing during their Senate careers to advance their supposed great ideas for the economy or healthcare. The cynicism is warranted.

This isn't just projection on my part. It's something almost everyone says when they're discussing their feelings about the candidates.

- vincentm

March 6, 2008 at 6:12pm

But why do they trust them if they are white, and not if they aren't?  What evidence do they have that non-white Americans proceed differently from white Americans when acting as public officials?  Indeed, why would they think that this has to do with Obama being in the saddle?  The Clinton administration appointed blacks to some quite high positions, a lot more than any preceding regime in any event (indeed, so have the Bush administrations:  non-whites have already been chairman of the joint chiefs, national security advisor and secretary of state -- are there people who haven't noticed this?)

I ask this partly as I've had arguments with the thinking of some, repeat some, older family members who oddly (?) were very supportive of the civil rights movement back in the day.

- ironyroad

March 6, 2008 at 9:15pm

Irony,

Are you asking why does prejudice exist? Or are you asking why are white Ohioans more prejudiced than white Iowans?  

I don't know the answer to either of those questions. My religion teaches that things like prejudice exist because man long ago fell from the grace of God. That's as good an answer as any.

But why are white Ohioans less likely to vote for Obama than white Iowans?  Iowa is whiter than Ohio, and its population is just as old:

quickfacts.census.gov/.../19000.html   (Iowa stats)

quickfacts.census.gov/.../39000.html   (Ohio stats)

Maybe it's the West Virginia/Kentucky migration influence. Maybe it's the German immigrant influence.  Whatever it is, it's apparently ingrained in Ohio culture. Incidentally, ethnically the entire mid-region of Pennsylvania is similar to Ohio culturally. It should be interesting to see if they vote for Clinton in the same way. (I'm suspecting they will.)

- vincentm

March 6, 2008 at 10:49pm

A few weeks back Isaac speculated about whether race was a factor in the outcome of the Ohio-Texas two

- Anonymous

March 23, 2008 at 3:41pm