NYCWeboy with his thoughts on race:
Put another, less PC way… it’s gotten hard to ignore that some white people don’t vote for Barack Obama.
The question, of course is why. And in order to discuss that, naturally, we need to talk about some difficult subjects. And race, really is only part of it. It’s also class, and economics, and cultural tensions… but simmering under and around all of it is people talking frankly about race in a way that most people find uncomfortable, a way that has to acknowledge perceptions and prejudices without, necessarily, giving into them.
And I mean that both ways: some, I think, struggle with a way to talk about working class white voters that doesn’t resort to “redneck” or “trailer trash” type stereotyping; the opposite, of course, is sweeping generalizations about black people that are clearly prejudiced if not flat out racist. Complicating it are perceptions, stereotypes and casual notions many of us hold, things we rarely admit, or discuss with strangers.
This tension, I think, is why Obama’s fine “conversation on race” speech was okay, but not great. In laying out the notion that we had to move a “conversation on race” to a new level and talk in a different way, Obama himself offered virtually no ideas on how to change it or how to do it differently. He made it clear what he thought of as “bad” or the “rhetoric of the past”… but left out the part about the future, except to suggest somehow, in a utopian way, we would get there. Well, here’s hoping. Still.
But we’re not there; and just a casual stroll around the blogosphere can illustrate it pretty starkly. People are angry. Charges fly. Everything is touchy, and dicey. And the ground keeps shifting.
I think there’s a few things we should all keep in mind, and that might help clear the air, or at least keep this discussion on track:
* It’s entirely possible that white people who don’t vote for Barack Obama are not racist. Exit polling in Pennsylvania reiterated what has been seen across the nation: that while some minority of white voters do vote on race as a criteria, most do not; those who do “vote on race” do not, necessarily vote for Hillary Clinton (which is to say some vote for Obama… and understand the complexity of the question). Broad brush assertions that “working class voters have a race problem” will get us nowhere, and only further cloud the real problems Obama has attracting working class voters that are beyond race. Those are ones we need to talk about.
* We do, though, have a problem with racism in this country, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. Ignoring the complexity of what it means to have a black man running for President doesn’t help either, something I’ve had to watch myself in overstating the notion that there aren’t prejudiced working class whites, just as there are among most groups. No one, I think, should pretend that results we’ve seen in states from Mississippi to Georgia, from South Carolina to Tennessee, across the South, don’t reflect the depth of a racial divide that remains ugly and difficult (nor pretend that people outside the South are somehow immune, or better). That, too, needs to be confronted. However, we can’t do that without raising it, without climbing under and around the ugliness and seeing it for what it is. And too often, we shun the people who talk about it, especially when they are not “appropriate” bringers of the discussion.
* And then, there’s the even more difficult discussion of prejudices within the black community. We can’t have this conversation while pretending one set of people are untouched by prejudice; all of us carry stereotypes and preconceptions that need to be examined and confronted. In Pennsylvania, half of all black voters said race was not a consideration in their decision about a candidate for President, and 91% of them voted for Obama. This isn’t to say people aren’t being honest; it’s simply to say that there’s a complexity to talking about race that people don’t see, or can’t acknowledge.
Obama lost because he wasn’t Progressive in his politics. Unity Ponies are fine and dandy but we all want criminals to pay their debt to society, not go on the lecture circuit to brag.
You should look to the Ron Paul results to scry the entrails.
Well there was also that tiny little thing where a whole lot of white Democrats perceived they were being, wink-wink-nudge-nudged and encouraged to vote against the, gasp!, black candidate by the Clintons and their surrogates. Of course we know that the Clintons were shocked, shocked I say, that any such misinterpretation could have occurred.
There is a good reason that we are seeing reports of more and more Clinton insiders decrying these tactics and either abandoning her campaign outright or at the very least beginning to funnel their donations to Obama.
“we all want criminals to pay their debt to society, not go on the lecture circuit to brag.”
Is that type of anti Bill Clinton rhetoric encouraged here? Bill’s pardons and commutations of convicted Weathermen and Falon terrorists are such old news. Of course Obama’s low level association with someone never convicted of any crime is much, much worse.
Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of the FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States. The FALN was responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials.
On Clinton’s last day in office Linda Sue Evans and Susan Rosenberg were pardoned. They are Weather Underground members who were imprisoned on weapons and explosives charges.
Like I’ve said 10000 times before: Democrats do nto win the white vote
Hillary won’t. Obama Won’t. No Democrat will.
It is, frankly, disgusting that you’re arguing that we can never nominate a black person, and that Hillary should be nominated just because she’s white. Do you really think you can win a election after a message like that has been sent? You are not a progressive, because progressives do not rely on racist fears to get themselves elected, or as reasons why their candidate must be nominated.
If Democrats were never going to let a black man win, that should have been made clear at the outset so some of us could switch our party affiliation away from such a blatantly racist party.
I think for the conversation to improve.. we have to acknowledge that progress has been made.. stop blaming “whitee”
and look at what needs to know be improved.. The criminal justice system is one of the big ones. It is very much based on race.
When you get to bad schools… you are no longer talking race… you are talking poor people. When you get to bad health care, you are talking most of us including much of the the middle class.
