In a post about racism among Obama voters, Joe Feagin at Racism Review writes:
[…]unlike veteran Black civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al. Sharpton, Senator Obama has been very careful (with the exception of his one Philadelphia speech) not to talk openly about the racial hostility and discrimination, the systemic racism, perpetrated by a great many white Americans.
In working on our book on “race” and the Obama campaign, Adia and I have discussed why Senator Obama has carefully avoided discussing civil rights issues and the venerable Black civil rights agenda, which includes getting the government to vigorously enforce U.S. civil rights laws—which it has not done. Presumably, he must do this to be elected.
A society founded in and still grounded in white racism means, among other things, that a Black candidate running in a predominantly white district or area (the entire nation in this case) cannot talk candidly about the continuing and deep impacts of racial hostility and discrimination against African Americans and other Americans of color—that is, he or she must still act in ways that please whites, at least a significant enough group of whites to be elected. He or she cannot talk about what may be the nation’s most serious problem.
I think that’s exactly right.
There is one thing Joe says that I would disagree with; at the end of his post, he implies that McCain’s lead in the polls among white voters is a sign of racism. Well, maybe it is, in a “southern strategy” sort of way; but it’s worth noting that Obama is not unusual in this regard. The majority of white voters always vote for the Republican, at least when it comes to the Presidency.
The problem is, too many people seem to think that’s a problem. Ezra Klein:
One of the realities that’s a bit too treacherous to get into before the election but will surely feature into a lot of post-election analyses is the fact that John McCain is probably going to win whites and lose the presidency. Even now, 10 points down in the polls, McCain has a seven point lead among white voters. But white voters are not the only voters. Rather, they’re 68 percent or so of the populace (though probably somewhat more of the electorate).You can lose them by a couple points and still win the election handily. The question will be how that win is understood. I’ve been struggling for awhile to put this into words, but there’s definitely a odd demographic weighting among DC pundit types wherein white voters — particularly white working class voters, and even more particularly older white working class voters, and even more particularly older white working class voters who live in between California and New York and in sparsely populated cities — are somehow a more “authentic” foundation on which to build an electoral majority. And this is true among liberals as surely as among conservatives.
Postscript: Sarah Palin’s America seems to be a touch whiter and less Hispanic than America as a whole is.
“I’ve been struggling for awhile to put this into words, but there’s definitely a odd demographic weighting among DC pundit types wherein white voters — particularly white working class voters, and even more particularly older white working class voters, and even more particularly older white working class voters who live in between California and New York and in sparsely populated cities — are somehow a more “authentic” foundation on which to build an electoral majority.”
I’ve noticed this and wondered about it… is it a question of percieved reliability (as opposed to younger voters, who are notorious for not showing up), or because they win the “Real American” contest? In the past few presidential elections, there’s been much ado about sub groups within this group — one unique thing about this election is that they’re finally being identified as a racial demographic, as opposed to a raceless (or possibly multiracial) combination of SES/region/age/religiosity summed up by all and sundry clever euphemisms — a group that’s leaned socially and fiscally right for a long while now. Perhaps there’s a belief that a more diverse group is prone to fragmentation/harder to appeal to for extended periods of time and as a result, provide a weak foundation to build upon?
Racism doesn’t just limit what Obama can say, it also limits his repertoire of acceptable reactions and methods of approaching any challenge to his campaign. McCain gets to be the Angry White Guy — it’s an embedded and well-known part of his persona. Obama could never be a viable candidate as Angry Black Guy. If Obama tried to campaign as the Maverick, it’d be used against him to make him look dangerous. “Change” is the toned-down, depersonalized way of saying much the same thing.
Kay is right. It is probably one of several reasons why Obama has not been as “passionate” or as willing to “fight back” as many liberals would like to see.
I realize that McCain is expected to win among white voters, but is it just white men, or is he expected to win among white women as well?
Bananadanna, I think it’s just the “real Americans” thing, although not expressed overtly.
Kay, I definitely agree.
Decnavda, Gallup shows that McCain has been leading among non-hispanic white women for most of the last few months, but recently they’ve been neck-and-neck. Most recent poll shows Obama one percentage point ahead among non-hispanic white women (and 14 points behind among non-hispanic white men).