In response to the Washington Post's article today, "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause," I wrote:
I've blogged on the racial elements in the recent controversies surrounding Barack Obama's campaign, even noting that white opposition to Obama is rooted much more in values than skin color.These were my quick reflections after just skimming the article at 5:00am, but look at what the Post notes further down in the essay:
But race still is significant in American politics, and what polling surveys can't capture, anecdotal stories remind us that there's some rank stupidity or ugliness in the electorate.
Pollsters have found it difficult to accurately measure racial attitudes, as some voters are unwilling to acknowledge the role that race plays in their thinking.As noted, Ms. Dzimian is a Clinton supporter, and apparently is supportive of the Democrats this election, but she'd have supported Colin Powell if he was a candidate this year as well.
But some are not. Susan Dzimian, a Clinton supporter who owns residential properties, said outside a polling location in Kokomo that race was a factor in how she viewed Obama. "I think if it was somebody other than him, I'd accept it," she said of a black candidate. "If Colin Powell had run, I would be willing to accept him."
Dzimian's views - which are just one point on a potential scatterplot - nevertheless illustrate, first, that if we can call the woman's views as racially-motivated (even "racist") they don't seem to be bound to any particular expression of partisanship. Second, since Dzimian would likely support a black candidate other than Obama, it's likely Obama's far left-wing views - on the war, the economy and health care, along with his toxic relationship to Jeremiah Wright and '60s-era domestic terrorists - that are driving voting preferences, not racial animus.
This is just one woman, of course, and while the article does indicate some crass racism at play in the election, most of the white working class opposition to Obama among old-line Democrats is values-based, rather than racially tinged.
John Judis discusses this at the New Republic, where he notes:
Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, which exploded into the news after the Ohio primary, may do lasting damage to his candidacy by undermining his attempt to transcend race. Wright's words tie Obama to the stereotype of the angry, hostile--and also unpatriotic--black who is seen as hating both whites and white America. Wright turns Obama into a "black candidate" like Jackson or Sharpton.Sure, Judis also reviews some of the literature on contemporary racism, but from my studies and my personal experiences, there's very little Jim Crow-style racism in America today. If there was, Barack Obama would have never gotten this far in national politics.
Moreover, to the extent we're seeing racial resentments coloring electoral politics today, it's among Democratic partisans!
So I find it shrewdly hypocritcal for Obama supporters to attack Clinton and others as playing dirty "Republican Party racial politics." Race is the bailiwick of the left. They're obssessed with it, and see racism behind every political motivation and controversy.
Here's TBogg playing more of the race-baiting smears against the GOP:
The Republicans are counting on this. This is their base.I can guarantee readers that bigoted comments from a satirical 1970s-era motion picture (and the comments from the Post piece off which they play) are not representative of the GOP - the party of Abraham Lincoln, and the partisan descendents of true equal protection under the law.
The hard-left blogosphere's diligently at work to smear conservatives with their "short version" anti-analysis of Republican Party racism. It's cheap and pathetic, and should be rebutted for the rank left-wing, gutter-based identity mongering that it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment