Torn Between Two Hopes: The Politics of Race

It's finally happened. Race is front page in the Obama campaign. I admire the way Obama has managed this situation: refusing to disown his pastor and friend while disavowing some of the more extreme statements his pastor has made. Here's the first hope. I want Obama to be president. That requires white America to come to grips with their racism, as subtle as it may be for some. White America is not liking what they're hearing in this story, and except for the radical liberals who wear crocheted ponchos, they're not going to admit that they're racists. Hell, I have a grandson who is mixed race, and I admit to some racism in my own life. It wasn't that long ago that a poor-ish, black man approached me at a gas station late one night, and the first thought I had wasn't "I wonder what he wants"; it was, "I hope I'm not being robbed." I felt bad about it when I realized he just needed to borrow a few dollars, but it didn't make me not have the thought.

I meet with a group of white folks most mornings at a local Starbucks. These are professionals, for the most part, and half are Christian. A couple are retired. Over the past year I've heard the "n" word more than once. I've heard their fears about black folks in reference to church, crime, moving into the neighborhood, and being president. Most of what they say is pretty typical for white suburbia. They don't recognize it as racism. They think they're just making observations. They would never say that white people are more inclined to commit crimes; they would assume that certain individuals are more likely than others, based on character, nurture, and circumstance, to choose criminal behavior. However, they stop making individual assessments when it comes to black people. They would never utter the words "blacks are more inclined to commit crime" or "be on welfare" or "aren't as smart" or any of a dozen other stereotypes, but they believe them.

White America is not going to appreciate being called racist, but we are. We really are. As is black America. As is Hispanic America. Etc. We all have racist tendencies because we find it easier to define and generalize according to negative stereotypes than to get to know individuals. Some of what Obama's pastor said was true, but white America doesn't want to hear it. They want to hear that things are better, and they are, but better isn't necessarily the same as good. They want to hear that America is progressive for putting forward a female and a black candidate for president. This despite a Muslim nation, Pakistan, having a female prime minister nearly twenty years ago, and England having one 25 years ago. Israel, the champions of patriarchy for millenia, had one thirty years ago. White America would have found other reasons for dismissing Obama if this story had never surfaced, but this story allows them to write off Obama as racist while never admitting to our own racism.

In the meantime, the politico is waiting in the wings to take the nomination. She is ready for white America to rise up in anger. She is part of the old guard. She's accomplished exactly nothing in her tenure as senator. She is an old school politician. She is republican lite. Her nomination will almost guarantee a Republican victory because Republicans are too brainwashed to realize that she is one of them in almost every category that matters. (I too would vote for McCain against Hillary though.)

I am hopeful that Obama will be our next President. And I am hopeful that America will be honest about her racism. The first won't happen without the second, but I'm afraid that neither will happen, and race, that synthetic category we all insist is organic, will be the issue that delivers the White House to a Republican, again.

Comments

[Leighton]

Why McCain above Hillary? I don't see any cabinet seat in which his picks would be a better/less disastrous choice than hers. I'd vastly prefer Obama to either of them, naturally, but if the system screws that up, I'd rather have Mammon in the chair than Molech.

[greg]

Leighton,

Unless I'm mistaken, Hillary has authored zero legislation in her time as senator. She is a status quo politico. McCain has shown a great ability to reach across the aisle and work with dems, as has Obama reaching the other way. Both have authored legislation, both are consensus-oriented, McCain has been honest about his weaknesses (esp. economic policy), and I'm willing to admit that Hillary won't end the war any faster than McCain. Most distressing to me has been the tone of Hillary's campaign, in two ways. (Surely Mark Penn is to blame for part of this.) Her underhanded attacks on Obama and her insistence that America needs someone like her to take back the reigns and lead. Uhm, thanks. I don't want someone who is as autocratic as Bush but with different principles. She is an elitist of the worst kind, whereas Bush is a populist of the worst kind: both assume the general stupidity of Americans. I've had eight years of that, thanks.

[dr dobson]

Greg

here's an interesting thought that I came up with during the last presidential race: Bush should have at least nominated Hillary for one of the multiple Supreme Court seats that made themselves available during the Bush presidency.

Knowing she would definitely knock every swinging dick out of her way on her way to the Oval office in 2008, Bush would have at first shocked the Republican base in so doing, but would have presented Hillary with a major decision to make--opt for a lifelong seat on the bench (arguably one of the most powerful seats in the free world) or opt for a chance to sit in Bill's old chair as her day job (instead of lining up her play dolls at night when Bill was away "developing policy.")

If the Republican base gave serious thought to this move after first glance, they would have (at that time) agreed that it would be monumental for Hillary to turn down the nomination. It would have been very clever politics on Bush's part (again, merely theoretical), shocking to most outsiders, but vastly strategic for the presidential race that we are now deeply into in 2008.

Here's the most important part of this theory: I truly think Hillary, if left outside of the political cesspool that has now defined the elected in this country, would be an excellent Supreme Court Justice because a) she does have an excellent analytical legal mind (believe it or not), b) she would be "in check" with 8 other more-senior justices and c) she would no longer have an autocratic voice which would consequently remove her and her tactics from the political landscape.

Bush, perhaps unknowingly, would have pulled off one of the most fascinating and meaningful appointments in the history of his office and that of the Court.

Of course merely nominating her would not have succeeded; he would have had to conduct a massive defense of her and I'm not sure he would have had it in him to do so. The Republicans would have had to swallow their political manhood and the Dems would have jumped on her nomination. It would have made for great "Tom and Jerry" cartoon-watching and I for one think it could have worked.

If only, eh?

[Dallas Tim]

The only thing with that is that, as Greg mentioned, Hillary is the most beatable democrat in a long time. There will be people coming out of the wood-work who haven't voted in a long line just to vote AGAINST her. Leaving her in the fray only increases the Republican candidate since pretty much anyone's better than her (in many people's opinion). Republican are praying that she wins the democratic nomination because that will pretty much be the day that McCain becomes predisent (unless his pastor says he hates America... wait... nevermind).

[Dallas Tim]

That's "Republicans" and "president."

[dr dobson]

don't forget that we are watching a complete debacle in the McCain campaign--it is Bush '92 all over again, i.e. "give up lest we be expected to actually fight." I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, but the Hillary machine could walk all over the Republicans without lifting a finger. McCain is a corpse and has no connection to the populous (not that Hillary does, but she at least has a pulse and a spin department that is miles ahead of McCain's). Further, don't forget that the jury pool is who is voting, so anything goes these days.

[Dallas Tim]

I don't think so - Greg's right, McCain has a reputation for working with both sides (often to the chagrin of Republicans). Most people pretty much just think Hillary's a... "female dog." You'll have never such venom and action to destroy a candidate like you will if she wins the nomination. And quite frankly, she won't be able to stand it and will likely break down during the final stretch. Despite her "machine," most will see her for who she really is (as Greg mentioned), a do nothing politician with a husband who has only made things more difficult for her recently.

Again, Republicans (like El Rushbo who encouraged conservatives to actually vote FOR her in the primaries) are chomping at the bit to get Obama out of the way so they can unleash their left-over fury at Bill Clinton. That's why I keep seeing bumper-stickers that say "Anyone but HER."

[Leighton]

I'm not hugely familiar with Hillary's record as a senator, though there is considerably more to being an active representative than personally authoring legislation.

My sense is that rank-and-file Democrats are more or less uniformly pissed that she's been willing to reach across the aisle at Obama's expense, with (e.g.) her C-in-C threshold remarks. Whether you're thinking in purely partisan terms or about the principles of working in a government, there are lines like that that you just don't cross if you want to preserve at least the illusion that your fundamental goal is to serve the public good. I'm surprised this isn't more obvious to her precious "superdelegates," but people who are that high up in the political food chain are so far removed from everyday life that they tend to get their information on public opinion from consultant pollsters rather than keeping up on the news themselves.

I'm admittedly less concerned with her (or McCain's) ability to build consensus with the minority party in Congress than I am with how their political appointments will affect the day-to-day operations of the entire federal government, from diplomacy and foreign affairs to education to the (ostensible) justice system. It's possible that I'd change my mind once McCain announces his cabinet, but right now I have a hard time imagining how Hillary's appointments wouldn't make things--not better necessarily, but at least start cleaning up some of the godawful mess that Bush and his cronies created, and do so better than McCain's.