I watched the Rev Wright interview last night. I find black leaders like him destructive… they have to keep going back to the days before civil rights… They don’t acknowledge progress. This is hard to grasp when you see our middle class suburbs and schools housing more and more middle class blacks. When you turn on the teevee and there are blacks everywhere.
I think that white people have to acknowledge where the problems still remain and change them. And they have to demand that reverse racists like Wright change their tone. These people do not advance our society. They carve a nitch of hatred that is no longer appropriate.
Maybe we don’t want to vote for another rich snob who represents the ruling class. Maybe we want to vote our own economic interests. Maybe we don’t care if you call us racists to disguise your own economic interest. Maybe you are the boy who cried wolf too many times.
Clinton supporters, just like the Clinton’s themselves are committed to Obama losing the election so she can run in 2012…Clyburn makes this clear.
Can the discussion be any more stupid?
My personal belief is that the Clinton’s did not just become racists…it was Obama’s campaign desire to have them painted that way to maximize the black vote in SC which effectively split the party. Clyburn is making sure the split becomes permanent to the point that if Obama wins the nomination, he is certain to lose in November. It’s pathetic when the black candidate and black surrogates show no inclination to heal the party…rather they continue the path of stupidity because they believe it works for them.
By the way MeMyself…Ayers was never convicted because the charges were dismissed on charges prosecutor misconduct, perhaps owing to the fact that daddy Ayers was chairman of Commonwealth Edison (not an insignificant company). While I like you, don’t have any trouble with the commutations/pardons by WJC of the WU.
I don’t know what constitutes ‘low association’ with Ayers…they acknowledged each other in their respective books, Ayers has contributed to Obama’s political campaigns in the past and in fact, the first official event of Obama’s Illinois Senate campaign was in Ayers living room. While I am not overly bothered by this information, be certain that there will be wall to wall inspection of this if he is the nominee as McCain has already started raising it and the right wingers will never let this go.
Obama goes to a church that decided to honor Farrakhan for his work rehabilitating drug addicts. Obama publicly and repeatedly said he does not agree with that decision and he rejects outright Farrakhan’s views and words. Obama never sought Farrakhan’s endorsement and said he didn’t want it.
Clinton sought and used the endorsement of Governor Rendell who publicly lauded Farrakhan and the nation of Islam for “what they stand for” and has never said anything to contradict this. Clinton has refused to comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA
Then Clinton lambastes Obama for his “relationship” with Farrakhan.
The only “relationship” they have that is even close to less tenuous than her own is that they both have black skin.
That was a pretty damn clear cut a “wink-wink-nudge-nudge … don’t vote for the scary black man (oooh and maybe Muslim)” moment .
susie, thank you so much for bringing this up; it’s long overdue. i couldn’t agree more with this:
“However, we can’t do that without raising it, without climbing under and around the ugliness and seeing it for what it is. And too often, we shun the people who talk about it, especially when they are not “appropriate” bringers of the discussion.”
i hope more bloggers will follow in your footsteps.
How about the most practical reason: He does not have the experience to deal with the mess that will be awaiting the winner in January 2009. Simple as that. Has nothing to do with race. He is not ready to lead as yet.
white_n_az, i agree. frankly i think it’s clear some aa leaders–clyburn, brazile, and jackson jr. among them–are far more interested in a power grab for their own ambitions than in the well-being of the aa community at large.
memyself…the Nation of Islam and specifically Farrakhan are not an all-in-one proposition and are known to both the white and black communities. With the good, you also get the bad.
The Clinton’s are racists meme came from the South Carolina primary campaign and had nothing to do with Louis Farrakhan. I don’t recall hearing Hillary say anything about Farrakhan but I’ll take your word that she said something about him. One thing is certain and Obama understands this as well…there’s no way to hold up Farrakhan as someone who is working to heal the rift between the races and that is why Obama distances himself from Farrakhan.
I don’t know about any relationship between Obama and Farrakhan but there is a circle that includes Rezko, Wright and the Nation of Islam which hopefully doesn’t intersect with Obama as the media would be relentless on the point.
WHAT…. Does THIS MEAN??
If Democrats were never going to let a black man win, that should have been made clear at the outset so some of us could switch our party affiliation away from such a blatantly racist party.
Why should we let anybody win??? They have to prove themselves. I am free up to the teeth with all this race baiting. Obama is proving himself to be a weak candidate… his problem not racism.
Obama is proving himself to be a weak candidate????? WTF? I guess that’s why he’s leading the race, having come from waaaay behind with all the odds stacked against him …
– –
Another WTF moment: Virginia Ray says re: Obama
“Maybe we don’t want to vote for another rich snob who represents the ruling class.”
Which is why you’re voting for Hillary??? She’s somehow less rich, or less snobby (whatever the hell that means), or doesn’t represent the ruling class (after BEING the ruling class for well over a decade)???
Ye Gods. The candidates are both of and for the ruling class in very substantial ways - why the hell else would the ruling class be funding them and giving them airtime and coverage in the media? My own belief is that Obama may be somewhat less bad on this, in that he’s not the DLC candidate, and actually has associated with a guy like Rev Wright, who speaks uncomfortable truths and walks the walk in supporting the downtrodden. Others feel differently about this. God bless us one and all!
Democratic Underground - Putting All the Cards on the Table - The Race Memo
rather interesting…