Obama’s Race Game Will Kill The G.O.P
I personally feel that Obama is a very talented politician, maybe the most gifted of my generation. The way he handled the Rev Wright controversy with a nuisance speech on how race still affects American life and his denouncement of his mentor/friend/father figure Rev Wright was the closest I have seen a politician play career roulette and win. The situation taught me three things about Barack Obama; 1- He is not to be underestimated, 2- He is absolutely ruthless, and 3- He is a tactician.
These are the three things that the G.O.P fails to acknowledge about Obama. Their new short term strategy of throwing the kitchen sink at the president may show some short term gains in the polls, but long term Obama still holds all the cards. The American economy seems to be showing signs of vitality and if Obama manages to pass health care, politically the Republicans will be left in ruins. This is why they can not afford to pitch any capital on the race game they seem to be playing with Obama, because he too knows the rules of the game very well.
Obama baited the Republicans with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, calculating that the G.O.P would not show enough political sensitivity and alienate what is soon to be a major voting block in the United States. Calling Sotomayor a racist, an affirmative action pick and focusing solely on her ‘wise Latina’ comment validated Obama’s political move. The Republicans might think that they have nothing to lose by attacking Sotomayor but I believe all they have done is provide ammunition to the Democrats to delegitimize the G.O.P in the Latino community in future campaigns.
There has to be someone in the Republican ranks that is able to look at the bigger picture and calculate that the small gains they are making attacking Sotomayor are not worth it. Even if enough Republicans vote for her in her confirmation, I believe that the damage has already been done.
This new Birther phenomenon also plays a part in delegitimizing the Republicans in a voting block they already struggle with, ethnic minorities. How this movement has any support in the mainstream Republican ranks is beyond me. I think it symbolizes the desperate situation the G.O.P find themselves in. Off course the issue of de-legitimacy when it comes to the American presidency has been prominent in political discussion in both Clinton and Bush’s terms, but the reasons haven’t been as laughable or as nonsensical as claiming Obama wasn’t born in America.
This Birther phenomenon is beneath the Republicans and it should be shut down as soon as possible. Again, there has to be someone in the Republican ranks who can see that it is doing their party more bad than good. There will become a time where people associate this nutty movement solely with the Republican Party, thus driving away ethnic minorities (who will soon become a majority in America) moderate republicans and independents alike.
When Obama has decided to speak about the issue of Race, he apparently managed to alienate white voters. What many failed to acknowledge was that he spoke what many consider to be a universal truth amongst ethnic minorities on the issue of how police treat non-white suspects. I believe that the Gates-Gate did improve Obama’s position amongst black voters (if that was ever more possible).
My overall conclusion is that Republicans really need to stay away from the issue of race. Stay far away from it. Do not drink (how do you Americans say?) the Kool-Aid and think that race damages Obama, it damages the Republicans as well, if not more.
The Republicans need to regroup and refocus on the issues like fiscal responsibility, personal freedoms and a strong national defense, issues which they can actually make real and sustainable gains on. Race is not one of those issues. I am a huge fan of Lee Atwater’s genius ‘Southern Strategy’ but the political climate has changed.
Obama is playing the race game and Republicans: it will kill you.
38 Responses to “Obama’s Race Game Will Kill The G.O.P”
A well reasoned and well considered analysis, one the republicans would benefit greatly from learning.
i agree with J Spencer. . .
this sentence may be generalizing a bit? for there are many whites in America that are genuine about resolution of racism in the U.S and welcome any open discussion.. . . . it becomes a bit of a stereotype to equate white Americans as a homogeneous lot these days. . .
(“When Obama has decided to speak about the issue of Race, he apparently managed to alienate white voters.”)
I'd love to know how to not play this game. The Dems make up all the rules though, including their insistance that someone is a participant even if race never crossed the mind of that person.
C Stanley… funniest and most accurate post ive read for one of my post. I think you could have argued Sotomayors nominations on the ground that she does not have the same scholary capabilities as someone like Alito. Bringing up the 'wise latina' comment over and over and over again and claiming that she has a problem with white men, brings race into the conversation when it really is not needed.
I think that the GOP has solid foundations to fight issues on, race just isnt one of them.
CStanley. . . i so appreciate your first sentence. . .for too long many have turned it into game for gain on both side. . .but there is a way to not play it. . . .and will gladly share an energy print that helps me to practice not getting sucked into the black hole. . .
dn86- I agree about Sotomayer. My guess is that those who called her out as a racist were trying to turn the game around- sort of, “It's not a problem that she's a minority but it may be a problem that she is racist against whites.” While I think sometimes that is a true issue (I don't think so for her in particular, but some prominent liberal minorities really are reverse racists and race baiters), I don't think the GOP can win on that message either.
One of the problems with the (very good) suggestion that Republicans just not touch the issue of race with a ten foot pole is that many of them are so tonedeaf on race, so in denial about race relations in this country, that they will flat-out deny that Gates-gate or the Birther movement even *have* racial undertones. Republicans will happily admit that there are racist implications of the Sotomayor nomination, but they will attribute 100% of that racism to both Obama and Sotomayor herself. If they can't be honest to themselves that race and racism exsist, if they cannot recognize their own racial privilege, how can they avoid it?
I agree with roro…there are too many conservatives that think racism is dead. That in itself is a problem.
Perhaps we think that racism is dead because only the liberals are racists….
roro- your comment (especially your edit, which made it worse, not better) is a perfect example of how Dems make this a game of “heads I win, tails you lose.” We either define everything under a racial prism and the Dems win, or we leave race out of it which somehow proves we're racist because we don't care about racism.
PWT — Exactly, thanks for proving the point.
CStanley — All of that goes away if immediately when you realize that white privilege does actually exist. That's the whole point. If that makes you uncomfortable, well, sorry.
No, you have to define what you mean by 'realizing that white privilege does actually exist'. The vast majority of conservatives do realize that white privilege existed in a huge way in the past, and we don't believe all racism toward blacks is gone but we think the best way to move beyond it is to do as MLK suggested: judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. But if that's not good enough, then basically what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't support affirmative action and/or reparations is a de facto racist or a denier of racism.
“No, you have to define what you mean by 'realizing that white privilege does actually exist'.”
Do you really want me to define that for you, or is that a rhetorical question? Because I can certainly try, but it'll be long. The definition would probably start out with the idea that the fact that you (and I) can choose to think about white privilege or not is part of that privilege, and it's something people of color don't get to choose to ignore. Just a quick example from this post: “What many failed to acknowledge was that he spoke what many consider to be a universal truth amongst ethnic minorities on the issue of how police treat non-white suspects.” It's universally known to people of color and not to white people — not because people of color are looking for something to complain about, but because the “driving while black” phenomenon is not something they can choose to ignore.
Also: ” then basically what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't support affirmative action and/or reparations is a de facto racist or a denier of racism.”
I have not mentioned affirmative action or reparations at all — that's all you CStanley.
Never mind that reality is the opposite of what this thread is claiming or where it is leaning, which was exemplified in particular by Obama's misconduct during a press conference about the arrest of a friend of his in Cambridge, MA.
C. Stanley — the “privilege” and “domination” silliness that accompanied the other drivel that emerged out of the shadows (thanks to Obama's and others' _encouragement_) is nothing new (regurgitated drivel from the 1960s onward). When something these people claim doesn't in fact exist and cannot be proven (which is their _obligation_, particularly how remarkably removed from reality such claims routinely are), they attribute it to “hidden”or “code for” racism and other presumed white-males' sins.
Yes, lets not leave out Dems either….A lot of rust belt liberals did not vote for Obama because he is black.
I know a number of liberals in MO that voted McCain strictly because of race….which is why McCain barely won MO.
“It's universally known to people of color and not to white people — not because people of color are looking for something to complain about, but because the “driving while black” phenomenon is not something they can choose to ignore. “
My black female boss had just moved from the inner city to the suburbs closer to work, which is also close to where I lived at the time. Two months in, she was pulled over by a cop…for no apparent reason…he looked at her license and said…”Oh, you live around here”….and let her go.
shannonlee — 100% agreed. Democrats are just as likely as Republicans to feel squicky about race, it's just less obvious.
CStanley said: “The vast majority of conservatives do realize that white privilege existed in a huge way in the past, and we don't believe all racism toward blacks is gone but we think the best way to move beyond it is to do as MLK suggested: judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.”
And that is fine with me. I'm not into the minds of all black folks but I have enough “inside knowledge” to tell you that many black folks don't see racism in every “thing”. Heck my Nation of Islam uncle hardly talks about race (talks more about bowling and golf actually).
Race is tiresome. And it bogs down progress and issues we have to solution. Am I minimizing race? No. But I would like race to be background noise if you will. Look, this is the USA. We all do the same damn things: go work, eat, sleep, relax, etc. And issues such as the economy is color-blind and it's kicking our collective butts.
It's hard enough to get out political leaders to work together on an issue. Throw in race, things are OVER. So enough. The black dude's president. And some plans of his ain't quite kosher. So can we all just get along and work them out????????????????
CStanley,
There are political race games that get played. Those things bother me, too, but I interpretted your comment as confusing two things: political race games and actual racial biases. I think these things get confused a lot and I think this is because of differences in experiences. By this, I don't just mean the differences in experiences between whites and blacks, but also the big difference between growing up in an almost all white community and growing up in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society. I'm white, but I find that I define racism very differently than some, mostly older, white people. When for instance, my parents, former employers, etc define something as rascist, they think the KKK, Aryan Nation, the old school segragationists, etc. I call something rascist when black, hispanic, etc people get treated differently (even when it is subtle but obvious) for no clear reason other than their race/ethnicity. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, that there may be other things about that minority person that cause the difference in treatment. However, when one person consistently treats minorities differently, that is obvious racism to me. Most of the time, the subtle rascist doesn't know they are being rascist. They lack insight, think whatever biases they have are justified, or they define racism very differently as I mentioned above.
I can think of an incident about ten years ago when I worked for someone who was that kind of racist. When the group of minority employees went above this person's head, not to persecute the person, but to try to figure out the best way to handle the situation, it got ugly. The subtle racist was shocked, angry, and certain she was being unjustly accused- that she was a victim of these minority employees. Except she wasn't. She did consistently treat them all differently (more suspiciously, more resistent to providing them resources) than the white employees, and her behavior was not justified. These were good, solid employees. I have no doubt what-so-ever that this subtle racist told all her friends and family about the 'unjust persecution' she suffered at the hands of these 'unreasonable' black people. I have no doubt they believed her.
Yet, I know the whole story. I know this kind of situation isn't that uncommon and it continues to poison the well. The good news is that there are more and more people who grew up in a different world, who define racism the way I do, and who have the insight to see it in themselves and others. Things will continue to improve.
This is a good article and good advice for the Republicans. Obama may be black and that gives him an advantage, to be sure, but it's the same as running for office as a war vet, it gives you one voting block but not others. The thing is, each time Obama is attacked on racial grounds, you may gain some doubtful white votings who are full of white resentment but you also turn off some other voters every time a white cop goes on a racist rant or someone posts posts Obamacare with Obama as a African Witch Doctor. There's always going to be crazy bubbling forth and when it does the press will pounce. Obama is not Jesse Jackson and even though he has occasional slip ups it's hard to pin him down on an explicitly racial issue. It's a testament to his political skill.
“Obama as a African Witch Doctor”
I believe that was a Sarah Palin issue. Wasn't there video of her and a witch doctor at her church?
Great comment T Steel. . . your words have substance. . .it is obvious you have found a space that honors. . .
shannonlee — I think Lit3Bolt was talking about this:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/…
Zzzz- I completely agree with you, and in a personal situation like that (assuming your account is factual, and I have no reason to doubt that) I too would have tried to remedy the situation. But we're talking politics here, not our personal interactions with other people.
