Fear of a Black Candidate

One crucial thing Barack Obama did last night was get white people to vote for him. Lots and lots of white people. Iowa's not the kind of place where you can dominate the black vote, plus add on a sliver of white liberals and win a primary. To win -- even in a primary -- you need the support of white people.

And one thing holding Obama back among both black and white voters has been, I think, a fear that other people won't be willing to vote for a black guy. Winning a primary does a lot to dispel those worries. Winning a majority in a primary would do more, but given the presence of three strong contenders in Iowa that clearly wasn't on the table. The analogy, I think, is to JFK winning the West Virginia primary and showing that a Catholic from Boston could win in a state where there was no urban "ethnic" machine to serve as his base.

Photo by Flickr user Joe Crimmings used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

"The analogy, I think, is to JFK winning the West Virginia primary and showing that a Catholic from Boston could win in a state where there was no urban "ethnic" machine to serve as his base."

But Obama's never been a black machine pol. That's one storyline he's never had to disprove.

Jesse Jackson won Michigan in 1988, and that was a JFK winning WV moment.

Obama winning 38% of the Democratic electorate in a polite midwestern state bordering his own? Not so much.

-----

January's going to be interesting. I'm glad this thing finally got started.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 1:53 PM

Good point. But here's where the fact that Obama got so many votes from the under-30s makes me a bit nervous. Those old people tend towards - how shall we say - 'racial grandpa-ism', and Obama hasn't shown he can get their votes yet.

Posted by otto | January 4, 2008 1:54 PM

For anyone interested in a truly serious analysis of the skills and accomplishments that Obama brings to the table, as an objective measure of his ability to achieve successful progressive legislation in the context of actual political struggle, I recommend this insightful essay by Charles Peters in today’s Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

Peters is a journalist and former state legislator, “founding editor of the Washington Monthly, president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting”

Posted by Justin X | January 4, 2008 1:56 PM

In my opinion, Obama's skin color is an advantage. The number of Republicans and Independents who'll vote for him in the hope of healing racism in America far exceeds the number of Democrats and Independents who won't vote for him because they're racists.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 4, 2008 1:59 PM

In my opinion, Obama's skin color is an advantage. The number of Republicans and Independents who'll vote for him in the hope of healing racism in America far exceeds the number of Democrats and Independents who won't vote for him because they're racists.

Exactly right.

It is, BTW, different I think for Hillary. People aren't as interested in breaking the glass ceiling as they are in healing racism. And the anti-Hillary feelings due to her being a strong woman are, I think, stronger among Dems than racism against Obama.

Posted by Al | January 4, 2008 2:02 PM

Yes. If its one thing Republicans are known for, its voting to heal racism in America.

Posted by Rickm | January 4, 2008 2:04 PM

Please stop it with this silly idea that getting Iowans to vote for a black man is some kind of political miracle. They're white, not wearing white hoods.

Let's not forget who we are dealing with. These are Democratic primary voters. They're very liberal people. Remember liberals, the one's who fought against slavery and segregation? Those folks?

So let's be realistic here. There is a chance that the general electorate might find it hard to vote for a black man, especially in the south (think Ford in Tenn. and Gannt in North Carolina). But not the Democratic primary electorate.

Posted by willie | January 4, 2008 2:08 PM

Yes. If its one thing Republicans are known for, its voting to heal racism in America.

Color me skeptical as well. On the other hand, I think for some people, they would like to see someone like Obama as president because that would give an example of the kind of 'safe' black man they're more comfortable with achieving that office while distracting people from the real problems associated with race in this country. I'm just not sure this would really translate into an identifiable political phenomenon.

Posted by mpowell | January 4, 2008 2:10 PM

I just think it'll be a mercy he doesn't get assassinated somewhere along the way (maybe even as President). Let's not forget the legions of knuckle draggers who assume he's not only black but Muslim.

Posted by Bill | January 4, 2008 2:14 PM

That Peters article is pretty good. The problem at this point is not finding people capable of or committed to good journalism - there are also plenty of good blogs out there, they just don't specialize in primary source reporting. The problem is getting these journalist to dominate the media scene and preventing their approach from being corrupted once they get there. I'm afraid the latter part may prove the most difficult.

Posted by mpowell | January 4, 2008 2:16 PM

Iowa's not the kind of place where you can dominate the black vote, plus add on a sliver of white liberals and win a primary. To win -- even in a primary -- you need the support of white people.

This wasn't a general election. This was a Democratic caucus. Democrats are far to the left of the normal Iowa population.

The analogy, I think, is to JFK winning the West Virginia primary

The rural Iowa areas would have a huge problem with a black person, but not so much the urban areas. In the city of Cedar Rapids, Dale Todd, a black man, got elected multiple times for the City Council. There was even talk of him running for higher state office before all of the more liberal members on the City Council got kicked out due to a fundie revolt after the Council passed a law banning discrimination of gays. In fact, I could even say Dale Todd (met him several times) was Obama before there was an Obama. I did a google search, and I found out Dale Todd was a supporter of Obama which is not too surprising.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 4, 2008 2:18 PM

Re willie

I would remind Mr. willie that black man Douglas Wilder was elected governor of Virginia, not exactly a blue northern state. Mr. Wilder was the first black man to be elected governor of any state since the reconstruction governments of the South in the 1860s and 1870s.

Posted by SLC | January 4, 2008 2:21 PM

All I got is genes and chromosomes
Consider me Black to the bone
All I want is peace and love
On this planet
Ain't that how God planned it?

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 2:24 PM

I think a lot of Obama's popularity is based on the fact that he reassures whites that race doesn't matter.

Posted by Peter H | January 4, 2008 2:29 PM

If that's how God planned it, there'd be no need to want it.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 2:34 PM

SLC,

Did it make a difference that Douglas Wilder could practically pass for white (especially once his hair turned grey and loosened in its texture)?

OTOH, look at what they did to Harold Ford ...

*

Re: Obama -- I think the picture shows exactly what the problem'll be with Obama (and remember, are campaigns are very much dominated by visual media) -- he looks like he's smugly imbibing the victory and enjoying the support of the masses a wee bit too much. It's actually un-democratic (c.f. Federalist, I believe #10 -- the bullwork of liberty is the desire of politicians to make a splash by challenging other politicians in order to place themselves in the spotlight) and somewhat Puritanical I reckon, but we expect our politicians to actually at least put on a show that they don't enjoy the spotlight. Obama looks like he "wants it" too much.

Posted by DAS | January 4, 2008 2:40 PM

mpowell:

“Primary source reporting” is often a good thing, sometimes indispensable. But I don’t think that lack of it is necessarily the source of the problem of the low quality of analysis we see either in blogs or in the MSM.

A bigger (though not the only) source of the problem IMO, in both blogs and the MSM, is simply intellectual laziness (abstracting from plain dishonesty, meanness, egotistical manuevering, or political bias). After all, there is a lot that I as a simple layman (albeit with academic training) can discover nowadays simply by a google search and a careful, judicious, reading of readily available public sources.

Posted by Justin X | January 4, 2008 2:46 PM

Isn't it important that this was not a secret ballot? Hasn't the concern been that the votes an African American gets in a secret ballot will be below the level he/she polls at because in public some people are uncomfortable with revealing their racism?

Posted by Barry | January 4, 2008 2:49 PM

Well, count me still pretty skeptical...

The key question is the impact of (possibly nasty) TV ads. Polling numbers before that are just totally meaningless, unless it's analytical polling to test lines of attack.

Wasn't Dukakis something like 20 points ahead of Bush #1 before the ads hit? Wasn't Jesse Helms considered almost a goner before the ads ran? Wasn't Howard Dean blown out of Iowa by those 527 ads?

I'd give Obama much better chances if he'd already weathered $20M of Karl Rove-style attack ads...but he hasn't.

On the other hand, I'll admit I was a little surprised that all of Romney's attack ads just bounced right off Huckabee's Christian Right base...but maybe Chuck Norris just deflected them with his karate kicks!

Posted by RKU | January 4, 2008 2:55 PM

Wow, Barry... the Bradley effect in three dimensions.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 4, 2008 2:56 PM

I've been asking, and no one has yet told me who exactly would vote for H. Clinton or Edwards but not Obama 'cause he's black. I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't want a black president, but are they really going to be an essential part of a winning Democrat's electoral strategy?

Posted by aleks | January 4, 2008 3:01 PM

mpowell:

I should add that I agree with you here:
The problem is getting these journalist[s] to dominate the media scene and preventing their approach from being corrupted once they get there. I'm afraid the latter part may prove the most difficult.

However, I think the corruption process often begins long before “they get there”. I can think of a number of examples among the current crop of young “stars” who are simply standing-in-wait and salivating to become the next Joe Klein, Tom Friedman, et al.

Posted by Justin X | January 4, 2008 3:01 PM

"Yes. If its one thing Republicans are known for, its voting to heal racism in America."

They've certainly been eager to elevate blacks politically in recent years. Reagan and Bush 41 sped the former White House Fellow Colin Powell through ranks of the military. Bush has appointed more blacks to his cabinet than any previous president. The GOP nominated black candidates for the Senate in both Ohio and Maryland in '06, and had one of those candidates won, IMO, he would have been an instant VP candidate. And in the one TV show written and produced by Hollywood conservatives ("24", Joel Surnow and Manny Coto) there have been not one, but two black Presidents. That's two more black Presidents than The West Wing featured, if anyone's keeping track.

Posted by Fred | January 4, 2008 3:08 PM

"On the other hand, I'll admit I was a little surprised that all of Romney's attack ads just bounced right off Huckabee's Christian Right base...but maybe Chuck Norris just deflected them with his karate kicks!"

Having an actual political base is an effective defense mechanism against attacks.

Floating on air leaves one a bit more vulnerable.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 3:11 PM

"Jesse Jackson won Michigan in 1988, and that was a JFK winning WV moment."

Why? Michigan has several good sized urban areas with large black populations. So, presumably Jackson won overwhelmingly among blacks and the other candidates split the white Democrats who caucused. 1988 was a record-setting caucus turnout in Michigan.

Jesse L. Jackson-113,777 (53.82%)
Gov. Michael Stanley Dukakis 61,674 (29.18%)
Rep. Richard "Dick" Gephardt 27,222 (12.88%)
Sen. Paul M. Simon 4,466 (2.11%)
Sen. Al Gore 4,253 (2.01%)

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=38031

Posted by witless chum | January 4, 2008 3:23 PM

Fred, I admire your mastery of the talking points on this issue. This phrase:

had one of those candidates won

rather says a lot, though, doesn't it?

And in the one TV show written and produced by Hollywood conservatives ("24", Joel Surnow and Manny Coto) there have been not one, but two black Presidents.

Ah yes, imaginary black Presidents -- Republicans' favorite kind.

I do think, though, that there's a non-negligible segment of Republicans out there who are just fed up enough with their party that they'd vote for Obama, in the belief that it would give them the right to tell black people, for ever after, to STFU about racism.

Posted by Ryan | January 4, 2008 3:28 PM

I think the big racial story to come out of Obama's candidacy will be just how much his race really doesn't matter. But that won't stop people from trying to put a racial spin on it at every opportunity.

Posted by blah | January 4, 2008 3:29 PM

"Why? Michigan has several good sized urban areas with large black populations."

Michigan is 14% black. Jackson got 54% of the vote.

