Your mistake was reading the WSJ editorial page in the first place.
 

Nor I, Brian!

The only thing surprising about the WSJ piece is that it wasn't outright abusive...their op-ed page is a joke.

The race-card/identity politics canard plays well with the ethnic panic constituency (the same folks who are afraid of being "out-bred" by those scary minorities). These same folks should get used to the fact that in not too many years there won't be a demographic majority race in America, just a set of minority races.

Reading C Koonz's The Nazi Conscience (HUP, 2003) it is interesting to see how the National Socialists created a values constituency rooted in what they labeled as "traditional Germanic values" mixed with appeals to ethnic panic ("the Slavs are out-breeding us"). They viewed themselves as ethical people and protectors of a precious cultural heritage endangered of being swamped by lesser traditions and peoples.

"plus ca change..."
 

The fact that Obama doesn't play the race card is a big part of why I prefer him over Hillary. I can't imagine that he would have been successful in getting the nomination if he had played it.
 

To general audiences, Obama has consciously avoided drawing attention to race apart from the occasional reference to his mixed race heritage. I would be curious, though, to see what his campaign is saying in African American communities because he has that community locked up based on race.

In any case, Clinton is the one who played the race card early and often starting in South Carolina. I would be very surprised if the Clinton campaign was not the source of the video tapes of the racist rants of Obama's "spiritual advisor," the Rev. Wright.

Until the revelations about Wright, Obama was able to pull off a Tiger Woods style trans racial appeal. However, Wright brought race front and center into the election.

Clinton's race based attacks did not give her enough delegates (as opposed to votes) to win the nomination, but she may have mortally wounded Obama's general election campaign.

The fact that Obama has consciously avoided race in his campaign hardly means that he does not speak the Dem language of identity politics, though. The Wall Street Journal quotation on Obama's talk about picking Justices based on their empathy for various Dem voting blocks is most definitely a legitimate example of Dem identity politics.

However, Obama is smart enough to know that identity politics does not sell outside of the Dem Party and he needs to be competitive in states like Colorado where we will be voting on initiatives to eliminate state racial preferences. So I doubt that you will see Obama play the race card during the general election campaign.
 

Obama is naturally going to be influenced by identity politics simply because he's younger. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, and Henninger are all from an older generation who while sowed the seeds of the theories of identity politics, do not have a grasp of it and flail about wildly substituting their own biases for those of which they talk about.

As people who came of age in the (late) 60s, the older people are members not of the first subculture, but of the first subculture to be exploited and co-opted by the mass media (Dobie Gillis notwithstanding). This editorial was written from the perspective of a grandpa wearing raver pants, a wild swipe into whippersnapper territory with only crude analogies at hand for illustration. That Obama might be able to tap into subcultures other than those who buy Eagles tickets is a true problem for them.
 

I think what you need to do is think more in this way - Obama is a black fish in a goldfish bowl that has only been full of white fish in the entire 400 year history of this country (nominees or viable candidates for nomination of major political parties). At this level, in the past there simply have only been white fish in the goldfish bowl. We are only use to seeing white fish in this goldfish bowl. So every time Obama flicks proverbially his fishtail he is seen by some as playing a race card simply because they have not seen a black fishtail doing that at this level. He is putting in place a new normal in that his presence and success in that presence make us see just how white the fish have been in that goldfish bowl for so long.

Same thing with Hillary on gender where she is the only female fish in a goldfish bowl full of male fish (i.e. viable presidential candidates).

A significant point also is that if you are (roughly)over 40 you see this differently than if you are under 40.

The "firstness" of Obama is very different depending on your age because you do not have a visceral sense of the period of extreme segregation pre-civil rights. I am noticing that difference of view in the comments I read on whether Obama clinching is a big deal or not.

Obama is working very hard to not play a race card - but I suspect that what he does in being himself is confused by the rest as something that has race on it.

An analogy would be the high-five 25 years ago and the high-five today.

It's the difference between being seen as a man and being seen as a black man. There are lots of people who are willing to see him as who he is and vote for him and there are others who see his blackness as something from a range of "significant hurdle to strangeness" that makes his every act less or more perceived as playing a race card.

