How to Gauge Racism in This Election
As the polls tighten, Slate's veteran blowhard press critic Jack Shafer surely knows that sensationalist journalism and racism are two of the biggest reasons. But, as Todd Gitlin notes here, Shafer is training his piercing gaze on liberals in the media, who, he complains, are so enraptured by Obama that they can't bear to acknowledge his faults and their inevitable disappointments if he wins.
Let me give this sage of journalism something he really deserves -- a viral e-mail. This one really stopped me. It will help Shafer and all of us, far more than his own commentary does, to tell whether liberal pundits' jitters are worth frothing about just now. Ask yourself these simple questions:
What if it had been the Obamas, not the Palins, parading five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?
Would the polls be so tight if it had been Barack Obama who'd finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class and if John McCain had been president of the Harvard Law Review?
Where would the polls be if McCain had married only once and had stayed married, while Obama had been the divorcee?
What if it was Obama who had been a member of the Keating Five (the U.S. Senators accused of corruption in a scandal that helped ignite the Savings and Loan meltdown of the late 1980s and early 1990s)?
How tight would the polls be if it had been Obama whose military service had included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?
By the way, compare the candidates' educational backgrounds:
Barack Obama:
Columbia University--B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in
International Relations.
Harvard--Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware--B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law--Juris Doctor (J.D.)
John McCain:
United States Naval Academy--Class rank: 894 of 899
Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University--1 semester
North Idaho College--2 semesters--general study
University of Idaho--2 semesters--journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College--1 semester
University of Idaho--3 semesters--B.A. in Journalism
Sure, more than racism explains the discrepancy between what the polls show now and what they'd show if the candidates' colors were reversed. Recall what was done to John Kerry's honorable military record, and compare it to that of George W. Bush, a draft dodger of the same war who entered and left the National Guard thanks to connections and phone calls no other guardsmen could count on. So, no, it's not all about racism.
But isn't it a bit late for Jack Shafer's reverse raptures against racism-obsessed, Obama-worshipping liberals? Shouldn't he do something to enlarge the public record - and clean up his own?
TPM readers may recall that in January, 2008, Shafer had another of his characteristic seizures about liberals when the New York Times made neoconservative field marshal William Kristol a columnist. Shafer knew very well that Kristol wasn't qualified, but he ranted against liberals for denouncing Kristol's appointment.
Commenting on Shafer's reverse-rapture syndrome then, I noted that many conservatives, libertarians, and contrarians like him, who'd welcomed some of Bush's initiatives as correctives to liberal folly, had been fooled, but that,
"Embarrassed by what they see in the mirror, some turn away to point fingers at leftists who've been too far out of the action to deserve blame or credit for conservative self-destruction.
"Watch Jack Shafer, for example, ... point his finger compulsively away from the mirror: 'Who's Afraid of Bill Kristol?' reads the headline of his post. 'Nora Ephron, Josh Marshall, Jane Smiley, David Corn, Erica Jong, Katha Pollitt, and Nearly Every Liberal With a Blogging Account,' the headline concludes, answering its own question."
I shamelessly commend the rest of my comments about this. Can't Shafer see that the bloom is off the rose of his anti-liberal fixation? Does he really want to be in lockstep with Limbaugh, Palin, and others who live to dine out on liberal blunders? Does Shafer want to end up like Hilton Kramer, forever flailing the ghosts of the 1960s?
Assuming that Obama, that disgraceful Harvard neoliberal, does win, is Shafer warming up for January 21 or even November 21, by which time Obama will surely have done something that lets Shafer resume his liberal-bashing default position with gusto?
For now, his record suggests that since he can't blame liberal journalists all that much for the mess this country is in, he's blaming them for getting upset about it. .
OOoh, it's getting scary! Like some political Poe!
Happy Halloween!
Quoth the Maverick...
http://thetruthburns.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/quoth-the-maverick/
October 28, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polls really aren't tightening. There has been essentially no movement in the national polls for a couple of weeks. At the same time, state polls tend to show Obama pulling somewhat further ahead in states where he is leading, and drawing closer in red states that no Democrat has won in a long time. The best evidence right now is that he is heading for an electoral blowout.
Obviously this can all change, and things could still go bad. We can't let up, and I donated more money today to help the campaign with its impressive closing ground game efforts. I encourage everyone to donate, volunteer, call people, and do whatever they can to help Obama close out solidly.
But we have to go with the best evidence we have, and it is only on the front page of TPM Cafe where I find these unending inquiries that seek to answer such koan-like questions as, "How much can we blame racism for the impending defeat that very probably isn't going to happen?" or "How much can we blame racism for the worrisome tightening of the polls that so far hasn't been observed?
I'm sure racial prejudice remains a factor in the thinking of many anti-Obama voters, although most of them would never have voted for the Democrat anyway. I'm also sure that it cuts the other way, and that there are many voters, both white and black, who are extra-enthused about the prospect of voting for the first black president.
Maybe this race will get tight in the last week. But by the standards of most presidential elections, and especially recent elections in our politically divided country, right now the race is not tight.
I think some of you guys are too invested in your anti-empirical, faith-based expectation that race will ultimately screw everything up. At some point you're going to have to start believing your lying eyes.
October 28, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's insulting, how the MSM refuses to hold everyone in the race to the same standard. For all the whinning by Pugs that the media fawns over Obama, he actually has traveled a much tougher road, considering all of his talents, than anyone who ran. He was clearly the better candidate and all things being equal, would demolish the competition!
October 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had an epiphany the other day.
I was thinking about what a sterling candidate Obama is, and how the right wing takes him to task for being so good: calling him "the chosen one", etc. I know this is supposed to be the Rovian way -- attack your opponent on the basis of his strengths -- but to attack someone because of his virtues seems to go a step beyond the nonsensical.
A part of me realized, of course, that the attack isn't aimed at Obama himself so much as at his supporters. So it did make me stop and think: am I hero-worshipping here? And should I really temper my support because no one could possibly be that good? What's even sillier, should I abandon my support in favor of someone who is clearly not as good?
And then I had my revelation. He really is that good. No, of course he's not perfect, no one is. But he's quite good. And my revelation was: how could it be any other way? The first black man to achieve the presidency, if indeed he does next Tuesday, will have to be an utterly sterling candidate, or else he would never have gotten this far.
I think it will be the same when we finally elect our first woman to the presidency. And the first atheist. And the first gay or lesbian -- whoever that person is will have to be damn good to overcome the weight of the bigoted opposition to her/him.
20 or 30 years from now, when the second, or the third, or even the fourth black president gets elected, and our society finally realizes that color doesn't really make that much difference, there will probably be plenty of room for mediocrity and flaws.
Which makes me so glad to be living right now, at this moment in history.
October 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nedbalzer:
I realized last Spring, after Obama had a really good month after the NH primary but before the PA loss - sure Obama's a true force to be reckoned with.
And yet...what truly gave me chills was the fact that - so many people RECOGNIZED Obama as such - and that - at least in Dem primaries, "hard working Americans, white Americans" were voting for a half black guy.
I was much more encouraged that at least Dem primary voters weren't going down the stupid 'electability' rabbit warren of 2004 that gave us President Kerry.
So as, BO says, it REALLY IS NOT about him - it's about people coming to their senses. That the electorate has some sense left, in the face of 30 years of right wing agit prop - that's the most astonishing thing - Americans just being rational - here's where the real inspiration lies.
October 28, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers to KingElvis and Nedbalzer on your epiphanies. Yes, Obama is an amazing candidate, and it's churlish of either his critics of his most jittery supporters to think otherwise.
And I pray that KingElvis is right -- that despite all these years of bludgeoning by propaganda, futile wars, and capricious and abusive marketing, most Americans haven't lost their reason or their faith. Still, I fear that it's going to be awfully close on November 4, due to racism, the fear-mongering robo calls, and shenanigans at swing-state boards of elections,
Thankfully, the Supreme Court sent the Ohio board and all the other ones a message: Don't even think of putting us in the position Florida did in 2000. And I think that the Dems are lawyered up, by the hundreds and even thousands, to swoop down on any polling place that misbehaves.
But, to Dan K: The polls will tighten. Just don't make me sound as if I'll be crying if they don't. The questions that I passed on in boldface above simply ask you to ask yourself where you think the polls would be if the characteristics mentioned were reversed between the black and white candidate. We all know the answer, and there's more to come.
The appropriate response isn't fear-mongering, of course, but redoubled energy. I recently spoke to Katha Pollitt of The Nation, who, with Todd Gitlin and others, went canvassing in a swing state. Will you?
October 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'll be volunteering in my own state, although New Hampshire isn't as swingy as it was just a couple of weeks ago. I'm not planning on canvassing, but hope to be driving people to the polls on election day.
I don't think I'm very good at the door-to-door stuff, although I have done it in the past. I now pour all my energy at conversion and persuasion into my amazing blog comments!
And I give money.
Just one anecdote: My co-worker's father is in a hospice with final stage emphysema. The old guy was expected to be dead months ago, but he keeps hanging on. He's a crusty old white, tough, New Hampshire guy - ex military. But he says he just wants to hang on long enough to see Barack Obama elected. For every story I hear about some racist nitwit who thinks Barack Obama has a secret plan to let all the black people out of prison and put them in charge of a Communist gulag, I hear a story like the one about my co-worker's father. So I'm not convinced that your portrayal is accurate. Yes racism cuts into Obama's numbers; but inspiration and the hope of racial transcendence add numbers to his tally as well. If McCain were running against an average, random Democrat, maybe that old, white New Hampshire veteran would be voting for the old, white veteran in the race.