My only point of contention is to mention that in my experience, I've seen just as many subtle incidents of racism as I've seen incidents of false accusations of the same- and neither one nor the other deserves more attention. False accusations do real damage (it's not unlike rape- there are problems both with women not being believed and with women making false accusations that sometimes are believed.)
@ roro- I brought up those policy issues because that is in fact how many or most Dems define “being racially sensitive.” Some may not even realize they're doing so- but since their reaction to conservatives is that they're guilty of racism until proven innocent, and I've never seen any proof of innocence that was satisfactory to the accusers. It always seems to come down to a requirement that one doesn't only treat the minority person equally, but to advocate some special treatment to make up for past wrongs.
@TSteel- I loved your comment too- I cracked up at the line about the black dude's policies not always being kosher. Only in America! LOL
You really dont have a clue, Do you? Mr. Obama is the biggest liar we have ever seen in politics. The majority of the American people that voted for him are finally starting to see through him.He had is fun demolishing our Country in six monthes, but it will soon be over for him.
Imagine lights flashing and buzzers sounding, folks, since this marks the 1,000th post this year by a non-Republican bemoaning the decay of the Republican Party. Note, however, there is not one iota of demonstrable support offered by either the author or the lockstep preachers that follow.
Merely off the top of my head, here are a couple that argue the exact opposite.
1. Obama is going down in all polls, not up.
2. Who is being “converted” here? Gallup had independents breaking for Obama 48 to 43 in the final poll. Where is a 2009 poll that shows that that has improved for Obama?
3.If the birthers are such a drain on Republicans and every Dem and Independent would patently reject any such ramblings, why does Kos own polls report that the issue has legs with 9% of Dems and 17% of Independents? Remember, math majors, anything above zero is a loss for you, not Republicans.
Just because in your mind you believe something should produce a certain effect doesn't mean it is coming true in reality.
“But we're talking politics here, not our personal interactions with other people.”
CStanley — In the context of this post, we are indeed talking about the personal interactions and biases. The instances brought up in the post (Gates, Sotomayor, Birthers) don't have any overarching policy issues. That's why I thought it odd that you brought up the policies. In fact, I think Zzzzz hits it on the head.
“I brought up those policy issues because that is in fact how many or most Dems define “being racially sensitive.”
I do not define it this way. I don't think this is true for “many or most” Dems, either, but it's certainly true for enough. In fact, I find it funny that some Dems seem to think that giving their support to these programs in some way immunizes them from being racists, like a yearly contribution to the NAACP means that they can make up for their lack of black friends or the occasional racist joke. Writing a check is certainly easier than examining one's own issues.
“It always seems to come down to a requirement that one doesn't only treat the minority person equally, but to advocate some special treatment to make up for past wrongs.”
This is not what I'm talking about at all; I'm not sure how you read that into any of my comments.
“I've seen just as many subtle incidents of racism as I've seen incidents of false accusations of the same”
I think this is very interesting. Is it possible that you (and by you, I also mean me or some other person) are not perceiving the situation correctly? Why would your assessment of whether or not a situation involved racism be more accurate than the “false” accuser's? When you judge whether or not a situation involved racism, you erase the experience of the accuser. Even if the accused offender doesn't intend to be racist, that doesn't mean that their actions weren't colored by race bias.
Gates, Sotomayer, and the birther issues were brought up in the post in the context of political reactions and strategic messaging, roro. “Overarching policy issues” unfortunately have little to do with most of that, these days, so it's completelly irrelevant to whether or not the post was about politics or personal interactions.
Even if the accused offender doesn't intend to be racist, that doesn't mean that their actions weren't colored by race bias.
But it doesn't mean that they were, either. I may be on thin ice again in trying to interpret your criteria or basis for calling these things, but it seems that you're suggesting that racism is always to be defined by the person who believes they've been slighted. If the one who alleges that they were on the recieving end believes that the slight was due to bigotry, then it doesn't matter whether or not that actually ever entered into the other person's thought process.
If that's not how you see it, then please tell me what the objective criteria should be, in your view.
When I said that my experience has included cases where people were unjustly accused, of course I meant that this was in my own judgment. I try not to make those judgments lightly, and there are certainly also cases where I just don't know if an accusation has any merit or not. Where I do think that I'm qualified to have an opinion generally involves situations where I know the people involved very well, and one additional criteria I tend to use is whether or not that person would have done or said the exact same thing if the other person were white. If the answer is yes, then I really don't see how anyone can make the case that racism was involved.
Take a hypothetical example- perhaps a person who is in a supervisory role in an office has a history of chastising people in her department for a particular behavior that she doesn't like. She may be justified in that, or not, but it's common knowledge around the office that you don't mess with her on this one particular thing. Then a fairly new black employee violates the unwritten rule, and gets taken to the woodshed. The employee, either not being aware of the history or not believing that it is relevant, believes instead that the supervisor was unnecessarily harsh on her because of her race. Is this a real case of subtle racism or not?
todd1066 said: “Mr. Obama is the biggest liar we have ever seen in politics.”
If you typed that with a straight face, then you must not be an Earthling. Politicians are the biggest liars in politics period. President Obama is just part of the club. And what do you mean by “but it will soon be over for him”? See when you don't clarify a statement, you allow folks to come to their own conclusions. If I wanted to, I could run with your statement and paint you in a very negative light. But I don't roll like that and it's too sunny outside to bother.
Is this a real case of subtle racism or not?
In my judgement, I would say not. However, the ability of that employee to understand that doesn't just depend on the supervisor's actions. It would be perfectly reasonable for someone, who has been on the recieving end of racism, to wonder if racism motivated the harsh treatment. In a collegial work environment, other employees will know that employee x was raked over the coals and will take a minute to commiserate with the new employee or they would have prevented this from occuring by warning the employee, in advance, about the unwritten rule. In an environment where employee x's race is a source of slight discomfort, no one is likely to fill in the blanks. In that case, employee x will, in fact, be experiencing that subtle racism. He or she just won't understand that it wasn't coming from the supervisor.
CStanley,
One more thing, relating the the situation I described earlier where I saw subtle racism, I feel a need to say that I didn't try to remedy the situation. Actually, I was pretty oblivious at first. It wasn't until the supervisor freaked out over the accusation that I took the time to think about it. I realized, then, it had been completely obvious all along and I hadn't been paying attention. The supervisor (who was my supervisor, too) was so paranoid and so furious at that point, I avoided the issue completely in the interest of keeping my job. This was easy to do as I was a low level employee. No one was that interested in my opinion and I had no input into how it was resolved.
“it seems that you're suggesting that racism is always to be defined by the person who believes they've been slighted.”
I can certainly see why that implication would come out my statement, but what I was getting at is less cut-and-dry. My point was not that the accuser is always right. Hmmm…how to explain. It is assumed by most white people that people of color making an accusation of racism against a white person has a bias toward seeing racism even when it isn't there. It *is* a reasonable assumption: people of color don't have the privilege of ignoring racism when it is all around them every day, and there will absolutely be some instances where they see racism even when it isn't there. The problem comes when we fail to realize that we ourselves (as white people) seeing this situation from the outside — or even from the point of view of being accused of racism — are *just* as likely to be unable to see racism when it is there, because we *do* have the privilege of not having to deal with race if we choose not to. So the point is that when we assess whether or not an incident of racism has occurred, we need to examine our own inability (yes, inability) to see the situation 100% correctly, and not discount the fact that our own perceptions of an incident are just as biased as those of the person of color.
An easy example: a white person and a Chinese person are having lunch. In conversation, the white person refers to people from the Asian countries as “Oriental”. The Chinese person explains that rugs are oriental, people are Asian, and that it is considered racist to use that term for Asian people. Now, the white person has two choices here: 1) she can apologize, explain she didn't know that was the case, and then make an effort to use “Asian” instead of “Oriental” in the future, or 2) she can say that because she didn't know the term was offensive that her companion should just give her the benefit of the doubt, that it's just a word, that the Asian person shouldn't be so touchy, and then make no effort to change her vocabulary in the future. It's my contention that the white person who chooses to listen to the point of view of the Chinese person is willing to admit that race is an issue, and that she needs to examine her privilege. The white person who chooses reaction 2 is assuming that her assessment of whether or not “oriental” is a racist term must be correct, and the assessment of someone who actually experiences racism doesn't know what she's talking about.
Easy analogies can be made to the Gates situation and the Sotomayor nomination, including her “wise Latina” statement. In the Gates case, there were people all over these threads proclaiming that the incident did not involve race, and Gates only saw racism because he is black and because he is an African American literary scholar. I think it quite likely that Crawley was not motivated by race, but by his ego; but to proclaim as an outsider that there was definitely no racism involved assumes that Gates had bias toward seeing racism even when not present while ignoring entirely that Crawley had bias toward not seeing it when present. Some would call that racism in and of itself (and such a statement could certainly come from racism), but I think more than anything it comes from unexamined privilege.
“Is this a real case of subtle racism or not?”
No, I don't think it is, as should be expected by both common sense and my lengthy bloviations above. (sorry so long, by the way, but the subject obviously interests me a great deal)
What evidence is there that the birthers have racist motives? The American people are not that stupid and I believe the race card is the Chicken Little of Obama's presidency. – I see birthers merely as a group of people who believe they have had a Manchurian candidate slipped in the back door by a powerful cabal of socialist/leftist/communists and are pushing the issue to open up the Pandora's box
Actually I think Todd1066 statement was fine – you missed the point: the BIGGEST liar we have ever seen in politics. Obama is not merely “part of the club” – he is far and away in the running to take home the Liars Gold medal. I have never before in my adult life seen people screaming at the TV when he comes on and prevaricates – I see it all the time now.
few said: “I have never before in my adult life seen people screaming at the TV when he comes on and prevaricates – I see it all the time now.”
Uh… You must have missed some folks on the Left going absolutely bonkers when President Bush appeared on television. Very weak argument, few. But I really don't care. I have no faith in Democrats or Republicans right now. They still want to score cool points in partisan battles that yield little to no results. So all the “Obama is this and that” doesn't mean squat when the other side runs the same tired games. Third party all the way!
I find the driving while black argument a red herring. While driving on I-95 in Virginia, I counted the number and ethnicity of the aggressive drivers (those who cross more than one lane during a lane change) and most of them were black. Yet, when they are stopped by the police, I would guess that all of them will claim that they are being stopped because they are black and not because they were speeding or driving recklessly.
On white privilege. Progressor Gates is half white and his wife (ex?) is white. That means that his children are 75% white. Want to bet that when they apply for a job, apply to a university, bid on a government contract, etc that they claim that they are black. If being black is so bad, then why do so many people with mixed heritage claim to be black over all of the rest of their heritage?
The Republicans were correct to question Sotomayor on race based justice even if they were incompetent in doing it. Now if she supports race based justice and programs, they can claim that she lied to Congress.
However, in the long run, the Republicans cannot even pretend to be conservative is they are going to appeal to non-whites. Hispanics and blacks are two of the most liberal, big government, big spending, nanny state supporting groups in the U.S. Both groups support overwhelmngly race/ethnicity based government that is based upon taxing whites and giving the money to themselves. I doubt if the Republicans would benefit from supporting Sotomayor because she does support race based government.
Hispanics and blacks are two of the most liberal, big government, big spending, nanny state supporting groups in the U.S.
No, the biggest group of big government, big spending, nanny state, tax thee no me people are senior citizens. They just aren't socially liberal. One third of all federal, state, and local tax dollars goes into the pockets of seniors. I think you are focussing on the wrong threat. If anyone bankrupts our country it will be retirees.