I am not surprised the WSJ would go this way simply because his blackness is a bigger thing to them than other journals. I am also not surprised that many of us do not see this because his blackness is not looked at with as much burden on it because of each of our histories on this sort of thing.

And the space for the dominance of one or the other of those views has changed as the background of the United States has changed over the past 40 years thanks to the efforts of lots of people to integrate places. "Firsts" that feel like firsts for me as an old fart of 52 or my mother at 82 feel less like firsts for someone 20 because the space of what we have grown accustomed to includes far more people of color than 40 years ago.

That does not mean that the battle for social justice is achieved by Obama. On the contrary, the risk is that Obama becomes an excuse to move backward - like the tokenism thing. What is needed is a continuing of mass effort to integrate this country both spatially and hierarchically.

Just some ideas.

Best,
Ben
 

Oddly enough, I think Bart gets the basic politics of this right (although he characterizes it in the way a conservative would and I would therefore characterize it a little differently).

One question I would ask is to what extent will conservatives-- especially in the 527 groups and on talk radio-- make an issue of Obama's race?
 

I would submit that Wright did not bring race front and center in this race. If you remember at Iowa the chant came up at the Obama victory speech from all those whites that "Race does not matter" - long before Wright. The point I think is that Wright (and I suspect other things) will be used as an instrumentality to "otherize" Obama to those whites (and persons of other colors than black) who are susceptible to those appeals. Wright was packaged in a way to focus on very specific emotions in white people and other people of color who are not black in a certain way to make him a wedge. Wright insinuates a very old fear of the black man. And those who want to kill Obama's chances are going to keep asserting that Obama has a problem with whites under $50 000 and people over the age of 65 (i.e. persons with a much stronger sense of white privilege because they lived it growing up in a more intense way). The more accurate thing is white people and other groups are coming to terms with this new creature based on the legacy.

It is like the talk of the black problem in America and the year Ebony put out an article entitled the white problem in America.

Blacks are also coming to terms with the idea of this guy. The point that Obama stressed early on was that he was not denying his debt to the "elders" but embracing it. He used the term "the Joshua generation" in contrast to Moses.

My personal question was whether it was a waste of a vote to vote for him or not. His early success made me understand that it was not a waste of a vote. Then the question is whether I like him more or hate him less than other candidates. The South Carolina race baiting by Bill Clinton just shifted me from being open to her cause I have seen to much of that bs for the past 60 years. I just don't want to put up with it and shut my mind to Hillary. I tried to open up again, but I found "why should I?".

Obama may have that problem with white old farts like me that he will not be able to overcome, but may be able to overcome Wright damage with other Whites. I do not know. Clearly, Clinton's approach on Saturday will be a big part of reopening minds of people who voted for her to Obama.

All that being said, I am certain that he is perfectly willing as a man who is ambitiously seeking the Presidency to ruthlessly cut off anyone - black, green or yellow. That is also the nature of any candidate at this level too - i.e. it is not a particularly Black thing or Obama thing. It is a presidential nominee thing.

Best,
Ben
 

One question I would ask is to what extent will conservatives-- especially in the 527 groups and on talk radio-- make an issue of Obama's race?

# posted by Dilan : 2:41 PM

The most popular local rightwingnut radio host is referring to him as the ultimate affirmative action hire.
 

Brian said: "The suggestion that people (Democrats, Republicans, or independents like me) have voted or will vote for Obama because he is black—which is what the charge of playing the race card means in this context—is absurd."

Well not so absurd really.

In this year's Democratic field of contenders, there was a rough parity in the liberal values held across the board.

In the absence of disqualifying features how does a rational actor pick among equally qualified choices?

One answer would be to look at meta-issues/utilities.

The value of America breaking race or gender barriers to high office would be such a utility and prompts support of Obama over equally qualified and equally liberal competitors.

As it works for Hillary.

And it is the covert presence of these meta-issues in voter choice that may be why we wound up with Hillary and Barack, rather than say Biden and Dodd.

