Race is the original sin of American history. To deny its influence on our society is as futile as it is illogical. Nevertheless, the attempt to cast President Obama’s re-election campaign as the focus of a racial backlash seems to be more about obfuscating the issues that are animating the vast majority of voters than providing any insight into public opinion.
Yet that is very much the conceit of a front-page feature in today’s New York Times titled, “Four Years Later, Race is Still Issue for Some Voters.” The Times’ sent a reporter to Steubenville, Ohio and beat the bushes to find some racists and found a few, though they seemed to come in some unlikely varieties. The piece failed to explain why if the president won this crucial swing state in 2008 he should be worried about the minority of voters who hold his skin color and ethnicity against him now. As should be apparent even to the Times editor who ordered up this tired attempt to revive the race canard against the Republicans, if the president’s hold on the state seems shaky — as polls say it is — it is clearly not because the portion of the electorate that is irredeemably prejudiced still won’t vote for him but because others who did (and therefore demonstrated their lack of racial bias) now judge his performance unsatisfactory.
It is undeniable that there are those in our country who still judge people principally by their race. That is unfortunate, and we can hope that the diminishing numbers of those who fall into that category will continue to decrease. President Obama is right when he says he does not think his election forever ended the discussion of race in America. But it did mean that the majority of Americans were no longer so constricted by prejudice so as to render it impossible for an African-American to be elected president. Indeed, as some of those quoted by the Times rightly point out, a desire to demonstrate a lack of prejudice as well as a wish to right some historic wrongs, played a not insignificant role in the Obama triumph in 2008.
The president’s problem this year is, as the Times puts it, “now that history has been made it is less of a pull.” Ohioans, like the rest of the country, are judging him on his performance, and the results are less than gratifying for the president. That means his cheerleaders in the media need to trot out the ghost of American racial politics in order to help stigmatize his opponents.
Despite the obvious evidence that race was not a significant factor in attitudes toward the president, from the outset of the Obama administration there has been a concerted attempt to put down the opposition that the president’s policies have aroused as just a variant of the same racism that gave us Jim Crow laws. The purpose of this slander is not to root out the recalcitrant vestiges of race in American politics so much as an effort to delegitimize the push back against the billion-dollar stimulus boondoggle and ObamaCare. The dislike of Obama’s policies created the Tea Party revolt that swept the country in the 2010 midterm elections. It had nothing to do with race and everything to do with opposition to the president’s big government vision.
That means in order to run down die hard racists you wind up talking to people who don’t necessarily fit into the liberal stereotype of a Tea Partier who is motivated more by hatred for Obama’s race than his ideas. One example is a Steubenville bank employee dug up by the Times who says she didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 though she usually backs Democrats. Who then did she vote for? According to the article, she cast her ballot for far left fringe candidate Ralph Nader! The bottom line of this entire discussion is a refusal to take seriously the fact that even in Democratic-leaning counties of this rust belt state, most are judging Obama on the economy and little else.
President Obama’s historic status as the first African-American president brings with it some residual racial resentment but that has been more than overshadowed by the kid glove treatment he and his family have gotten in the mainstream press as well as the willingness by many in the media to brand his opponents guilty of racism until proven innocent. If he wins in 2012 it will not be because he is black nor will it be the explanation for his defeat. That’s exactly the way the vast majority of Americans feel about the question, but as long as the Times and other Obama sympathizers are determined to view his critics largely through the prism of race, it appears we are doomed to more tired efforts to shoehorn modern conservatism into the mold of segregationist sentiment to which it has no connection.
And so it begins . . .
As the economy worsens, and the various weak arguments for Obama's re-election fall by the wayside one after another, we will be left with that last base and desperate appeal: Cast your vote for Barack Obama and prove you're not a racist!
Apparently the idea is the same one that was attempted after Mayor Dinkins lost his re-election campaign — all the racists who voted for him the first time around suddenly discovered that he was African American, and changed their vote accordingly.
Correct, this is what I keep saying too. n nA black politician is elected and he or she is VERY bad at the job. But then, if you are unwilling to re-elect him/her you're a raaaaaacist. n nIf that didn't work in NYC it certainly won't play in Peoria.
It seems like a strange argument to make since he IS THE PRESIDENT NOW. I mean, it's the same country he's President of, isn't it? Are they saying that Obama in the White House for 4 years made the problem of race WORSE? That's a terrible argument for the Democrats to make. Vote for Obama, it's only going to get worse!
Very clever Empress.
Outstanding Comment!!!
"If he wins in 2012 it will not be because he is black" n nThis is a well meaning assertion—but not even close to being accurate. The number one thing Obama has going for him is white guilt. It is my guess that it may even add a full five points to his Rasmussen Daily tracking numbers. He would have next to zilch chance of being reelected if he were not a black man.
There was most certainly a consideration of race in the voting in 2008. It was the 98% black vote for Obama. Now that was racist. But Obama is not black, he is simply no-good and stupid. Imagine any politician putting forth the idea that Israel should return to the "1967 lines"? Lyndon Johnson worked with Ambassador Goldberg and many others to construct UN Resolution 242 specifically to avoid such an interpretation. Obama must have been incredibly stupid if he thought Israelis and American Jews and American Christians who support Israel could ever fall for such treachery. PM Netanyahu didn't fall for it and told Congress so in so many words. Axelrod and his J-Street henchman in the NY Times (that American Der Sturmer rag) thought they could get away with such deceit. That is the proof, if there is any more needed, that Obama is at best unfriendly to Jews and Israel or stupid or (my choice) BOTH.
Let us battle reverse racism with the Highest And Best Use Of The American Language And Kindly Christian Spirit. nLet Us Win The Hearts And Minds And Souls Of The Good And The Honesty Seeking Youth. n nNever Give Up. nNever Give In. n n"Not less we praise in darker days nThe leader of our nation, nAnd Churchill's name shall win acclaim nFrom each new generation. nFor you have power in danger's hour nOur freedom to defend, Sir! nThough long the fight we know that right nWill triumph in the end, Sir!" n
Actually, the mass importation of Africans, not race per se, was America's original sin. And for this the South — which extorted the acceptance of this importation from the Founders — shall forever be cursed.
Many Black Africans imported to America by ship were bought from other Black African tribes, who had discovered that, rather than killing their enemies from other tribes, they could capture them and sell them to the white man. So,considering this, let's not hang the halo on African Blacks and their descendants! nMany of the sips that transported slaves were from Europe and great Britain, but we know not who are descendants of those seamen. You, perhaps? nAnd one should not wax noble because it was said that the North fought to free the slaves. The Civil War wasn't fought primarily over slavery. The South was paying the bulk of the taxes through export and import levies and decided to secede. Lincoln said that the North should go to war over the secession. His advisers reminded that in order to have a war you can't say you are doing it over money. So, it was decided they would say the war was over slavery!! n n n n n
Would the south have succeded accept to perserve the institution of slavery? The south was economically falling behind and would be left in the minority, the time to leave to perserve slavery was in 1860.
Would the North have succeded EXCEPT (your spelling lesson for today) for the creation by a false premise of the only civil war we have had up until January 20, 2009!! n nIf the South was in dire straits, why did the North care whether the South seceded. Surely it wasn't the Southern ports!
Why does it all seem to be coming from the tea party and the republican party?
You can't besmirch an entire political party because of the actions of a few. That would be like me saying all Democrats are stupid and point to you.
I doubt seriously that anyone involved in the creation of these links voted for Obama in the first place. In a way you validate the authors point of view. President Obama never had to worry about pleasing such guilty parties. His problem stems from the perception that he has failed in the primary concern that most of us sent him to D.C. for: To solve America's economic ills. I sense that you believe he has however a sizeable number (certainly more than in 08) of people believe otherwise. To believe all of those who have or are in the process of changing their votes are racist, pretty much puts you in the same close minded ranks you have linked for our perusal. Such proves as bad as it gets
Yizhak, could you please be more precise? What seems to be coming from the Tea Party and the Republican Party?
Where are the JOBS
The issue of race and/or colour might lessen in the US, if a 'black' person of American heritage was called American, rather than African/American. n nHow many generations removed from Africa are most of these people? (rhetorical question) n nI am only two generations away from grandparents from Poland and the Ukraine. n nMy goodness I could have quite a string of titles n nPolish/Russian/English/Australian. !!! n n
That picture makes her look more human and less angry. Nice "DOPE FIEND MOVE" democrat race baiter.
Simple, that's what you and the criminal organization of democrats who fiend for power and tax payer dollars wants and needs people to believe. n n Democrats simply cannot win elections on merit or honesty and they can't help but prove themselves.
Live by the melanin,die by the melanin
The Tea Party formed in December of 2008 before Obama took office. It was not formed to oppose Obama's policies because at that point he had no policies having yet to take the oath of office. Rather, the Tea Party formed to oppose Obama the person. Never before in American history had a political movement been formed to oppose a person. __I think there is no question that at least some of the motivation for the opposition to Obama was because of his race. Opposing Obama because of his race goes a long way explaining they hypoicracy of much of the attacks against him. For example Bush, supported by every republican increased spending, used deficits to stimjulate the economy and took every opportunity to use anything mildly similar to killing OBL as a political weapon against his opponents. __Remember, playing the race card is having different standards for Blacks and Whites. Pointing out that someone has different standards for Blacks and Whites is merely calling the hand. Republican hypocracy may not be all because Obama is Black, but that the South, the poorest region in the nation, is the base of the Republican party proves that race is behind much the hypocracy of Obama's opposition.
African-American is little more than a progressive left contrivance in order to continue separation and therefore enslavement by other means. Hispanic is another progressive left contrivance employed for the same reason. E Pluribus Unum is anathema to their belief system. Why? To divde and thereby conquer.
This is incorrect: n n"The Times’ Jeff Zeleny was sent to Steubenville, Ohio and beat the bushes to find some racists and found a few, though they seemed to come in some unlikely varieties." n nZeleney couldn't have made the trip as the story plainly says: n nJeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Washington.
I was one of those people arguing long before the 2008 presidential election that Obama would severely damage race relations in the USA. It was obvious that while he pretended to be a unifier—his surrogates consistently employed the race card. Why would anyone believe this would cease immediately after the election?