Mark Penn is a dumbass and she and her husband are both fools to have kept him around as long as they have, but there's no indication that he advised/advises either in any capacity other than campaigning. I don't see her (admittedly reprehensible) behavior on the campaign trail as exhaustively indicative of the tenor of her entire hypothetical presidency. It does mean she's not a terribly authentic person, if she can play nasty while stumping but nice from office, but I don't tend to see authenticity or across-the-board personal integrity as necessary for performing a political role well.

There's also the question of who McCain's VP would be.

Re: Obama's pastor, for me the fact that he has a pastor at all is a bigger minus than anything the pastor himself could say, but it's still largely irrelevant to how much I like him as a candidate. Now, if Obama had actively sought Wright's approval as McCain did Hagee's, that would be a different story.

[bobstevens]

I disagree with a few bits. First, perhaps it's just the circles I've been in, but the 'n' word is far from common in my experience. The only person I can recall hearing say it is my grandmother. N word equals ridiculously overt racism, not the subtle kind.

Second, I don't think white america needs to come to grips with racism to elect Obama, in the same way that white america doesn't need to come to grips with racism to watch a Will Smith or Denzel Washington film. Tupac's "Changes" will finally be outdated if we elect Obama, but aside from that I don't think it's a given that people's attitudes on race will have changed.

Third, what has Obama accomplished in the Senate in his three years? If that's a concern for Hillary surely it's even more of a concern for Obama, right? I don't have any stake in the answer since I'm not voting for anyone, but lack of experience seems like a big negative stroke for both potential Democratic candidates. With that in mind Political Pokemon might be some of the most insightful political commentary so far this year.

Fourth, the Obama's pastor thing is just media assassination. They did the same thing to Bush in 2000 with respect to a speech at Bob Jones University. Because elections and circuses aren't very dissimilar, politicians are held to ridiculous standards that wouldn't (and shouldn't) be expected of anyone else. In the Obama case, it's ridiculous to assume that he auto-endorses statements made by some friend of his. In Bush's case, it was ridiculous to imply that he was anti-Catholic because he made a speech at a religious institution that happens to be anti-Catholic.

[bobstevens]

dobson:

Why would Hillary's complete lack of qualification for the Supreme Court be any less disturbing than say... Harriet Meyers's?

[greg]

bob,

the experience angle is one I've never agreed with. You can't have experience as president until you're actually president. It's sort of like being senior pastor: everyone thinks they'd be good at it, at least better than the current person, but then they actually get the job...

[Dallas Tim]

What do you folks in OK. think about J.C. Watts?

I've been hoping that McCain would ask him to be V.P. I'd even rather see Watts as President than McCain. I'd love to see Republicans elect him in overwhelming fashion and show others (and themselves) that it doen't have to be about race, but about issues.

Maybe there's some dark secret about Watts that I don't know about, but he's always appeared like a solid, "do what I said I'm gonna' do", old-school conservative type of guy.

Comments?!?!

[cheek]

Do what he said he'd do except in the case of self-enforced congressional term limits, which didn't happen, same as all the other hacks elected under the Contract with America didn't once they realized there wasn't a Senate seat opening at the end of that third term.

As for the horserace, I think McCain is a better person than Hillary (more genuine and less focussed on personal political standing than on accomplishing what he believes in. But then, I've never really believed that quality of character much mattered when it came to performance in office. I'll likely vote for Hillary because she'll have to become radical about the Iraq War to beat McCain, she actually does believe in universal health care, and she's likely to scrap or overhaul NCLB. That said, it's likely I'll at least consider voting for McCain whereas with Obama, it would be a no brainer for me. I read a transcript of JFK's "Peace Address" at American University following the Bay of Pigs, and I'm quite convinced that eloquence is more than a performance art, it's the driving force necessary to start building international consensus for confronting the many global crises we are facing. Prior to the ABC hatchet piece, I thought he had a chance of winning in a real landslide; now we just have to hope he can scrape by with 100,000 or so votes in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

[dr dobson]

Bob

you've imposed into my statements on Hillary and the SC that she doesn't have the qualifications because she is inexperienced--where do you see that in my argument?