The American presidential election (69)
I know that there’s a ton of media coverage about the US Presidential election and that that I’ve written constantly about it on NightHawk but, if you only read one article about the contest, make sure it’s this one.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Oh dear, Roger — I’m not sure that would be the one article that people should read: dividing people by race and attributing certain false / puffed / silly / hypocritical claims by one candidate as race-related.
I think the author points out several hypocritical positions and — because they are aimed at a black candidate — says they relate to white privilege. But surely every politician in nearly every campaign makes hypocritical claims no matter what their opponent’s race is.
So, if you argue that Obama is unready to be president (as Clinton and McCain have done), you endorse white privilege? The same arguments were made about George Bush in 2000… They are just standard arguments the more experienced candidate will always make.
The suggestion of this article is that if you vote McCain you endorse some concept of white privilege.
That’s just race-baiting of the lowest order.
I think Obama and McCain have both been good at attempting to keep this campaign about issues. Yes, at times the campaigns snipe at each other, but the overall tone has largely been — and should continue to be — about the economy and war.
There’s probably a very small percentage of people who view this campaign as a larger statement on race or class culture in the USA, but this string of examples is incredibly one-sided and obsessively race-focused.
I’m leaning towards Obama, but really do not recognise the white privilege polemic as contributing anything other than vitriol.
Sure, I welcome any critical and intelligent examination of race and politics in America. But this piece is alarmingly shrill and one-sided.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
As always, Russ, you make good points.
I don’t want to encourage race-baiting, but I suspect that you are underestimating the impact of Obama’s race in the (maybe subliminal) ballot intentions of some white voters.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Thank you, Roger. As a Black person reading this I feel comforted that a brave journalist articulated what many Black Americans can’t without coming across as “angry” or “defensive”. I hope Obama wins precisely because he is the living embodiment of racial equality. The world sorely needs America to unify. That won’t happen if the Republicans win.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Thanks, Roger.
I believe that an author can critically comment on race without sinking to the level of personally naming a pregnant young girl who is merely related to a politician. As if the Palin daughter promotes herself as the embodiment of white privilege…
Obama is currently polling at about 41 percent of white support. Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 39 percent of the white vote. He improved this in 1996 to 43 percent. So, if we merely use race — not policies — to explain outcomes, how is it that Clinton never garnered a majority share of white votes? And you cannot say it’s a subliminal effect with Clinton…
So, if Obama loses the election but garners of 39 to 43 percent the white vote, how could we explain his loss and Bill Clinton’s wins?
Race is certainly one factor, I agree, maybe even on a subliminal level.
But there are probably more important explanations that should first be explored. And those can be explored without unfairly labeling Sarah Palin and her family as the embodiment of white privilege.
That’s why the Wise article would not be very helpful to someone wanting to know more about the election. Instead, I think the Pew Center or Rasmussen are much better places for people to understand the dynamics behind the race.
That being said, I think Obama will win so all of this race-based analysis will hopefully be swept aside so people can focus on policies.