Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Analysis of the Nash McCabe story
I find the Nash McCabe story fascinating, particularly this article: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/34071.html
What I think underlies McCabe's reluctance to support Obama, and Obama's difficulties with working-class white voters in general, is not overt racism, but rather a deep seated resentment to anything that smacks of racial preferences for blacks. The former should not be confused with the latter.
When working-class white voters see Obama, I think many assume his rise to political prominence is the result of a racial preference by "elite" whites who hope that by hiring Obama for President, they will make some advance towards racial reconciliation and diversity. But that advance comes at the expense of the "more qualified" white candidate for the job, namely, Hillary. Hence McCabe's view that while Hillary has "earned" her right to be president, Obama has had this job handed to him on a silver platter. [Note: I'm not making an assertion here that Hillary is actually more qualified; I'm talking about perceptions only.]
The reason I believe this is not ultimately about racism per se is that I have a strong hunch that if Colin Powell ran as a pro-Union democrat, he'd get McCabe's vote in an instant.
What this suggests is that Obama needs to put a lot more emphasis on explaining why he's qualified for the job, and explain to voters how he didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth, and how he has earned the right to be President. What Obama has to get away from is the notion that we should vote for him because his Presidency will be symbol of progress and hope. I, myself, believe this is true and this message probably plays well in certain, more affluent, more progressive areas of the country. But it's that very same "symbol of hope" message that raises the hackles of people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have been the victims of affirmative action.
Comments (11)
The good news is, this lady will probably vote for Obama over McCain.
But, yeah, Obama does need to talk about "white" issues. I know that sounds racist, but it seems like it needs to be done.
April 18, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NYT story was the first one to feature Ms. McCabe. It's quite troubling...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/politics/04penn.html?fta=y&pagewanted=print
April 18, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comments. The NYTimes story -does- get much more to the heart of the matter. But my gut reaction is that, ultimately, the reason the voters interviewed are reluctant to vote for Obama is not -simply- because he's a black man, but has more to do with their perception of his socioeconomic background and the underlying sense that somehow his rise to power has not been "earned." This plays into racial stereotypes of successful black people, but I don't think that's a sufficient explanation in itself. Again, I think that someone like Colin Powell would do much better with these same voters than even Hillary.
April 18, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the "reasons" are rationalizations.
It's called "prejudice", means a priori judgment is applied.
Harboring negative racial stereotypes doesn't mean you NEVER accept somebody of a different skin color, but you will almost always hold them to a different standard.
Could he ultimately win these people over? Of course. But it will be extremely hard.
April 18, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, any rational person realizes that Hillary had HUGE gifts in her rise to political fame:
Being born from a wealthy family didn't hurt.
Marrying Bill certainly didn't hurt.
Of course, in the general, he'll be fighting against a Navy guy who was tortured. So, I don't think the Obama's "background" will work well against McCain...
on that, it will have to be the economy, the war, and how Obama is better on the issues than McCain.
April 18, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's very true about Hillary. She has inherited a network of supporters that was built largely by her husband. To her credit, though, she did go through law school and become a partner a major firm during a time when it was much harder for a woman to succeed like that, in any field, let alone law. Her grit, determination, and intelligence make it all the more tragic that she has decided to bring this campaign down into the gutter of FOXNEWS politics. Only time and long service in the Senate will repair the damage she's doing to her legacy.
April 18, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this feeling, that Hillary has earned something Obama hasn't, mystifies me. How the best-known woman politician of the last 15 years has to fight against the natural advantages of an unknown, mixed-race, local Chicago politican escapes me.
It may be that Obama seems too good to be true; how did he come so far, so fast? The fix must be in. It couldn't be that he's just good at it.
Fortunately, we don't need everyone to be convinced, only enough of them. And as long as they're willing to vote for someone other than McCain, we should be OK in November.
April 18, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very true. It's not a level playing field for Obama among these voters (hence the strange fixation on the flag lapel pin). As you suggest, though, that does not mean that there is not something else about him, as an individual, besides his race, that is allowing these prejudices to become the dominant frame by which voters like McCabe view him. Obama will nevertheless have to confront this "something else" head on --whether it is the perception that he doesn't have enough experience, has not "earned" the nomination, etc.
April 18, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading he McClatchy article was an interesting few moments.
Looking at her voting preference, we might conclude one of two things: (1) She is favoring Clinton because she does fall into the demographic of an older, less educated, white woman, or (2) She is looking for excuses not to vote for Obama, because she does not trust a black man to be President yet does not want to come out and say it in so many words.
Either, both, or neither of these may be true. I have no way of knowing for certain. I suspect something else may be at work here...
In any case, she and her husband share dire circumstances through no doing of their own. They are exactly the people Democrats say we want to help. No disagreement there, right?
So where is the problem?
I wonder if this is someone, not terribly well-educated, who has a certain built-in suspicion of anyone who appears "too well educated" - the sort of anti-intellectualism that goes all the way back to Colonial times, when those who seemed too well-educated were likely there to cheat or dispossess people. Couple that with the potential nature of #1 above, and she's still going to be more inclined to trust a woman, even one who is also a law school grad, no matter the rather more privileged nature of her background in comparison to the much more self-made Obama.
And if this is so, what it points out is that we have a very large problem in this society. It is far too easy for the poorly educated to be turned against their own best interests, distracted by extraneous issues, lured to know-nothing-isms and led around by their fears.
And it's not just her stated dislike of Sen. Obama. When a faux-redneck like George W. Bush can ride that fakery to the White House, where he shouldn't have drawn 25% of the vote, maybe it's time for the cowboy-as-American-hero trope to vanish.
What's the point of idolizing semi-literate, itinerant manual laborers, anyway? Most of them were generally honest, decent people, but it's not a life anyone sane would aspire to, is it?
I suspect, to bring this back around, that if Ms. McCabe came from a background where education was more highly thought of in the first place, she might feel differently about things. And less suspicious of someone who seems, to her, to be rising above his station.
Long, rambling, and yet hopefully somehow useful...
April 18, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the other part is that many "working class Americans" have been taught for years that "elite" doesn't just apply to the super rich but also the intellectuals. Many beleive that all intellectuals look down on them and can't understand them.
So in a case like Obama where he wasn't born with even an upper middle class spoon in his mouth like Hillary; he was obviously born smart and some people don't like or trust smart people.
All of that being said, I believe that after Obama wins the nomination and the comparison is set between Obama and McCain; enough of the American people will come to the conclusion that we need someone smart right now to manage this country and to get us out of the gridlock our politics are in. They may not always like him for being an "intellectual" but I think they will vote for him and support him in the end.
April 18, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You needn't look any further than this blog to find out similar attitudes to Ms. McCabe's:
Our own Matt Weaver graces us with
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/obama-have-you-no-shame.php
April 18, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment