Stage Being Set to Blame Racism for Obama Defeat
In a column in Newsweek Jacob Weisberg tries to justify his belief that racism in America is preventing Barack Obama from building a substantial lead over John McCain. Yet he contradicts himself in his opening paragraph by saying that Obama has "every natural and structural advantage." Or does he believe that being half-black is unnatural?
Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, deficits in clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two appear to be tied. What gives?
Could it be that about half of the voters actually believe that McCain will serve them better as president than Obama? Could it be that about half of the voters aren't impressed with pure political acumen and tend to look past campaign rhetoric? Could it be that about half of the voters place more weight on what a candidate has shown himself to be than on what he promises to be? Could it be that about half of the voters chafe at the government holding their hand and can't face the prospect of it holding both their hands? Could it be that about half of the voters place more value on substance than charisma? Could it be that about half of the voters feel that Obama is better suited to playing the president in a movie than actually running the country? Could it be that about half of the voters don't have a problem voting for a black candidate but don't want to vote for this black candidate? I could go on and on.
“If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama’s missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks or the concern that he may be too handsome, brilliant and cool to be elected. But let’s be honest: the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He lags with them for a simple reason: the color of his skin."
It doesn't matter to Weisberg that in recent history white Democrats have trailed badly among older white voters. He just wants to attribute it this time to the Democrat having dark skin. To me Obama's appearance suggests gawky more than handsome and I haven't seen anything from him that I would call brilliant except his ability to sell himself. I'll accept cool.
Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
Wow! Weisberg's absurd view is that this race for president hinges wholly on race. (The race hinges on race.) Not just the race but the world's judgement. Actually, he desperately wants to make it about race. He wants us to vote for Obama because he's black and then at his inauguration we can all stand and cheer with pride as he struggles to the podium carrying his great handicap with dignity. And then we can stand back and bask in the glow of bliss, harmony and world approval.
That will last about a week before the approving countries, special interests and victim classes line up at the White House with their demands -- and our country hastens its decline into socialism.
Weisberg is wrong in another sense. Electing Obama won't end racism in America. Racism will always be with us as long as people like him, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright are around to keep it stoked.
People seem to forget that Obama is as much white as he is black. It probably won't make Weisberg feel any better about staving off our "nation's historical decline" but I'm voting against the white half.
Comments
Make a comment:
- Government is Friction
- We Have Too Many Experts
- Money is Not Wealth
- The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- Let's Use Afghanistan as an Entitlement Testbed
- Socially Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher
- Even Charity is Not Always a Good Thing
- Why Not Give Universal Footwear a Try?
- Supporters of New Health Care Acts Disingenuous
- anhinga on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Carson on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- anhinga on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Carson on Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- anhinga on Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- anhinga, 31 July 2010
- Carson, 19 June 2010
- Liquid Egg Product, 18 June 2010
- Carson, 02 May 2010
- Liquid Egg Product, 01 May 2010
- Anhinga
- Carnival of Climate Change
- Ekawaaz
- Flashpoint
- Florida Cracker
- I Can Plainly See
- Ironic Surrealism
- Liquid Egg Product
- Ms Understood
- The Hatemongers Quarterly
- Truth, Lies and Character
THE RACISM RED HERRING ...
If Obama can get Americans to base the election on racism,
then it will take their attention off the fact that he has no experience,
no credentials, and no issues.
Oh, but it turns out now that he's an expert on the economy. His solution is to put the government -- another debt-laden institution -- in charge of it.
People see things in terms of the majority...that's why Obama is, for practical purposes, black.
If someone is "half Chinese", most tend to assume the other half is white, even though there's technically no information to indicate it.
If the race is close, there's a decent argument to be made that racism has played a part. To say that there's no one in this country who wouldn't vote for Obama b/c of his skin defies reality.
Even if all "normal" people weren't influenced by race (which is not a reasonable assumption), we've still got KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc.
Of course, this could all be counter-balanced by increased black turnout. (The percentage of blacks voting Democrat will probably be the same, but in greater numbers.)
The last two presidential races were close and race was not a factor. It certainly would be to Obama's advantage if no one votes against him because of his race, but in a close race any number of factors can be said to contribute to a candidate's loss. If Obama had more experience and was a little older that might offset the race votes. Pointing to one factor is like attributing a baseball game loss to one play by one player.
My argument is against this idea that Obama is such a great candidate that if he loses it has to be for all the wrong reasons. There are plenty of reasons other than his race to vote against Obama.
Anyway, I'm not convinced that more people will vote against him because of his race than will vote for him because of his race. I've heard more than one person say that it is just time for us to have a black president. I wouldn't mind having a black president. I just don't won't it to be Obama.
It is obvious that Middle America is still racist.
If Obama were to run for Prime Minister of Canada, he would handily win. I would predict an 80% approval rate.
Americans are know world-wide for racism, ignorance and intolerence.
Yes Susan, Canada has a long record of electing black people to the position of Prime Minister.
It must be our reputation of racism, ignorance and intolerance that causes millions of people to want to come here.