Racism Is Only Reason Obama Could Lose
From the new Klanners at Slate:
If Obama Loses
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. 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, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?
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 Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let’s be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.
Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month’s CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America’s curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn’t ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.
Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn’t vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that’s what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.
Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an “elitist” who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn’t one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We’re just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.
Then there’s the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama’s white mother always preferred that her “mate” be “a man of color.” John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.
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.
Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn’t get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain’s approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.
You may or may not agree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn’t just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation’s historical decline.
Jacob Weisberg is editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy.
This is kind of early for such threats, isn’t it?
Three milks, please. Lilly white.
16 Responses to “Racism Is Only Reason Obama Could Lose”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
What do you expect from someone of Weisberg’s caliber? He’s a complete muck-slinging yellow journalist. Leave it to a soft little boy like him to characterize the most selfless, courageous, and mature act a person can do–military service for this great nation and the ultimate sacrafice of life and limb–as a “reckless war”.
He’ll never write the truth, that these last two wars we have fought with President Bush as commander-in-chief were crucial moments in the history of not only this nation, but the West, as well. He doesn’t have it in him to be thankful to Mr Bush for protecting Israel because he is as bad as the self-loathing Jews out there who want to give Israel to the wolves.
There’s just something untrustworthy about a beneficiary who mocks his benefactor.
Obviously, this little gutter urchin Weisberg reveals his hand in the first paragraph: “McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?”
Then, we are treated to a sobbing report on how such a LARGE amount of whites are preventing his candidate from breezing past poor, old, cranky McCain: “Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.” Why doesn’t Weisberg highlight that racial prejudice is behind MORE blacks (over 92% of blacks polled support Obama), and whites who are simply voting for Obama BECAUSE of his race?
The courage to stand by Conservative principles is tested in times like these, like no other election. We’ll never be given credit for the Clarence Thomas’, the Condoleeza Rice’s, the Colin Powell’s, the Alan Keyes’, the Michael Steele’s, the Shelby Steele’s, the Thomas Sowell’s, the Walter Williams’, the Armstrong Williams, the John McWhorter’s, the Ken Hamblin’s, and the many more blacks who recognize that the Right is no enemy of black progress. They REALLY have the courage of their convictions on their side. Can you imagine how hard it is to be threatened, intimidated, and ridiculed as they must be? It is because of the Weisberg’s in this world that the soft bigotry of low expectations exist.
No, we must suffer these baseless, hysterical reactions from a losing left, all the way through this war. We have more strength of conviction and courage than the Weisberg’s, who would throw this country into a race war if given the chance. We are the ones in Plato’s cave, pointing the way of the light. It is the Weisberg’s who remain curled in the fetal position, angry that anyone asks him to be brave for a moment.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Obama is black! OMG I never noticed. I never got past the ears.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
This screed is nothing more than lefty flop-sweat, probably induced by the uninspired pick of Plugs for Veep.
According to this zogby poll Biden makes “likely voters” less likely to vote Obambi by 16%, Dem voters by 22%, and Indy’s by 13% (vs 11, 6, and 11% more likely, respectively).
Must be the geopolitics of transformative soft power in a centrally multipolar world of digital technology.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Is Jacob Weisberg voting for Obama, DAAHHH! Whats his color-Lets color him Liberal….
>health care system - Whats wrong with it? Its the best care in the World problem 30% of the people aren’t covered so we should let Obama create a Government system, socialism is his answer.
>Oil dependency - Wind mills and more air in the tires is what Obama supports a status quo on drilling for oil, the worlds economy runs on Oil, more social engineering; Independence by using our own resources is the only way!
>income stagnation,-Obama higher taxes will build social dependence on the programs he creates, not once have I heard him talk about paying down the debt of the country, cutting costs, or balancing the budget.
>climate change-Since when can we stop the sun? Global warming is NOT MAN MADE why did the vikings call greenand GREENLAND? Hello it got colder ergo it froze with ice today, where were all the suv’s then?
Jacob gets you thinking all right, Obama’s policies will defeat him not his color; But the 95% of BLACKS are voting based on color not on policy, thats what I call racism!
August 24th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Now what party has all those racists who voted for Clinton? The Democratic Party, of course.
I have been telling this “joke” since March:
There is good new and bad news. The bad news is that racism will prevent Barack Obama from becoming President of the United States. The good news is that racism will prevent Barack Obama from becoming President of the United States.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Just a thought, but wasn’t it Sharpton who said “blacks can’t be racist because they have no power.”
Soooo..If Barackula is elected president, will we then be faced with a whole new group of racists?
August 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I can’t help but think that this is the start of a intimidation campaign, by the left to make people vote for Obama. The timing of this article is too soon. If this article (and 20 duplicates on the same theme) came out in mid-October, I would think this is as far as they will take it, but history tells me no. In 1992, Penelope Ann Miller did a political ad blaming the L.A. riots on the GHW Bush administration. Two years later, while the jury was out deliberating during the Simpson trial, there was a threat that the ‘92 riots would return if he was found guilty. I can still see the cover of the Sunday paper showing a man driving down a LA street with his left hand making a peace symbol outside his car window after news of the verdict was made public. Why wouldn’t the left try this again on a massive scale? Am, I going crazy following this stuff too closely or is this the start of something really ugly that is only going to get worse?
August 24th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
larddiet,
RE your final question:
“Am, I going crazy following this stuff too closely or is this the start of something really ugly that is only going to get worse?”
No, yes.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Whites are ignorant racists and everyone knows it–especially southern whites–all whites, that is, except those educated in New England elitist indoctrination centers (read: Ivy League Schools).
I’m glad that the left does not engage in negative stereotyping. Only us ignorant, racist white southerners do that sort of thing.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:56 am
“Am, I going crazy following this stuff too closely or is this the start of something really ugly that is only going to get worse?”
Look if they didn’t call us racists, they’d call us sexists, fascists, homophobes, or whatever epithet the twits can come up with. It’s not like they have a lot of plays in the lib playbook.
Eyes on the ball people! If all they got is ad hominem until 4 Nov., then they are truly in a sorry state.
Obambi was up here in cheeseland yesterday and he only had 300 people attending his event. His retinue’s sweating large wet bullets of panic–enjoy the show!
August 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Obviously, Wisconsin is chock full of “typical white people”.
Good point Jim. Fight absurdety with absurdety (and a good spell check).
What’s the difference? Our absurdety is funny, but they’re serious.
The following is from Ann’s synops that gave her the idea for getdrunkandvote4mccain.com
Notice, Joe Biden as played by Joe Biden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
August 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Much has been said about Mr. Obama’s unprecedented run for the office of President. It’s unfortunate that too much of it is derogatory and undeserving. I gave serious thought to responding to a few of the comments submitted in response to this article but, like the last eight years of the Bush administration, it would be a waste of my time. In the coming months the world will be reminded Jim Crow is still alive and well in America. There are much greater issues at stake in this political election but far too many voters are blinded by their prejudices and are content to elect a less capable candidate simply because his skin tone is similar to their own. Two weeks ago, a political commentator On FOXNEWS offered this observation of Mr. Obama: “Who is this guy and is he one of us?”. Even among those we presume to be of reasonable intelligence, we hear muted “tones” that smack of racism. Another asked, “Can he be trusted?” If Obama was white, these questions would never be asked. America is now presented with an opportunity to view the race for President through the eyes of those who are not white. With every election African-American’s, Asian-American’s, Hispanics, and so forth, have similar questions and doubts regarding the character of respective candidates; regardless of political affiliation, “Who is ‘this guy’ and can he be trusted to do the right thing?”. Skin tone is never a consideration for non-Caucasians; we have no choice but to choose from one of two candidates – period!
History’s objective “eye” has made clear the shortcomings of America’s past indiscretions. I have no doubt it will be just as poignant in this regard. Sleep well America – it’s business as usual.
August 25th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Thankfully, 1tough, the Bush Administration was able to succeed militarily, legislatively and economically without you.
Pheww! It was touch and go there for a minute though.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
1toughman I think you missed the point of this website. The title is get drunk and vote for McCain not get drunk and post vague comments. For the life of me I can’t decide where you actually stand from your comment above. Is Obama’s run “unprecedented” or “undeserving?” It probably would have been better if you had made a reply to this article or associated comments as that tends to coalesce one’s views into something resembling a point.
Sorry to hear that because Bush was president for the last 8 years you were unable to accomplish anything with your time. Better luck next time?
August 26th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
The WSJ’s take:
Evidently.
http://tinyurl.com/6azf5o
August 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
1toughman, the reason “those questions” would never be asked if Obama was white is because if Obama were white, he wouldn’t be running for President. His only “qualification” for the job is that he’s black.
I love how Weisberg ignores all legitimate reasons for not voting for Obama. Apparently, anyone concerned about the economy, terrorism, Russia’s invasion of Georgia, Iran, Iraq, rising gas prices, anyone supportive of anti-infanticide legislation, is racist.