THE INFURATING POLITICS OF RACE BAITING.
-
Artist:
This campaign was supposed to be something new, above the slime. Yeah, we all know how that went, huh? Sen Obama has interjected Race into this campaign in the most cynical way possible & his sycophants in the press have gladly played along.....The good Sen. told us we would hear innocent sounding phrases & words that are really code words used to disguise the ugliness & ignorence of the past. He was right, too. "You can put lipstick on a pig.....".
But the essay below is an insidious, devisive, bigoted rant that will surely anger any thinking voter. The absolutely racist conclusions he draws will draw not a whisper of protest from "responsible" journalists or commentators.
So read Jerry Landay's essay & keep in mind he's a former CBS correspondent.
THERE'S AN INVISIBLE elephant in this election hiding in full view. A mere handful of observers has noted its existence. But the elephant could determine the outcome of the presidential election. If Barack Obama cannot overcome what some observers call the Bradley Effect, he will lose to John McCain. It is the racial issue — anti-black prejudice, conscious and unconscious, on which much of our history has turned since colonial times. A Washington editor told me that "voters regularly tell our reporters that while they're prepared to vote for a black man, their neighbor or brother-in-law or friend isn't." Two respected sources have dared to give prominence to the racial issue — National Public Radio and the New York Review of Books. In the September issue, political scientist Andrew Hacker has a noteworthy article called "The Price of Being Black." He cites these potential determinants of the election outcome: Race determined the primary outcome in three industrial swing states. Hillary Clinton, a white, won by large margins in the Democratic primaries of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Barack Obama, half-black, but self-identified as an African-American, lost. Some 15 to 20 percent of voters confessed to post-election pollsters that race was a "factor" in their decision. Obama must win these states. Biased voters are reluctant to tell pollsters the truth. Hacker writes that the racial factor could have been even larger in those three states, but some voters don't tell pollsters the truth. That's where the Bradley effect comes in. Hacker cites Tom Bradley, the former black mayor of Los Angeles, who lost to a white opponent in his 1982 campaign for governor of California. Every pre-election poll showed Bradley leading. He actually lost by 7 percentage points. Hacker concludes that every Obama campaign office should post a large sign for staffers: Always subtract 7 percentage points. Many racially biased voters cover up their motivation. On Sept. 11, NPR aired a digest of a three-hour group interview with 13 voters in York, Pa. Seven voters were white, and six were people of color — three African-Americans and three Hispanics. The underlying question: "Is America ready for a black president?" Consciously or subconsciously, would their votes carry a "racial fingerprint"? Reluctant to talk at first, the interview subjects finally opened up. A York law-enforcement officer declared that America was ready for a black president. But . . . "I just don't think Obama's the right one." He declared that Palin "has more experience than he does. No one has ever told me what a community organizer is." In fact, in speeches and two books, Obama has repeatedly described his efforts to help the people who live in southside Chicago. "Community organizer" in this context has been made a code word for "black." A white woman assured her interviewers that she had no racial prejudice as a child. Minutes later, she asked: "Years ago, was he [Obama] taken into the Muslim faith? And my concern is, the only way you are no longer a Muslim is if you are dead, killed." When told that Obama declares that he has never been a Muslim, she replied, "No, there's something about him I just don't trust." Her argument, like the policeman's, was visceral. At the end, the box score on voter intentions was a "majority" for McCain among the whites; all six non-whites favor Obama. A black high-school drama teacher seemed to anticipate an Obama defeat: "You tell all the world that we have the greatest opportunities. You tell them we can start by shining shoes . . . but you say, you can't live in the big white house." There are major efforts in key states to limit the non-white vote. In a 6-to-3 decision, Justice John Paul Stevens joined the conservative bloc at the Supreme Court to uphold an Indiana law requiring voters to show official state-issued IDs with photo. Several other states have similar requirements. A potentially decisive 15 percent of Indiana voters have no drivers' licenses. That includes a sizable number of blacks. A federal appeals court let stand a Florida law that purges convicted felons from voting rolls for life. Sizable numbers of blacks who share the same names as the felons are often blocked from voting. Racial fear abides deeply in those I call Civic Sleepwalkers, "bitter" blue-collar workers among them, so-called Reagan Democrats disillusioned by joblessness, low pay and long hours. They do not read very much, absorbing the anti-Obama views of evangelical preachers and Rupert Murdoch's Fox channel. A poor self-image in many is made to feel worse by the mere idea of a black man in the White House. These are offset by a record Democratic registration of newly minted voters — African-Americans, Hispanics and the young. In past elections, some of these haven't shown up to vote. Late polls suggest there's been a voter surge toward Obama in response to the financial crisis. The outcome will rest on his mustering a turnout at the polls among young voters, Hispanics and African-Americans to overcome the hidden racial vote he is not going to get.
Locating MOG account...
Comments (17)
Oh, that uppity Obama! Are there no depths to which he will not sink?
Yeah, it has nothing to do with his marxist, socialist views. It's only cause he don't look like one of the guys on the money. Right.
I think the "law enforcment officer" quoted said it all....America is ready for a black president, but not Obama.
It pains me that we would consider casting a vote for a man who refuses to wear an American Flag lapel pin because:
"I don't want to be perceived as taking sides. There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a warlike message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial, and less bellicose. I like the song, "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing." If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."
Anything else you'd like to change, Barack?
If Colin Powell were running for president, I would vote for him over ANY potential candidate from the current crop of politicians.
It seems like you are holding it against Obama that racism will play both in his favor and against him? Am I missing something?
Are you saying that we are beyond all this? That racism does not exist?
I really don't understand why you are so outraged by the story. Please explain.
@Oatmeal, The author seems to assert that there are only racist reasons why someone would vote for someone other Sen Obama.
"Biased voters are reluctant to tell pollsters the truth. Hacker writes that the racial factor could have been even larger in those three states, but some voters don’t tell pollsters the truth"
I can think of 6,834.5 reasons to not talk to a pollster and not one of those reasons are racist.
"No, there’s something about him I just don’t trust." Oh you racist!
At the end, the box score on voter intentions was a "majority" for McCain among the whites; all six non-whites favor Obama. The non-whites were obviously not racist, Only the majority were, right? Bullshit!
." There are major efforts in key states to limit the non-white vote. In a 6-to-3 decision, Justice John Paul Stevens joined the conservative bloc at the Supreme Court to uphold an Indiana law requiring voters to show official state-issued IDs with photo. Several other states have similar requirements."
This is obviously racist? C'mon! Voter fraud is a serious problem, no? How many states are prosecuting ACORN activist? The State issued I.D.'s are free of charge for those who cannot afford them, and the author knows this! Then he goes on to say....
A federal appeals court let stand a Florida law that purges convicted felons from voting rolls for life. Sizable numbers of blacks who share the same names as the felons are often blocked from voting. ...thus making voter I.D. all the more valuable, but not in his narrative.
Essays such as these serve no real purpose except to inflame the minority population, sowing seeds of mistrust, and further widening the racial chasm. Racists like Al Sharpton & the like have built careers on keeping the races didtrustful of each other, its a dangerous game, full of self-fullfilling prophecies.
I certainly don't disagree that people on both sides have profitted from maintain ing racial prejudices.What I was saying that it is no suprise that race will solidify much minority support for Obama and will hurt him with some whites. Overall I can't say that this is race baiting, I think the author take s alot for granted in the last part of the article, but the premise that racism is there and under the radar, and that the polling is flawed (duh) are pretty solid.
We can't be ahistorical about this. There is along history of racism and disparate impacts on fundamental rights like suffrage have long been held to close scrutiny by the courts when a license and ID requirement may impact the historically disenfranchised more than others. I have no idea if it is a hardship to get a license/id in Indiana, but oit might be. Obviously the court did not feel that way.
I have a much bigger probelem with the Fla law.
And why ois the baiting issue so troublesome. I think that Obama is much more hurt by his race than helped by it. Why does he make so many efforts to not seem too black - because he needs some moderate income to low income, suburban/semi-rural whites to vote for him. These people typically do not have much interaction with african americans and may have some very negative stereotypes of black politics.
PS - I hope that if Obama wins that people in the libertarian camp like you will give him a chance. All this bile seems beyond bizarre to me. You would think Obama had been eating babies.
@DMDM, I gotta agree a bit with Oatmeal. (I ca hear your surprise all the way down the eastern seaboard! *G) The article, at least in part, describes the very real polling effect seen when Bradley lost his race. The examples chosen by the writer may not have been the best, but I think the point is valid. I honestly have no other explanation for why the Democratic candidate in this election cycle is essentially tied with the Republican. We have had 8 years of Republican misrule and incompetence: see Iraq post invasion, Katrina and a president who has run roughshod over the Constitution. If you look at US history, this should be a freakin walk in the park for the opponent: Jimmy Carter in 76, Nixon in 68, Eisenhower in 52, FDR in 32. There are absolutely policy differences between McCain and Obama, and each candidate should be judged on those merits. That's why I support Obama. However, both sides have a long history of being able to persuade voters through more visceral means.
@ivylander bill: We can debate whether 'elite' is code for black, or community organizer, etc. but, did anyone else see this article about the Georgia congressman calling the Obama's "uppity". Not sure if anyone can deny that's a code word. And BTW, this was a few weeks ago......
Code word for black guy out of his place - at least down here in Louisiana.
DM - where are you from? Down here racism is alive and well. It absolutely ruins politics down here, and I wish it was gone, but that just not the case. Dems have learned from Gore and Kerry that they must fight the innuendo that gets results.
PS - I do agree with you that all the Palin stuff is ridiculous, but c'mon, no amount of crappy press should be a reason to vote FOR someone. How can Obama race bait but MCCain not be gender/sex baiting? It is all the same BS! It is all about power at all costs. It is all baout innuendo, and mobilizing older generations or more shielded populations form expressing more humanistic ideas by hitting on stereotypes and the number one reason that GWB was effective in the beginning of his reign - fear.
and up here in PA. Folks do say that up north here the racism is hidden and in the south it's right out there in the open, but jeez thats just beyond the pale.
@Oatmeal, who says:PS - "I hope that if Obama wins that people in the libertarian camp like you will give him a chance. All this bile seems beyond bizarre to me. You would think Obama had been eating babies."
>>>>I respect the office, and by extension the person who occupies it. Disagreement is not disrespect. the legal tug n pull of politics can be done respectfully.
We here in the MOG-o-Sphere have the luxury to be as pointed as we wish, and out in the "greater web" both sides (every side?) can get very ugly indeed.
Now my good friend says,.. but I think the point is valid. I honestly have no other explanation for why the Democratic candidate in this election cycle is essentially tied with the Republican. Followed by his opinions of current events. Thats rich. He cannot fathom any reason other than racism to explain the Dem's candidate's lack-luster performance, though he has myriad reasons for his opinion having nothing at all to do with racism.
@DMDM,,,,my reasoning as to race being the primary reason for the race being so tight is based on the fact that Bush's poll ratings are the lowest of any president since polling was begun.
(evidence here: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm and here at CNN. )
Overall, it's highly unusual in American politics for the incumbent party to win more than 2 terms in a row, regardless of competence or skill. The election cycle this year should vastly favor a Democrat, regardless of their name. That's my clarification statement. Thank god I'm not running for office and can phone a friend. ;-)
Oh yes, this year is the Dem's year alright. They should make sustantial gains in both houses. (That many of the new seats will go to "red-dog Democrats" is the only small consolation I can find) And Sen Obama will almost surely win the White House.
But if he loses a close race will his followers accept the results? Or are they gonna call into question every facet of the system? Will they pretend that the Electoral College is unnecessary? (It may well be, but the point is, its the law of the land).
But no candidate can run against an opponent backed by three broadcast networks so I expect Sen Obama will win.
At this point, I think both parties are 45% to 45% coming in..The landslide days are over..the two parties have chopped and divvied the districts to such an extent, it is almost guaranteed.
Why doesn't Obama have a bigger lead?
A lot of reasons:Bad polling, entrenched party poitics, Hilary Dems not coming out for him, he's black.
Right now the vibe I'm getting is that Obama is ahead..catching up in Florida even.
Fact is though, most people haven't even started to pay attention yet.
It would seem that the Democrats have a history of accepting the rule of law concerning elections. See Bush v. Gore, 2000. Or are you implying something else?
scooter7 says "It pains me that we would consider casting a vote for a man who refuses to wear an American Flag lapel pin because..."
... because it's not true. If you'd bothered to watch the debates with any level of attention you would have noticed that Senator Obama was wearing a flag pin (hence marking himeself a Real American), and Senator McCain was not. What's the deal with John McCain?
And before you start the next easily-proven-incorrect rant, here's Senator Obama leading the pledge of allegiance: