It is obvious to me that the main hurdle to Obama winning the presidency is that he is black. This is in no way a shocking statement. Despite desperate attempts by the right (and the Clinton camp) to argue that Obama's race is somehow an advantage, it is not. There are still a healthy number of racists in this country.
While the GOP has made some incredible efforts to capture the racist vote in the last few decades, it is a sad fact that some of these people still reside in the Democratic party. I find it appalling and deeply depressing that there are people in the Democratic party that are taking the racist Democratic vote into account when considering this presidential election. I find it depressing that something like 70% of the people in Ohio who identified race as an issue important to them voted for Clinton. That the Clinton campaign did not immediately repudiate these voters further depresses me.
I understand that some people think politics is about winning at all costs. Maybe it seems overly silly to expect a candidate to repudiate supporters just because their views are vile. But it also seems to me that a politician who would accept that a certain percentage of support will come from racist hate is not the kind of politician I want to represent me.
Politics is not all about winning. Politics can, and should be, about morality. I identify with the left-wing of the Democratic party because the things they believe in are the same things I believe in. I believe that things like equal rights, solidarity, fighting poverty, the environment, etc. are deeply important. My belief in these things shapes how I live my life. It causes me pain to ignore these values when I vote on who my leaders will be. I don't want to ignore these things. So it is not about doing whatever it takes to win. I can bend, but only so far, before I break. We should not sacrifice fundamental principles in order to win any one election.
And when our party quietly ignores the racists among us, or courts them, we open the door to the kind of argument that we are seeing from the Republicans. Polls show that should Obama win the election, then Democrats from key areas of the nation plan to vote for McCain. These Democrats commonly called Reagan Democrats are white men, unionists, from the rust-belt. We all know why they will vote for McCain. They are, by and large, very narrow men who will not vote for a black man. Karl Rove, however, is advancing the idea that the will vote for McCain because of "patriotism." Apparently, it is not the color of Obama's skin that will doom him, but the content of his lapel.
Causing me even more pain is that these people are labor people. If the Democratic party has a shameful history on the race issue, one that has certainly not been absolved by the last 44 years, then Big Labor has even more to apologize for. We can try to pretend like the opportunistic organizing of public employees, which include women and minorities in high numbers, somehow makes up for past deficiencies, but it does not. Given these twin histories, Labor has to, has to go out of its way to reject the racists in our midst. Even if we desperately need them. Yes, it would be painful. But they is no way we can escape our legacy without pain. I cannot help but believe that the Democratic party and the labor movement would be stronger for it.
But, because our leaders have, apparently, decided that the racists within the party must be appeased at all costs, no one will call bullshit on arguments about patriotism or arrogance or service or experience. It appears that we are not going to have a national conversation on race, unless it involves condemning angry black men, as the chance of securing the White House is more important than the struggle for justice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
thanks for this, dave. really good analysis.
DC,
I completely disagree, and think that Obama and his supporters label the Clinton supporters as racist at their own peril. Polls show the animosity on both sides is growing, but I personally feel that the Hillary camp has the more legitimate gripe.
The main reason I came to support Hillary is that I felt that Obama, (and Edwards) and MSNBC, and Olbermann, and Tweety, and Kos have used sexist narratives, and arguments, unfair accusations of racism, and made a serious error in attempting to gang up on Hill when they called her "the status quo."
If Obama has the nomination so sewn up, why does he feel the need to attack Hillary supporters as racist.
I have a question for you... why is Obama blocking any revote or seating of Michigan or Florida's delegation?
I agree that one candidate is destroying the party, and unfairly labeling the other side. Unfortunately, I think that candidate is Obama. He is doing the most harm to the party by his attacks on a supposed "fellow" Democrat, and his blocking of the democratic process in FL, and MI.
Do you have any facts that support the claim that Hillary is seeking support from racists? Any ads? Fliers? Radio spots? Billboards? Push poll phone calls? Talking heads or surrogates? any "evidence" other than the general belief that voters in Pa and Wv must be backward ass racist white trash.
Conversely, there are numerous examples of the media, Obama surrogates, and supporters implying, or alleging, or attributing racist motives to Clinton, and her supporters.
Furthermore, Obama's rhetoric of a post-partisan world where there are no red states and blues states is a surrender of Democratic party values and position. The country doesn't need to meet in the middle. The right is wrong, and the fact that Obama has Chuck Hagel's endorsement doesn't lead me to believe that he will be some kind of progressive dream.
my 2 cents...
GO D's in '08
Just for the record, it's the Clinton camp that blocked the revote in Michigan.
What a naive post. You think the Clinton's should repudiate their White voters' votes? No way. Obama capitalized on all the votes he got from blacks who only voted because Obama's black. Let Obama try to convince people he's not a anti-White anti-American racist. What? Oh, he can't. THAT'S why Obama can't win. It's not because he's black, it's because he's a black racist.
I know I shouldn't but...
fromwembley:
I'll type slow because I'm guessing you don't read too fast.
Racism is not a two-way street. It is a system of power based on the color of skin and negative preconceived characteristics. The history of racism in this country is 400 years of the oppression of the black race by the white race.
(Postmodernists forgive me, we can't jump right into the advanced stuff with this guy).
There is no such thing as an anti-white racist.
Now, go read a book about race in America and you can come back. Otherwise, take the uneducated bullshit someplace else, we play a different game here.
EZ:
It's shocking, shocking we don't agree.
Let me caveat: Yes, the Obama camp has said and done sexist things that are shameful. Yes, Hillary will lose votes because she is a woman.
But, the main hurdle to Hillary become president is not sexism. (It's probably because of the perception that she won't hold a political position for one second longer than there is some political advantage in it for her, but that's another post). Moreover, there are not large blocks of people in the Democratic party arguing that BHO must win, no matter what, because there are segments of the Democratic party that won't vote for a woman. There are these people who are making this argument about BHO.
I enjoy the fact that you conflate me with BHO and this blog with an organ of his campaign, but I did not accuse Hillary or her supporters of racism. I did say that I found it sad that they were coldly calculating on racist support and part of their narrative of why Hillary should be given the nomination is that Democrat racist in Ohio and Florida will not vote for a black man.
Nice try with the Michigan and Florida. You know damn well why Michigan and Florida won't be seated and you know that BHO had nothing to do with stopping a revote. His camp may not have been in favor of it, but the fact that there was no way in hell that Florida was going to pay for it quashed it right there.
As to who would be there first to surrender the Democratic party to the Republicans, well kettle, meet pot. Sweet jeebus, a Clinton support should have more modesty. No one tops the Clintons when it comes to giving away the store. But again, since the post was actually about gthe shame of racism in the Democratic party, this too will have to be left for another post.
Just to give you something to chew on...what do you to this argument:
We must give the nomination to Hiallry because if we don't well lose the racist Ds in southern Ohio and McCain will win the presidency. Yes, we'll alienate blacks, but they have no where to go and even if they don't vote, a) we're not going to win the South anyway and b) we're going to win large urban centers in the North without them. Throw over the most loyal Dem supports to reach out the racist Dems in key areas.
What do you say to that? Because thats one of the driving narratives behind those that are trying to get super delegates to commit to Clinton.
Right on about racism within the Democratic party and in unions, but to discuss racism without also addressing sexism makes the argument less potent. I know you're a BHO supporter, as am I, but I think that many leftist guys really are just as much sexist as racist. Can one really say that its Hillary's policies that men disagree with or is it her sex? I'm too tired to post details (maybe tomorrow), but I was very impressed with both candidates when I saw them speak in Grand Forks, ND yesterday. Unlike Hillary, BHO didn't even mention the politics of rural America and Hillary did a great job with that. I still support Obama, but I think you have to talk race, class, and sex together. Would Obama loose more votes to McCain than Hillary because of race versus sex? I doubt it. I think it's too hard to separate them.
Post a Comment