To address your thought experiment in bold type, it's not so easy to say. If two white males were running, one with Obama's great personal attributes, and another with McCain's torture hero adventures and record of occasional mavericky centrism, it might still be very close - even if the latter was the same kind of bottom-of-the-class, ambitious gigolo with a scandal in his background. And especially if the latter was a Republican. After all, Republicans have proven many times that they will vote for almost anyone who carries their banner. They like grabass class dunces with an eye for the quick buck and the main chance. That's just the kind of "regular guy" that floats their boat. Throw in the counterculture-hating war hero stuff, and McCain was made to order.
Yes, McCain has the Bush cross to carry. But there are still lots of Republicans and conservative independents in this country, and McCain was really perfectly set up to capture the middle. The amazing thing is that he threw away his centrist street cred by running a campaign designed to appeal mainly to the FOX viewers and Limbaugh listeners who were going to vote for him anyway. He's been incredibly stupid.
October 28, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at the thought experiment, I think that being a Democrat is a bigger factor than being black. For more evidence of that, just do the thought experiment with the military records of Bush and Kerry.
The other big factor is the tire swing. Reporters unapologetically love McCain and feel guilty if they do anything to make him look bad, as the article by Maeve Reston in today's LA Times so clearly shows. Before that, you had people like Frank Bruni of the NY Times who loved George Bush so much that he wrote "Ambling into History."
I guess if you want to be elected president you should keep the press liquored up on high-quality hooch.
October 28, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Responding to Dan K, first, you have my admiration for what you are doing in New Hampshire. If this reply doesn't appear right below Dan K's message, I urge everyone to scroll up and read what he's doing. It's not heroic, it's civic as well as partisan, and it's what every one of you who lives in or near a swing (or swingy) state should be volunteering to do.
I also accept (and I said in my post!) that it's not all about racism. See my comment on Kerry v. Bush.
But the most hopeful and encouraging thing in Dan's message is his anecdote (and I have similar ones) about whites who'll defy their own past prejudices and maybe their current friends, parents, other relatives, etc. to vote for Obama, because they've had it with the sniveling racism, not to mention the Republicans. Will there be enough of them to offset those who can't or won't change? That's no small part of what this election is about. It's been encouraging to see prominent white conservatives and even neo-conservatives, from George Will and Christopher Buckley to Ed Koch, come out for Obama.
October 29, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I just peeked over my cubicle wall and asked my co-worker if her dad has often voted for Democrats in the past. She said, "No, he has always been a Republican. But he hates Bush."
I agree we need to be cautious and work hard right up until the last vote is counted. One anecdote does not an election make, and there are plenty of anecdotes on the other side too.
But I do think we are sometimes too quick to leap to broad conclusions about what motivates other people. I heard a reporter analyzing the election on NPR last week. He was asked how much of a factor he thought race was, and said that it came up from time to time, as when he asked one older American why she wasn't supporting Obama, and received the answer, "Well, I'm just from a different generation." The reporter seemed to assume the voter was speaking in a kind of code that really meant, "I'm from a generation among whom white people don't like black people very much, and don't vote for them." And maybe that's what she meant.
But remember, there are a lot of older Americans who were just worried that Obama was too young and untested, and it took him along time to win those people over. Maybe that's all she meant? I've seen a lot of commentary in recent weeks in which the commentator seems to be applying these personal decoding systems. It's almost like they think they can prove the depth of their own liberality by demonstrating how profoundly they are able to penetrate beneath the masks and layers of seemingly non-racist behavior to expose the ugly racist core hidden deeply withing. But sometimes I wonder if the decoding says more about the decoder than the person whose message is being decoded.
Maybe sometimes a pipe is just a pipe? And maybe sometimes a white guy who doesn't like Obama's tax policy is just a white guy who doesn't like Obama's tax policy?
October 29, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to get all French on you, but "divorcée' is feminine.
October 28, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find the arguments here amazingly... vapid. It's as if nothing matters but winning. Integrity, selfless service, etc etc are completely ignored. What matters is aligning oneself to the majority of voters (until the election is won.) What matters is hiding one's real aspirations and presenting a fresh face (until the election is won.) What matters is downplaying opposition strengths and dissing opposition weaknesses at every turn, while and glorifying "our" candidate's strengths and hiding the ghosts (until the election is won.)
Your list of questions are meaningless.
The situations you raise (of concern about the M-P camp) have entirely equivalent if not more concerning events for O-B. The press avidly picks up on the M-P situations (within hours or days), while downplaying or ignoring the O-B situations... sometimes for years.
Palin family... Obama poverty-stricken brother.
McCain not academic... Obama not even willing to share his academic record.
McCain in second marriage... Obama disavowing his mentors (Wright etc).
McCain an exonerated member of Keating Five... Obama chaired a $NNNm education fiasco (or do you prefer his quiver full of socialist mentors, goals, friends, etc?)
McCain a somewhat rough guy in the military... Obama's career full of involvements that he refuses to admit to this day.
[By the way, please update your memory on these things. McCain didn't even lose, let alone crash, seven planes. Look it up. He was cited not as a screwup, but a man with "superb airmanship."]
My attempt at realism... Plus for McCain: he knows how to work across the aisle. Minus for McCain: he's no saint. Plus for Obama: an inspiring orator. Minus for Obama: his "innovation" is smoothly hiding his traditional radical views until he's in power.
You have no idea what you are getting with Obama. Other than not-Bush.
October 28, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Roiightie-o Mister Professor
While the proverbial cow jumps over the moon.
And someone missed the freeper offramp two exits back.
~OGD~
*Putting socks in the pie-holes of Cafe trolls since June 2005*
October 29, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were rightie flogging "character" on this site, the last person I would want to bring up would be George W. Bush.
"Not Bush" is a pretty good choice these days, -unless you've been hiding under a rock.
It isn't "what matters is winning" for Liberals. It's "what matters is policy, not character".
Voting for "character" what got us G.W. Bush- who not incidentally has one of the most repulsive characters of any president in modern history.
October 29, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly think race is a minor factor in this election. From all I've heard, it's about even on those who actually vote for/against Obama because of race. If anything, more on the "for" side -- from those I personally know.
October 28, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mix in racism with the views of the average American. Interesting that the real-life average American, the person found to be the nation's most statistically average man or woman after a long bipartisan search, has come out for Obama. The news has been confirmed on the search's website www.TheAverageAmerican.com
October 28, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
to the guy above with the epiphany ("was I hero-worshiping? No--he really IS that good!"):
you're kidding, right? I mean, I do get the "guess who's coming to dinner" syndrome. you'll recall that Sidney Poitier's character was so incredibly overwhelmingly wonderful that moviegoers wondered what he saw in the bland white chick.
but in this case, I have to say no, he's NOT that good.
I think there's a sort of cognitive dissonance going around. when Obama voted for the FISA bill, his followers rationalized that away as a pragmatic solution to an intractable problem. when he decided to forego campaign funding because he could raise more money privately (a flip-flopped position from most of the campaign), they rationalized that really this WAS "letting the people speak," because Obama got so many small donations.
when they hear about Rev. Wright or William Ayers or pro-PLO associations, they rationalize all these away as being too far in the past/not germane/another "right-wing slur" and so on. to the true believers, he IS that good because he IS...and it doesn't matter what he says, does, or believes, because of the inherent GOODNESS of the man. thanks, but no thanks.
as far as racism goes: how many of the 98% of black Americans who are voting for Obama are doing so because of his race? compare that to the percentage of white Americans who will be voting AGAINST him because of it. it's not even close.
good luck, President Obama. and god help us all.
October 28, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hmmmm....
Didn't anyone ever tune this person into the knowledge and wisdom that "god" doesn't get too damn involved in politics? There's a whole universe out there to run.
Ground control to Major Tom . . .
~OGD~
*Shaking my head as a Cafe contributor since June 2005*
October 29, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
gretz,
you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.
I, and many others condemned Obama for his yes vote on FISA. Show me where his followers rationalized his vote. You might want to check Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com regarding his views on FISA and those that voted for it. Also check the letters to Greenwald.
As to his choosing to bail out of public funding, something you call flip flopping, it seems it was a smart move, politically.
By the way, I doubt if you, an obvious McCain backer, want to get into a "flip flopping" debate regarding the candidates.
His "relationships" with Wright, Ayers, and this new line of right wing craziness, his connection to PLO organizations, hold as much water as if I said;
McCain had a "relationship" with his Communist North Vitnamese captors.
As for Black Americans voting for Obama, wingnuts have forever been criticizing Black America for voting so heavily for Democrats; in this election, they get a twofer, they can vote for a Black Democrat.
And you call that racism?
To your comment "God help us" if Obama is elected;
Bush is a born again Christian, a true believer, someone who God would happily help. Looking at Bush's record as President, Bush's God has to be the most underperforming God in the History of the Universe. I certainly hope this particular God doesn't help President Obama.
October 29, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink