Does Obama Prove We're a Post-Racial Society?
Racism
| November 11, 2008
| Tim
Shelby Steele, in the LA Times:
Obama's post-racial idealism told whites the one thing they most wanted to hear: America had essentially contained the evil of racism to the point at which it was no longer a serious barrier to black advancement. Thus, whites became enchanted enough with Obama to become his political base. It was Iowa -- 95% white -- that made him a contender. Blacks came his way only after he won enough white voters to be a plausible candidate....
But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.
Byron York:
The exit polls suggest that race was a factor in a lot of voters' decisions — and that, on balance, it worked to Barack Obama's advantage. In Ohio, for example, six percent of voters said that race was the most important factor in their decision. Among them, Obama won 59-40. Another 13 percent said race was an important factor in their vote, and Obama won among them, 52-46. So nearly one in five voters said race was an important part of their decision, and more of them voted for Obama than McCain.
Beyond that, eight percent said race was a "minor factor" in their decision — and they went for McCain, 56-44. Finally, 71 percent said race played no role at all in their decision — and Obama won among them, 54-45.
Jim Lindgren, commenting on the results of the General Social Surveys between 1980 and 2004:
Those who favored income redistribution also tended to express traditionally racist views. In other words, the data are consistent with the hypothesis that those who want the government to equalize incomes tend to be somewhat more traditionally racist than those who don’t favor equalizing incomes.
And, on a more anecdotal level, we have the recent "blame the blacks" riots in LA, and this little gem from Esquire: "Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama."
Obama's election does not show that we now live in a post-racial society. It is true that Obama's victory demonstrates that the barriers to black achievement have been radically lifted -- perhaps even inverted, if the exit polls are to be believed. But race-focused thinking still exists, and still plays a major role in certain people's voting patterns and perceptions, and, overall, helped Obama's campaign more than it hurt him.
But when Obama disappoints, will his election have hurt black achievement more than he helped it? I think so.
I hope you're wrong, Linda, but fear you may be right. That's the missing element in much of this: Is it better to have a black (or any other descriptor) leader, or a good black leader?
What has Marion Barry done for the rights or status of blacks in DC? Has he protected them from crime, increased their mean income, or raised their quality of living? No, he was busted for coke, and I'm sure many were shocked that he was re-elected -- I expect racists had a field day with that one.
Likewise, more black men were killed by the NYPD under David Dinkins than under Guiliani. And crime in mostly-black neighborhoods went down under Guiliani. Skin color didn't determine what was helpful to blacks -- policies did.
But, alas, had Obama been advocating school choice, teaching phonics, broken-window policing, the end of affirmative action, and other policies which seem to help minorities and the poor, he never would have made it this far.
(And had he done so, he would have been derided as "inauthentic." What black kids were encouraged to succeed based on the appointments of Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Condi Rice? You're only "black" if you're on the left. Hence Bill Clinton could be dubbed, based on his politics -- not skin color or ancestry -- "our first black President".)
So I do hope black kids will be, in the short run, encouraged to study hard and aim high -- as other discriminated-against groups have done -- but like you, I'm not so sure how it's going to pan out in the long run, if Obama turns out to be another Jimmy Carter.
The answer to your first question is of course that if you want to have a second black President, you'd better make sure the first one is the right man (or woman) for the job. Otherwise you leave a bad taste in people's mouths for a long time to come. Now I'd love to see women having as much of a shot at the White House as men, and it would be great to hear Madam President in my lifetime. But the last thing I want to see is some political women's rights poster girl candidate shoved into the oval office where she screws up and makes it next to impossible for the competent women politicians to get a fair hearing.
Yes, racists did have a field day with the Marion Barry scandal, but there were two groups of racists involved in that: the racists for whom it confirmed their low opinion of blacks, and the racists who re-elected Barry in the first place. The people who re-elected Barry did so because he was black and the population of Washington, D.C. is largely black. Barry could have been convicted of selling crack from the Mayor's office and he still would have been re-elected. As you pointed out, Marion Barry has done nothing to make the lives of the people of Washington, D.C. better in any way. Racism is never worse than when people inflict it on themselves.
The answer to your first question is of course that if you want to have a second black President, you'd better make sure the first one is the right man (or woman) for the job.
Obama is coming to power near the very nadir of an economic slump and the press is enamored of him.
I think he'd have to fail fairly spectacularly to have the consequences of his actions held against him.
Linda: Yes, racists did have a field day with the Marion Barry scandal, but there were two groups of racists involved in that: the racists for whom it confirmed their low opinion of blacks, and the racists who re-elected Barry in the first place.
True!
Ryan, on Obama: I think he'd have to fail fairly spectacularly to have the consequences of his actions held against him.
I agree entirely, Ryan, and that bothers me a lot, and for entirely non-partisan reasons. If the press in incapable of honestly reporting failures by those they support, how are the voters ever supposed to learn favor the programs which are most likely to improve society? Sadly, journalists themselves are frequently under- or mis-educated on many matters of importance (economics, history, civics, etc.) -- having a horse in the race will, as you say, undoubtedly further compound the problem.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Watching Both Sides: Obama Derangement Syndrome? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Seemingly Ineluctable Logic on Gay Marriage »
|
But when Obama disappoints, will his election have hurt black achievement more than he helped it? I think so.
Posted by: Linda on November 11, 2008 07:31 PM