The country is swinging out of retrenchment mode and is getting cautiously experimental again; we may be in for another growth period.
 

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
-- Geraldine Ferraro

yes, absurd, michael. you're confusing coherance for parity. the difference between mandating health care and not doing so is huge.

the difference between applying a timetable to Iraq and not doing so is huge.

the list goes on. but yes, all the Democrats present intellectually solid ideas.


but the Ferraro quote is revealing. because I think it sets the context for Henninger.

this is what they meant by "playing race and gender cards": Recall the early primaries, Ferraro and Clinton shamed their opponents, Edwards, for attacking her.

The gender card is both the word attack and her existence as female. We cannot attack females. And consequently, the boys pretty much stopped rigorously questing her.

And we all witnessed that Obama never said anything that could signify discrimination, as Hillary did with 'attacking me.'

Ferraro is effectively admitting that they were playing the gender card.
 

dilan said...

One question I would ask is to what extent will conservatives-- especially in the 527 groups and on talk radio-- make an issue of Obama's race?

Conservatives have been and will continue to avoid directly raising Obama's race at all to avoid giving the Dems an opening to play their favorite race card of labeling conservatives as racist. The Dems will do it anyway out of habit sometime during the general election campaign, but the conservatives are not going to give them an easy target.

HOWEVER, the conservatives have and will continue to remind voters of the racist rants of Obama spiritual advisors and political supporters Rev. Wright and now Father Pfleger.

This is both a legitimate and illegitimate issue.

It is certainly legitimate to note that Mr. Obama sought out this racist bile for twenty years and only fled when it became politically expedient. This raises serious questions about the man's judgment and actual beliefs.

However, this also serves the illegitimate purpose of reinforcing white racial stereotypes of blacks as race hustlers. The Dems know this and will claim that using Wright is racism. However, it will be hard to argue credibly to Joe and Jill Sixpack that condemning Wright's racism somehow constitutes racism itself.

IMHO, Kerry lost the 2004 election when the Swiftboat group ran commercials of Kerry's testimony before the Senate falsely comparing his fellow brothers in arms of acting like the Mongol hoards (not the ads challenging his awards). At that point, he lost the veterans, their Reagan Dems supporters and the election.

I strongly suspect the Wright video tapes did that to Obama.

It appears that the Dems will make gains in Congress again, but I do not see how Obama can overcome losing a substantial portion of his base to McCain.

Time will tell.
 

Likewise, Henninger is playing the asshole card. So in a sense, he's right: You can't escape your identity.
 

we can safely guess the conservatives will bring up their biggest race-based boogeyman to mobilize their base:

Reparations.
 

Prof. Tamanaha:

The suggestion that people (Democrats, Republicans, or independents like me) have voted or will vote for Obama because he is black—which is what the charge of playing the race card means in this context—is absurd. If Obama wins the general election, like he did the primary, it will be because lots of people want positive CHANGE. I, for one, can't wait...

The suggestion that "people [] have [NOT] voted or will [NOT] vote for Obama because he is black", OTOH, is a palpable fact.

That's what "playing the race card" really is. Then you have people like His Emanence Rush Limbaugh claiming that Obama won the primary because he's black (which, just to note, contradicts Limpballs's other claim that Limpballs is to get the credit for the primary results). But Limpballs's contention here does double-duty: It detracts from Obama's actual allure, and in addition, it gives the racists an excuse (as if they need one, but some perhaps do) to vote racist and against Obama, because "the other side is doing it, so I can too..."

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

To general audiences, Obama has consciously avoided drawing attention to race apart from the occasional reference to his mixed race heritage. I would be curious, though, to see what his campaign is saying in African American communities because he has that community locked up based on race.

Why would they say anything, if they have "that community locked up"? And what do you suppose (or suspect ... or fear) they're saying? Are you thinking that maybe they're secretly plotting the despoilation of the country and the subjugagion of Whitey for when they get into power?

But instead of 'wondering', why don't you do some friggin' research and get back to us when you have an idea, m'kay?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

I would be very surprised if the Clinton campaign was not the source of the video tapes of the racist rants of Obama's "spiritual advisor," the Rev. Wright.