Until that moment, Jackson had been seen as a candidate who couldn't win outside of black electorates. It's the precise kind of situation Matthew was describing in the JFK wins WV story.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 3:38 PM

"I've been asking, and no one has yet told me who exactly would vote for H. Clinton or Edwards but not Obama 'cause he's black. "

Most of my childhood friends, if they grew up like I imagine, are probably racist populists. In the working-class, white neighborhoods of Philadelphia in the 70s, the only thing more hated than rich people were blacks. Maybe that thinking is gone. I don't see it around, but I wouldn't, where I live now.

Posted by Njorl | January 4, 2008 3:51 PM

"Most of my childhood friends, if they grew up like I imagine, are probably racist populists. In the working-class, white neighborhoods of Philadelphia in the 70s, the only thing more hated than rich people were blacks. Maybe that thinking is gone."

It's slowly aging out of the population.

-----

Tangentially, Northeast Philadelphia is the scariest place I've ever been in my life.

I'd love to make a new version of Dracula with NE Philly standing in for Transylvania.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 4:04 PM

Michigan is 14% black. Jackson got 54% of the vote.

Yes, I seem to remember that Jackson made a big deal of protesting outside all the plant closings and that sort of thing during the 1988 campaign, against Dukakis's Harvard/technocratic/elitist desire to avoid anything remotely populist or "controversial".

And despite Jackson's massive political baggage and the fervent hostility of the Democratic Establishment, he did remarkably well in a whole string of (overwhelmingly white) blue-collar places, giving Dukakis quite a scare. Then, afterward, Dukakis smugly tried to coast to what everyone believed would be an easy Democratic victory, got hit with a few tough TV ads, and just collapsed.

It may sound a little strange, but Edwards seems a little like the Jesse Jackson of this election cycle, while Dukakis's analog is...someone else...

Posted by RKU | January 4, 2008 4:19 PM

Yes. If its one thing Republicans are known for, its voting to heal racism in America.

Don't you snobby snarky netroots Obama-haters have any Republican friends? I do, and they're not racists. Have Republicans tolerated disgustingly racist campaigns? Certainly. But most of them are not racist, and would actually like to vote for a minority.

Part of Obama's disarming appeal is that he is willing to assume some good intentions from conservatives. That's what infuriates the snark-left so much, because they want to feel morally superior to evil red-staters. Instead of this false pride, let's actually accomplish some progressive goals...

Go-bama!

Posted by Jacob | January 4, 2008 4:20 PM

"It may sound a little strange, but Edwards seems a little like the Jesse Jackson of this election cycle, while Dukakis's analog is...someone else..."

It doesn't sound strange at all.

One of the things that gets me so amped about Edwards is that he's the first lefty populist to run in the Democratic primaries since RFK got shot who's actually electable. He's the first one since RFK who can actually sell the brand to a mainstream audience.

Jerry Brown. Jesse Jackson. John Edwards.

Which of these ones is not like the other?

And "someone else" is an unholy blend of Dukakis and Carter. (I actually think Carter is the better comparison. Carter at least had charisma when he first ran.)

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 4:35 PM

Well, to be fair, the GOP did manage this as well with Bobby Jindal.

Posted by Quietus | January 4, 2008 4:38 PM

"Fred, I admire your mastery of the talking points on this issue.

There are talking points on this issue? Show me where they are posted, so I can just cut & paste next time.

"This phrase:

had one of those candidates won

rather says a lot, though, doesn't it?"

It says that not enough Democrats or Independents were willing to vote for our black candidates in the general elections.

"Ah yes, imaginary black Presidents -- Republicans' favorite kind."

I anticipated that would invite snark but was this necessary? Would it be fair of me to be similarly snarky about the casting of a Latino President-Elect in "The West Wing" by writing, "Ah yes, imaginary Latino Presidents -- Democrats' favorite kind"?

"I do think, though, that there's a non-negligible segment of Republicans out there who are just fed up enough with their party that they'd vote for Obama, in the belief that it would give them the right to tell black people, for ever after, to STFU about racism."

Now we get to the interesting part, where you ventriloquize Republicans. Sounds to me like it might be the white liberal Democrat ventriloquist talking though, expressing (albeit in crude fashion) the hopes of many of your fellow white liberal commenters to assuage their guilt by ushering in a "post-racial" America by electing Obama president. Why not? New York City, Virginia and Los Angeles all became post-racial after they elected black chief executives.

I imagine most African Americans will see this differently though, and cast their votes for Hillary in the upcoming primaries. For two reasons:

1) A President Obama would be less likely than a white Democrat to attempt to placate African Americans -- he'd be more concerned with demonstrating his mainstream bona fides by appearing race neutral.

2) A lot of African Americans will wonder what Obama has in common with them, beyond his complexion. Many African Americans -- even those who never experienced discrimination -- still have their world view dominated by the previous legacy of discrimination and slavery in America. How does Obama, a descendant of Mayflower settlers on one side, and the descendant of Kenyan slave owners on the other, fit into this, with his childhood in an Indonesian madrassa, prep school in Hawaii, college at tony Occidental College in L.A. and then Columbia, followed by Harvard law? Elevating Obama out of white guilt for its crimes against African American victims of Jim Crow and Slavery might seem like the ultimate bait & switch for many cynical African Americans.

Posted by Fred | January 4, 2008 4:43 PM

Jacob's right.

I heard Juan Williams on NPR this morning and he was jacked!

RKU:
"I'd give Obama much better chances if he'd already weathered $20M of Karl Rove-style attack ads...but he hasn't."

Obama just body-slammed the Obama-haters here in MY's comments section and across the net and yet they continue on, completely oblivious. The Karl Roves of the world certainly did a number on them.

If anything, New Hampshire will be worse. I'd be nervous if I were Hillary.

The conventional wisdom was right regarding negative attack ads. Iowans punished Romney and Hillary because they spent a lot of money on them.

Krugman gave a very gracious congratulations at his blog. Good for him. I bet he recognizes, unlike others, that Obama is inspiring the base and you need that energy and inspiration to beat the other side.

Yeah many American are still racist - soft and hardcore varities - but it will be so much fun to taunt the hardcore racists after Obama's inaugeration. (and, oh, what a party there will be. There I jinxed him).

Posted by Peter K. | January 4, 2008 4:51 PM

Love the link to the Bradley effect. I'd never known there was a term associated with the discrepancy between pre-election polling and the outcome of races between two candidates of different ethnicities.
One question, does Michael Steele's loss in MD count? He was tied with Sen. Cardin in pre election polling, but was eventually blown out by 10% on election day.

Posted by willie | January 4, 2008 5:31 PM

Petey wins this discussion.

Jackson in Michigan for the pin.

Posted by Armando | January 4, 2008 5:40 PM

Petey wins nothing here. Just like his candidate.

[For the record, I like Edwards and enjoy Petey's comments. At least today, though, they're both on the losing side. Gloating rights belong to Obama fans.]

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 4, 2008 6:11 PM

Matt,

Your complaints about Iowa and New Hampshire being too unrepresentatively white have gotten the political dynamic 180 degrees backward. Obama's best chance all along has been to kickstart his campaign with strong performances in the virtually all-white states of Iowa and New Hampshire. He is the Sidney Poitier candidate for nice white people.

You've been kidding yourself that with Obama it's all about the issues. Instead, it's always been all about Obama's "story of race and inheritance." I know you are uncomfortable thinking hard about race, which is probably why you've avoided reading your candidate's autobiography. But if Obama's "Dreams from My Father" is too long for you to read, then "A Bound Man" by Shelby Steele, who likewise has a black father and white mother, distills Obama's book into a much shorter length.