You're not paying attention. Sean Hannity was bragging about having these in store from way back....

Cheers,
 

Dilan:

One question I would ask is to what extent will conservatives-- especially in the 527 groups and on talk radio-- make an issue of Obama's race?

The answer is "bigtime". To being with, "when all you have is a hammer...": They are in desperate straits, and will use anything.

Not to mention that they're already been busy making a big deal of it for the last half year (see, e.g., my blog post series, "Let the sliming begin -- Part <x>).

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

Conservatives have been and will continue to avoid directly raising Obama's race at all to avoid giving the Dems an opening to play their favorite race card of labeling conservatives as racist.

You just haven't been paying attention. Don't worry. Soon, very soon, once the Rethuglicans start panicking, it will become obvious enough so even the perceptually-challenged such as you will be able to pick it up.

But just a FYI, this very WSJ article is, in itself, a counterexample to your assertion.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

However, it will be hard to argue credibly to Joe and Jill Sixpack that condemning Wright's racism somehow constitutes racism itself.

You misspelled "Joe and Jill RedneckRacist".

As I pointed out, they will use this excuse to justify their animus.

I will also point out that Rethuglican strategists know this, and aren't afraid to use it.

I'd also point out that your characterisation of Wright's sermons as "racist" says more about you than it does about Wright.

Cheers,
 

Arne,

As you suggest, my assertion that people will not vote FOR Obama because he is black does not deny that people might vote AGAINST him for this reason. Indeed there is good reason to believe that, if anything, his race is a negative factor in voting. This reinforces my point that race does not help Obama, contrary to what the WSJ columnist suggests.

Brian
 

Let's not forget the WASP card:

White (all white, not one drop of non-white, thank you)
Anglo (all anglo, not one drop of non-anglo, except for saxon, thank uou)
Saxon (all saxon, not one drop of non-saxon, except for anglo, thank you)
Protestant (all Christian but no, Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox, etc, thank you)

Now if only we could test the sting of the WASP card for John McCain.
 

Prof. Tamanaha:

As you suggest, my assertion that people will not vote FOR Obama because he is black does not deny that people might vote AGAINST him for this reason. Indeed there is good reason to believe that, if anything, his race is a negative factor in voting. This reinforces my point that race does not help Obama, contrary to what the WSJ columnist suggests.

Precisely my point. Sorry I wasn't clearer. And sorry if you thought that I suggested that you thought or said differently.

Cheers,
 

brian tamanaha said...

Arne, As you suggest, my assertion that people will not vote FOR Obama because he is black does not deny that people might vote AGAINST him for this reason.

Professor, I do not believe it is tenable to argue that folks are not voting for Obama because he is black. This first term senator with no particular qualifications to be President has locked up the African American community and has white libs bragging about how they are proving themselves to be open to diversity by voting for him.

However, when balanced against the racial backlash generated by Wright among working class whites, I would agree that Obama's race is not a net plus.
 

"The suggestion that "people [] have [NOT] voted or will [NOT] vote for Obama because he is black", OTOH, is a palpable fact.

That's what "playing the race card" really is."

"The suggestion that "people have [NOT] voted or will [NOT] vote for Obama because he is black" is just precisely the nature of the race card Obama plays. Mind you, he won't play it directly, that one is for others to play on his behalf, while he maintains his role as the messiah of racial healing.
 

"The suggestion that "people have [NOT] voted or will [NOT] vote for Obama because he is black" is just precisely the nature of the race card Obama plays. Mind you, he won't play it directly, that one is for others to play on his behalf, while he maintains his role as the messiah of racial healing.

Nice try. It's Obama's opponents who've been saying this, not his supporters. His supporters have done their best to downplay the issue.

Moreover, as others have noted, it doesn't help Obama to say this (or have it said on his behalf), because if this becomes a widespread belief, it validates not voting for him.
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

Professor, I do not believe it is tenable to argue that folks are not voting for Obama because he is black.

That's nonsense, of course. There are some that will not vote for him for other reasons, including that they think the other candidate(s) a better candidate, but there's certainly plenty of racists out there that simply aren't going to vote for a black person. Some will admit that outright, others will make excuses as to why they shouldn't. But to deny that there are such people is to deny reality.

Cheers,
 

Brett:

"The suggestion that "people have [NOT] voted or will [NOT] vote for Obama because he is black" is just precisely the nature of the race card Obama plays.

Obama has not made that any part of his argument for his candidacy.

If you think differently, it is incumbent on you to provide your evidence for such.

Cheers,
 

Professor, I do not believe it is tenable to argue that folks are not voting for Obama because he is black.

Nonsense. Maybe even "stuff and nonsense"; I'm unclear on the distinction.

I've heard more than my fair share of hate speech in my life. Usually, I've heard it in the form of jokes, given with a nudge of the elbow and a friendly wink by a complete stranger that genuinely thought I'd find the joke funny, simply by dint of my skin color.

Over the course of my life, the frequency of these uncomfortable situations has dwindled. There are likely a million factors: I don't work in the South anymore, I've left the military, I lived on the south side of Chicago for several years, etc. It may be, as Ben suggests, reflective of a larger shift in cultural values, and I pray he's correct.

However, I am struck by the sudden increase in frequency of Obama-related race jokes that are being told to me and my wife by complete strangers without the least concern about propriety. I feel like I've been teleported twenty years back to when I was stationed in Tennessee, and one of my co-workers was surprised that I became upset when he invited me to join the KKK.

So, yes, Virginia, there is a racist America--as surely as there's a liberal elite*, I'd wager--and we can put our fingers up to the crowd to blot out those people from our vision, but that doesn't make them (or their voting habits) go away.

Too speculative or subjective? Okay, then look at AP's analysis of exit polls and the upcoming phase of the campaign:

One in seven white voters of his own party said in exit polls that race was important in choosing their candidate. Of that group, not only did two-thirds vote for Clinton, but nearly six in 10 said they would rather vote for McCain in November or stay home than support Obama.

So, yeah, I think it is absolutely "tenable to argue that folks are not voting for Obama because he is black"--if not because that's my observation/interpretation of their behavior, then because folks have said so themselves!
 

pms:

I worded my post poorly and apparently confused everyone.

My point was twofold:

1) African Americans and some liberal whites are apparently voting for Obama because of his race. There is near absolute racial solidarity among African American for Obama even though he may be one of the least qualified serious candidates for President in years. Meanwhile, the Dem media was filled with liberal whites bragging about how they were proud to support this historical nod toward diversity with nary a comment about Obama's qualifications.

2) On the other hand, Rev. Wright's racist rants and Obama's failure to repudiate Wright immediately have repelled blue collar Dems, who believe that Obama knew what Wright was saying over the past 20 years and think he shares at least some of those opinions or would not have sought them out. Thus, when exit polls ask voters the vague question of whether race played a role in their vote, are the respondents saying yes in response to Wright's racism or their own or both?

When these two trends wash out, I would suggest that that latter Wright trend will far outweigh the former racial solidarity and diversity trends.

In any case, I am not denying that there is an undercurrent of racism in this contest. If you recall, I was the first to point out this possibility when the primary campaign began. I suggested that the first African American President would most likely be a conservative playing against racial stereotypes. I wondered whether Obama's liberalism would reinforce racial stereotypes and work against his historic run. As it turns out, before the general election could arrive and the GOP could educate folks how far left Obama's actual record was, the Clinton campaign threw the Wright bombshell to far greater effect.
 

1) African Americans and some liberal whites are apparently voting for Obama because of his race.

They are voting for him because he is the Democrat nominee, you idiot.
 

Arne, do you think anybody can take you seriously on any point when you use words like "Rethuglican"? It just shows how fundamentally unserious you are as a person.

(Sort of like how anti-war people run around with giant puppets and Free Mumia! signs at purported anti-war rallies, and then wonder why people treat them as unserious.)

(And, please, spare me the tu quoque response about how Ann Coulter says nastier things than that. It's true; she does. And does it cause you to take her seriously?
 

Someone whose only purpose is to troll writes:

1) African Americans and some liberal whites are apparently voting for Obama because of his race.

They are voting for him because he is the Democrat nominee, you idiot.

No. He isn't the Democratic nominee yet, and there has been no election in which he was. So anybody who is voting for him -- present tense, not future tense -- is doing so because of some reason other than that he "is the Democrat [sic] nominee."
 

No. He isn't the Democratic nominee yet

Thanks for pointing out the HUGE difference between "nominee" and "presumptive nominee". That sort of distinction is important on a serious discussion blog like this one.
 

PMS:

This passage from an AP story is a pretty good illustration of my point about how Wright feeds into racial stereotypes:

Young Han, 25, said race played little role in his decision to vote for Obama in the Washington state caucuses. But he wonders if his peers would be uncomfortable if Obama were a different type of black candidate.

"A person who talks in a black English, engages in 'identity politics,' and comes out of a marching, yelling-out-of-a-megaphone background might be considered 'really' black, whereas a Harvard-educated lawyer who looks non-threatening may be just a guy who happens to be black," says Han, a Korean-American who recently worked for a Washington, D.C., civic education foundation teaching students about government. "Whether this is a valid way by which to judge someone's competence or legitimacy is whole other question. But I think that's how things work."

Like many others, he saw attempts to link Obama to his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as a way to play on that dynamic.
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

I suggested that the first African American President would most likely be a conservative playing against racial stereotypes.

Yes. "Curious George" is most certainly a liberal, which is why conservatives are stereotypically portraying Obama as such. Rrrriiiggghhtt. And there's this nice bridge I'd like to sell you....

Newsflash for the Bartster, though: Blacks don't have to be "conservative" in order to refuae to play to the stereotypes that the "conservatives" would like to hang on them. See, e.g., Barack Obama, despite the best efforts of Hannity, Limbaugh, and many more RW foamers to come in the next six months....

No, what "Bart" means here is that the only chance that "conservatives" (i.e., RW racist bigots) will vote for a black is if he's right out of the pages of "Gone With The Wind", like Nino's "Stepin Fetchit", Clarence Thomas....

Good thing that there aren't enough such "conservatives" to be determinative ... and hopefully soon there won't be enough to even fill the Phoenix Convention Center

Cheers,
 

David:

Arne, do you think anybody can take you seriously on any point when you use words like "Rethuglican"? It just shows how fundamentally unserious you are as a person.

I'm quite serious. You'll find that out.

What else can you say about the thugs that have run roughshod over the laws and the constitution (not to mention democracy itself) for the last decade and more?

And honest person in the Rethuglican party needs to leave at once for their own mental health. See, e.g., Inhofe....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeDicta:

... the Clinton campaign threw the Wright bombshell to far greater effect.

Earlier, "Bart" had speculated (insinuated?) that the CLinton campaign was behind the Wright tapes. Now he's sure of it (or stating it as a fact). What evidence have you uncovered of this in the last day, "Bart", that has convinced you?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" luvs him some hearsay:

["Bart", quoting an AP story]: "Young Han, 25, said race played little role in his decision to vote for Obama in the Washington state caucuses. But he wonders if his peers would be uncomfortable if Obama were a different type of black candidate."

Hearsay at best, but probably only speculation (no different than "Bart"'s, for which he cites this as support for the truthof the matter asserted). This is not competent evidence.

["Bart" opines]: Like many others, he saw attempts to link Obama to his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as a way to play on that dynamic.

Yes, we've noticed. But the people that are doing this are people like Hannity and Limbaugh ... and you....

Cheers,
 

"I'm quite serious. You'll find that out."

You can be as serious as you want, and it doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously, if you keep throwing out that kind of verbal cue.

Whether you're serious may be up to you, but whether you're taken seriously is up to the people doing the taking.

"What else can you say about the thugs that have run roughshod over the laws and the constitution (not to mention democracy itself) for the last decade and more?"

That a not inconsiderable number of people would have told you they were "demoncrats" a decade ago, and not been taken seriously?