For a quick review:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071225/EDITORIAL/756439603

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 4, 2008 6:26 PM

As Shelby Steele points out, there are a lot of white people who want to elect a black President to send a message to blacks that they aren't being held back by racism anymore, and so they need to start taking more responsibility for themselves. Of course, that helps explain the lack of excitement Obama has generated among blacks, who sensibly view giving whites an excuse to cut back on affirmative action and the like as being in the self-interest of whites, not blacks.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 4, 2008 6:34 PM

I must have missed the Obama campaign stops that featured Public Enemy.

Posted by Minister of Information | January 4, 2008 9:13 PM

Now wait a minute, Sailer. Shelby Steele is at least half black, right? Doesn’t that mean his IQ is regressing to the mean of the black and white mean (btw, I brought up that phrase, "regressing to the mean", to a real life statistician down the hallway the other day,..., my, my, that was a good laugh! We both thank you for that one!). If so, why should I listen to what he has to say?

Sounds to me as if Mr. Steel knows even less about white people than he knows about black people. This ignorance is most likely due to over-expression of the inferior cognitive genes. Then again, maybe during his infancy his mother dropped him on his head. Genes or environment? Only time will tell…

Speaking of tells,…, I'm starting to think you might have a little bit of "mud-blood" in ya too, Steve. Your recent posts indicate a rapidly declining IQ.

Don't worry, though. Given the rapid advances in genetic sequencing and gene therapy, I certain scientists will develop a cure before your symptoms become too severe…

Posted by Rihilism | January 4, 2008 9:35 PM

Now, now, Steve Sailer, reading the Times will only exacerbate your symptoms...

Posted by Rihilism | January 4, 2008 9:39 PM

"As Shelby Steele points out, there are a lot of white people who want to elect a black President to send a message to blacks that they aren't being held back by racism anymore, and so they need to start taking more responsibility for themselves. Of course, that helps explain the lack of excitement Obama has generated among blacks, who sensibly view giving whites an excuse to cut back on affirmative action and the like as being in the self-interest of whites, not blacks."

I don't want to go any farther than this, but let me say that I think you, Mr. Sailer, are not black, as I am not. I, personally, would not presume to put forward what blacks "sensibly view," since neither of us have had the opportunity to "view" either sensibly or otherwise, what it would be like to be a despised minority in a whitebread world. I think a little humility is in order.

Posted by Henderstock | January 4, 2008 10:56 PM

Steve Sailer has a point. Another point Steve has made before, in a different context (illegal immigration) is the role that status-seeking among whites has in this: supporting Obama (like supporting amnesty for illegals) is a way for enlightened whites to demonstrate their multicultural, pro-diversity bona fides, and differentiate themselves from the lumpen Wal-Mart whites.

Regarding affirmative action, my guess is that a President Obama would be as enthusiastic a supporter of it as Matt Yglesias is of Israel, for a similar reason: Matt's coolly neutral/critical stance on Israel is intended to inoculate him against the criticism of ethnic bias. President Obama would feel a similar pressure to be coolly neutral on affirmative action and other black issues.

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 12:10 AM

Petey wins this discussion.

Jackson in Michigan for the pin.

Posted by Armando | January 4, 2008 5:40 PM

I agree. It was the most astounding piece of news. Those not of age to experience the place and time don't know the depth and breadth of hatred towards previous Jesse-rhetoric among much of the white Midwestern working class, which made it all the more amazing. Plus, it actually momentarily gave him the lead in delegates, and it seemed like big momentum as well. It was like: whoa, when did they turn the country upside down all of a sudden, have I really been misunderstanding the racism of "the other"?

Posted by artappraiser | January 5, 2008 12:15 AM

Here's James Taranto, online editor of the WSJ, explaining today why Obama becoming President would be good:

"But if Barack Obama can grow up to become president, the notion that America is an irredeemably racist society is absurd on its face. The perpetuation of this notion--and of the corollary that the GOP is a racist party--has been crucial to maintaining the Democratic hold on the black vote. By defusing fears of racism, an Obama presidency would make it harder for future Democrats to exploit those fears. Democrats wouldn't necessarily lose the black vote, but they would no longer be able to take it for granted."

Shelby Steele points out that this kind of thinking among whites helps explain the lack of enthusiasm for Obama seen among blacks.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 5, 2008 2:31 AM

The WSJ is deluded. Young white people voting for Obama does nothing to eliminate hundreds of years of oppression.

Voting for Obama might make white people (hell I'm one myself) feel a little better about themselves, but the idea that this solves America's racial problems is absurd.

Posted by Zxcbnm | January 5, 2008 7:50 AM

I'm one of the cynics about Hillary and Obama's electability. I'm quite impressed by Obama's managing to turn out so many people in Iowa.

But a caucaus is a bit different from a primary. I'll be watching New Hampshire to see how voters behave when left to their own devices. I'd love to be proven wrong on my cynicism for once in my life.

Posted by delaney | January 5, 2008 8:01 AM

"But if Barack Obama can grow up to become president, the notion that America is an irredeemably racist society is absurd on its face. The perpetuation of this notion--and of the corollary that the GOP is a racist party--has been crucial to maintaining the Democratic hold on the black vote. By defusing fears of racism, an Obama presidency would make it harder for future Democrats to exploit those fears. Democrats wouldn't necessarily lose the black vote, but they would no longer be able to take it for granted."

I'm not sure what the WSJ's message is here. Are the Republicans supposed to say "see, America elected a black president by not voting for us! Vote for us against the black guy's re-election to show you're not racist!"?

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 8:07 AM

"Steve Sailer has a point."

Yes, it's on his hood.

A while back Limbaugh was bragging about his sense of empathy claiming he "knew" the libruls were wishing for failure in Iraq so they could feel good about opposing the war. Sooner or later, someone's going to have to sit all of you down and explain the difference between empathy and projection. Limbaugh has no real sense of empathy, he was simply fantasizing about his own emotional response had he been the one who opposed the war.

Steve, Fred, Steele, Limbaugh, etc., base their "arguments" on a neurotic and paranoid worldview. They assume that everyone is motivated by the same sense of greed, anger, fear, and low self esteem that they are. It is virtually impossible for them to envision that their fellow human beings are capable of making choices based on respect, love and understanding and yes, empathy. These are “foreign” concepts and they cannot bring themselves to accept or value those qualities in others because they lack or misunderstand those qualities in their own lives. It is only when one has reached such absurd levels of cognitive dissonance and emotional retardation that one can truly make the claims that altruism is a sin, empathy is a vice, and fear must be exploited…

Posted by Rihilism | January 5, 2008 8:39 AM

"Voting for Obama might make white people (hell I'm one myself) feel a little better about themselves, but the idea that this solves America's racial problems is absurd."

Of course this doesn't solve any particular race issue. But there aren't any particular race issues that with the mere wave of some legendary wonk's policy-drenched fingers could outright be solved anyway. The ghettoes aren't going to blossom into urban utopias overnight. Still, it would mean something for him to win. Obama's popularity is evidence for the continued advancement of what has been the excruciatingly slow development of a real sense of social legitimacy for African Americans in a country whose politics has been dominated throughout its history by mostly rich white people. This would still be true even if only guilty white people voted him into office (which won't be the case). The presidency is a powerful symbol-the capstone of all those American Dream generalities that have been burned into the public consciousness. When people talk about being able to be anything they want when they grow up, the presidency is always at least implicitly in mind. The election of a black man to the highest office will instantly strengthen the sense among blacks that they have a stake not just in their own communities, but in America as a whole. And an African American leader who isn't a racially polarizing figure could go a long way (particularly if he's really a charismatic guy) in 4-8 years towards reducing the racial friction in this country.

Posted by gerontion | January 5, 2008 8:45 AM

Steve Sailer, always spouting racist garbage. No surprise there since Sailer has made a career of being a stinky racist.

Posted by Jennifer | January 5, 2008 8:58 AM

I see Jennifer has submitted her traditional morning anti-Sailer post.

Posted by gerontion | January 5, 2008 9:04 AM

Re: Jesse Jackson won Michigan in 1988, and that was a JFK winning WV moment.

You are aware that Michigan has a huge urban (and often quite middle-class and politically active) Black population?

Re: I just think it'll be a mercy he doesn't get assassinated somewhere along the way (maybe even as President).

We seem to have a failry impenetrable security shield around our presidents. President Bush is surely in a lot bulls-eyes (You know, Al Qaida, Saddam's people, etc.) and Clinton had his fierce haters too.

Re: Well, to be fair, the GOP did manage this as well with Bobby Jindal.

Bobby Jindal is not Black. He is an Indian, but that's not the same thing at all: he free of the awful miasma of America's four centuries of racist history.

Re: A lot of African Americans will wonder what Obama has in common with them, beyond his complexion.

I'm sure a lot of them also wondered what John Kerry or Al Gore had in common with them too, but that didn't motivate a lot of GOP voting behavior.

Re: One question, does Michael Steele's loss in MD count? He was tied with Sen. Cardin in pre election polling, but was eventually blown out by 10% on election day.

2006 was a Democratic blow-out year and Maryland is a heavily blue state, so I would say No.

Re: Those not of age to experience the place and time don't know the depth and breadth of hatred towards previous Jesse-rhetoric among much of the white Midwestern working class, which made it all the more amazing.

In the 80s the Michigan white working class was ground zero of the Reagan Democrat phenomenon, so I'm guessing relatively few of those folks were voting in the Michigan primary that year. Jackson's victory wasin a primary in which rather few people vote, and he was carried by the Black vote in Detroit and other cities, plus the trendy liberals around the UofM, MSU etc.

Posted by JonF | January 5, 2008 9:04 AM

"I'm not sure what the WSJ's message is here."

Reality Man,

Taranto's "message" is clear from the passage you quoted. The key word here, that you ignored, was "future":

"By defusing fears of racism, an Obama presidency would make it harder for future Democrats [i.e., this would not apply in an Obama reelection campaign] to exploit those fears."

Rihilism,

If you care to write a coherent version of your last rambling comment, I'd be happy to respond to it.

"And an African American leader who isn't a racially polarizing figure could go a long way (particularly if he's really a charismatic guy) in 4-8 years towards reducing the racial friction in this country."

Gerontion,

A similar thought process by white liberals was behind the election of David Dinkins as Mayor of New York.

"I'm sure a lot of them also wondered what John Kerry or Al Gore had in common with them too, but that didn't motivate a lot of GOP voting behavior."

JonF,

You must not have read this sentence I wrote which made clear that I was talking about the Democratic primaries, not the general election:

"I imagine most African Americans will see this differently though, and cast their votes for Hillary in the upcoming primaries."

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 9:48 AM

I just think it'll be a mercy he doesn't get assassinated somewhere along the way (maybe even as President).
This theme is starting to get old. Can we give the Secret Service just a little credit please?

Posted by guineapigfury | January 5, 2008 11:35 AM

"I imagine most African Americans will see this differently though, and cast their votes for Hillary in the upcoming primaries."

Here you go. A testable hypothesis. I hear this talk about Hillary's supposed cred in black communities. I don't believe it. But hey-they'll be counting the votes, so we'll just find out, now won't we?

Posted by gerontion | January 5, 2008 11:38 AM

I think Obama will offer a shining opportunity for a lot of closet racists to "prove" they're not racist, so that they can continue to have the same attitudes in their everyday life. I mean, saying "I voted for a black president," really one-ups the old "I have black friends--lots of them!" line, doesn't it?

Posted by 14All | January 5, 2008 12:03 PM

Here ya go, Fred. This should clarify things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

It's important for you, Steve, Steele, Limbaugh, etc., to pay special attention to the section on psychopathology. Seek therapy, please, for everyone's sake.

Posted by Rihilism | January 5, 2008 3:40 PM