Obama Gets Some Advice On Race...

[Ta-Nehisi]

...from arguably the last group of people who should be giving advice on race. I won't get into this too much, but I just want to say that rather than writing a memo to Obama on how to deal with "white voters" and the "race problem", Newsweek would have done better to send "white voters" a memo on how to deal with Obama and the "race problem." It was tragic to see so many interviews with folks in Kentucky and West Virginia saying point blank that they wouldn't vote for Obama because he was a colored. The conclusion always was, "Wow this is a huge problem for Obama," not "Wow. this is a huge problem for these people."

I know that seems backward, but roll with me for a second: We can all agree that a presidential election is an extremely important event, arguably the most important mass event in the country. If you have voters who essentially disqualify candidates, on race alone, isn't that, like, kind of a problem for the voters? Please do not counter with "but blacks vote for Obama on race!!" As I've said before, it ain't the same dog. Blacks--because we've basically had no other choice--have a long record of voting for white people, and will continue to do so. A guy who openly says "I'm not voting for a black guy," get's no such consideration.

Anyway, my point is that this is of a piece with the widely held view that racism is basically a problem for black people, not whites, that our history of slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping, housing covenants are an injury to black people, not to the larger country. We think about the Civil War, as a war to free the slaves. But here's another way to think about it: It cost us 700,000 American lives--and the near fracturing of our country--to accomplish something that the rest of the civilized world accomplished with the stroke of a pen. I'm simplifying I know, but the point is racism poisons everything and everyone. Black folks obviously pay the most obvious price, but we really aren't its only victims.

Comments

Is it safe to assume this was written by Ta-Nehisi? Unless Matt has turned black on his vacation, the last line wouldn't make any sense...

Posted by Stacy | May 29, 2008 9:19 AM

It is, indeed, me. Though I do hope that Matt is getting a good tan.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | May 29, 2008 9:24 AM

If you read through the linked column, the latter half actually -- bizarrely enough, in my opinion -- is encouraging, rather than discouraging Obama to take an economically populist approach, and that this is what can appeal to a lot of white voters in, say, Appalachia, who haven't yet been willing to support Obama. So it's sort of a tossup on whether the column is really as about "race" as they either believe or promote it as.

Posted by El Cid | May 29, 2008 9:25 AM

Isn't it one of the saddest commentaries on our society that it constantly needs to be explained that "it ain't the same dog," as the author put it. I can't count the number of people that I've had to explain this to in my day to day life. And I live in a college town!

Posted by Stacy | May 29, 2008 9:28 AM

Oh, sorry -- I suggested "bizarrely enough" because usually the major news producers sneer at any genuine pushing of economic policies aimed at both helping and attracting the political support of the vast majority of Americans, its non-super-rich workers and in particular the harder-hit workers.

Posted by El Cid | May 29, 2008 9:29 AM

this is of a piece with the widely held view that racism is basically a problem for black people, not whites, that our history of slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping, housing covenants are an injury to black people, not to the larger country.

Largely because it's a good parsimonious explanation. Nobody says of the pedophile, "Poor bastard." Our sympathy is reserved for the child. Other than being a less good person, what harm is supposed to have come to the racist (or whatever) because of his racism?

Unless Matt has turned black on his vacation, the last line wouldn't make any sense...

Yglesias contains multitudes. Especially not that he has shaved.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 29, 2008 9:29 AM

Voter Y: "I won't vote for X because he says he thinks the Earth is round".

Problem for X? Or a problem for Y?

Posted by dm | May 29, 2008 9:30 AM

The Newsweek exercise is a perfect example of what I call defensive-crouch liberalism. Yes, it's pragmatic to be concerned about the real-world outcome of running a black man for president. But one you start wringing your handsf, it's all too easy to find yourself saying, oh, yeah, we've got to go with a little bigotry-lite on gay marriage, and we've got to let it come to pass that some unmarried teens end up having babies because we can't make sure they have access to the option of an abortion, and on and on.

Because, apparently, we have a problem? No! Sometimes you just have to throw down and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by elle loco | May 29, 2008 9:31 AM

One of the things this election has brought into view for me is what one might call (unfairly?) Matthews' Constant (or, the MSM Axiom):

Americans = Population of America - Blacks

(minus women, Hispanics, Muslims, what have you as well)

Sometimes I think this is why we don't have universal health care or reasonable mass transit -- the benefits won't just go to Americans, but blacks as well.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | May 29, 2008 9:34 AM

The best way for Obama to address this would be by choosing Jeremiah Wright as his running mate. It would encourage a healthy discussion on race and it would be to Obama's advantage politically as well. It would show that Obama doesn’t back down from criticism. Also, Wright has a flair for the talk show circuit, he’s strong and knowledgeable on health care (e.g., the US government invented HIV to kill off the black community), and it will unify a Democratic party that consists entirely of left-wingers who hate America. I can already picture the yard signs: Obama/Wright ’08: God Damn America!

Posted by e-dawg | May 29, 2008 9:35 AM

Good post. On the same note, a lot of southern states have crap economies, crap public schools,a nd crap social services becuase the majority white group has a partly racism-motivated reluctance to fund decent public services.

Being a bigot is bad for you. And bad for your country.

Posted by Ikram | May 29, 2008 9:35 AM

Voter Y: "I won't vote for X because he says he thinks the Earth is round".

Problem for X? Or a problem for Y?

I won't answer this question, but I will point out that X gets to choose his beliefs, and they therefore indicate something about the kinds of choices he makes. Unless you believe that his race indicates something equally substantive about Z, then they're not comparable circumstances (also, if you do believe that, it's a problem for you).

Posted by professordarkheart | May 29, 2008 9:36 AM

SCMT,
I think his(her?) point is that white people's racism could lead them to NOT elect the best possible Presidential candidate. It hinders us all, and could especially hinder the people of Appalachia voting against their own interests.

Posted by Stacy | May 29, 2008 9:38 AM

thoughtful post--thanks again, Ta-Nehisi

how sad for those folks to have such a limited world view, huh? It is going to leave them more and more behind, and more and more "bitter".

Posted by Sybil | May 29, 2008 9:50 AM

thoughtful post--thanks again, Ta-Nehisi

how sad for those folks to have such a limited world view, huh? It is going to leave them more and more behind, and more and more "bitter".

Posted by Sybil | May 29, 2008 9:51 AM

Heh, I tried to make a pretty similar argument fly over at Pandagon last year...Lynchings,overt control of black people is only the show...Using that to rob white people blind is the purpose. That line of thought didn't go over well. I suspect that most white people have an inherent "I'm not a victim" heuristic that makes this a difficult argument to "frame". Some people definitly think of race in very paternalist hues that makes it especially hard.

Posted by shah8 | May 29, 2008 10:02 AM

A-fucking-men.

Posted by MikeT | May 29, 2008 10:08 AM

And curiously, Obama has been remarkably strict in message control aimed at minimizing reports of racism in the campaign. You never see a news story with on-the-record remarks from the campaign regarding racist attacks on campaign workers or field offices, frank remarks from Obama on what he thinks about the 20% of KY and WV Democrats who won't vote for a Black guy, etc.

I think it would be, and will be, to Obama's strategic advantage to point this out. As tragic as it is that a large number of people still exist that think that any Black elected official will just look out for Black folks, these people are largely concentrated in states Obama doesn't need to win, and the rest of the states have a huge number of voters who aren't married to either party who in no way want to be lumped in with poor racists in Appalachia.

Posted by Zach | May 29, 2008 10:34 AM

On the same note, a lot of southern states have crap economies, crap public schools,a nd crap social services becuase the majority white group has a partly racism-motivated reluctance to fund decent public services. - Ikram

Actually, historically, racism was used more as a distraction so that way the (white) overclass didn't have to provide for poor whites either.

Ya gotta listen to MLK's speech wherein he describes how the white southern aristocracy took the world and "feed" poor southern whites "Jim Crow".

Posted by DAS | May 29, 2008 10:44 AM

So someone like Jeffrey Goldberg who has been wrong about so much the past few years fails upward and gets his own blog here, but Ta-Nehisi is right about a lot and only gets a guest spot? Why? Dump Goldberg! Choose Ta-Nehisi! Whose with me?

Posted by Reality Man | May 29, 2008 10:46 AM

Very well put, Ta-Nehesi.

One thing that's been bugging me about the commentary on this election is the constant discussion of Obama's problems with "non-college-educated whites." The use of this phrase seems very deliberate, but it also seems to cut in two different ways. In one sense, it suggests to Obama supporters that the white Democrats most resistant to their candidate are, to put it indelicately, uncultured and ignorant. But it also serves to entrench all those stale right-wing tropes about dastardly liberal elitists who are out of touch with the good, hard-working blue collar folks who make this country great.

The simple fact is that Obama has done quite well with rural, working-class white voters in many parts of the country. In these factory towns in Ohio and the hill country of Eastern Kentucky, something was exposed that only indirectly relates to education and economic class. These are areas where the local culture has been stubbornly resistant to the changes in the rest of the country; where parents and older classmates are passing toxic attitudes down to the next generation. It's a ghetto culture-- just as difficult to root out as the worst problems of the inner cities, and mutually reinforcing to boot.

For Obama to be elected President, he simply cannot run a 25-state electoral college campaign focused on the most favorable turf. He has to confront this head-on, visit the parts of the country most resistant to his leadership, and address their hopes and fears directly.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 29, 2008 10:48 AM

You never see a news story with on-the-record remarks from the campaign regarding racist attacks on campaign workers or field offices, frank remarks from Obama on what he thinks about the 20% of KY and WV Democrats who won't vote for a Black guy, etc.

No, just secret memos and public proclamations by campaign staff and surrogates about the purported race-baiting of the Clintons.

Posted by Swift Loris | May 29, 2008 10:51 AM

OK, up to a point. But you go into an election with the voters you've got, right? Now it's pretty clear that a lot of folks in the left blogosphere would like to do their own purge of the voting rolls--get rid of those dirty, smelly hillbillies, etc., maybe with a literacy test [I've actually seen that proposed on some blogs--ah, progressivism!], but to borrow the metaphor, that dog ain't gonna hunt. In a democracy, it's the voters who reward and punish, for better or for worse. Ta-Nehisi is right: It's a moral problem for the voters, not for Obama. But it's an electoral problem for Obama. He's the one who has to do the wooing. Like El Cid, I think it can be done. Most of these voters who are being interviewed know little of him beyond skin color, and they're not sophisticated enough to mask their racism with the smoke-screens used by middle-class whites; thus they're readily exploited by sensation-seeking journalists. But they're also people with real problems that need to be addressed [and it's telling that "progressives" on this comment thread use those problems as an excuse to dismiss them]. Count me in with those who think Obama needs to take an Appalachia tour. Voters can't be changed by talking down to them; they need to be engaged.

Posted by David in Nashville | May 29, 2008 10:53 AM

Heh, I tried to make a pretty similar argument fly over at Pandagon last year...Lynchings,overt control of black people is only the show...Using that to rob white people blind is the purpose [...] I suspect that most white people have an inherent "I'm not a victim" heuristic that makes this a difficult argument to "frame". - shah8

Interesting analysis of the dynamics at Pandagon.

In certain quarters of the left, even as people in those quarters often provide the most astute analyses of white, male privilage, they themselves operate from positions of privilage and don't see it. Part of the problem with the left gaining traction amongst the white working classes is that they see right through that privilage and it rankles.

As to your point (and pace Ikram), MLK himself made pretty much the same point. I forget the name of the speech, but he put it (approximately ... my memory is less than grammaphonic, so to speak), "the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor southern whites, who needed, food, a diet of Jim Crow".

Even as we liberal moonbats wisely realize that pragmatic, preventative approaches to terrorism, crime and various other social ills is superior to "fighting" those ills with guns, for some reason we have a blind spot when it comes to bigotry which is seen (not incorrectly) as an evil rather than a social ill.

Why are some folks clinging to traditional mindsets and maybe a bit leary when us privilaged, intellectual moonbats say we should give up our centuries old prejudices? Perhaps because that is what they have -- they don't have food, all they have to eat is Jim Crow. If people had something else besides their position as not on the bottom of the hierarchy, maybe they'd be more willing to take the risk and embrace the sorts of progressive change that will be good for us all in the long run.

Of course, if you point that out in mainstream political discourse (c.f. Obama's "bitter" statement), the media'll try to have your head on a stake as multimillionare pundits know on which side their bread is buttered. Moreover, it does rankle those who only have Jim Crow to eat to point out that their diet is less than wholesome -- wouldn't you rather embrace your situation than admit it's bad?

Nu? How do we "transform" the discourse and address the third rail of American politics -- class? I dunno ... they killed MLK when he tried to do it, so I know it won't be easy.

Posted by DAS | May 29, 2008 10:55 AM

I am Reality Man! (not with the Goldberg bashing but with the Ta-Nehisi recommendation)

Posted by owlwhy | May 29, 2008 10:58 AM

...curiously, Obama has been remarkably strict in message control aimed at minimizing reports of racism in the campaign. You never see a news story with on-the-record remarks from the campaign regarding racist attacks on campaign workers or field offices...

Very true. Some of the incidents such as the vandalism of an Obama campaign office in Vincennes, Indiana were kept so quiet (even in the local media) that there has clearly been a deliberate effort by the campaign to downplay the evidence of racial hostility.

I guess the one aspect of this story that gives me some hope is the fact that there was a "Farmers for Obama" organization in Vincennes in the first place.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 29, 2008 11:02 AM

First of all, anecdotes are useless in making political points about our larger society. So they interviewed some idiots in West Virginia and Kentucky who say some blatantly racist crap. I'm sure if you interviewed some black people in South Philly about why they voted for Obama, you'd get something just as idiotic.
Second, those people making those comments are NOT the problem as far as black Americans should be concerned. They don't associate with black people and are too poor to cause them problems. Black Americans are typically victimized by other black people. You can't blame white racist southerners for the fact there's more black people in prison than in college. As for institutional racism, I see white people getting shafted in our society on a daily basis. Isn't that part of Obama's message - that we're all in this together? Further, it's easy and highly disingenuous of Obama supporters to point to a few racist white southerners and say, 'look, Hillary Clinton courted the racist vote and that's why she won those states.' However, that was a small fraction of the votes she got. Most people who voted for her in both Kentucky and West Virginia are not racist and voted for her for other reasons that because Obama's black. And, Barak Obama would be very wise to a start doing what she did to have that kind of success in those states, rather than throwing up his hands and saying, 'ah fuck it, they're all racist hicks, so screw em.'

Posted by Nathan | May 29, 2008 11:14 AM

I suspect that most white people have an inherent "I'm not a victim" heuristic that makes this a difficult argument to "frame". Some people definitly think of race in very paternalist hues that makes it especially hard.

I'm having a hard time with it Shah, and it's not based on any paternalism; it's based on me having a hard time visualizing the conversation where I say "we're all the victims of racism, black or white" and the black people reply "who's this 'we', Kemosabe?"

It strikes me as somewhat arrogant, as a white person, to attempt to appropriate victimhood of racism. I take Ta-Nehisi's point, and it's a good one; it's just that I could never successfully defend it. Racism hurts everybody, but the degree to which I've been hurt by it is minuscule compared to others.

Posted by Chet | May 29, 2008 11:20 AM

Er, thematic disjoint above; I can visualize the conversation just fine, I can't really visualize a good response.

Posted by Chet | May 29, 2008 11:29 AM

"I suspect that most white people have an inherent "I'm not a victim" heuristic that makes this a difficult argument to "frame".

You obviously don't know many white people.

The heuristic for white conservatives is "Even though I'm getting by OK in this world, I am a victim of... (insert taxes, welfare, affirmative action, feminism, secular humanism, gay marriage, gangsta rap, Muslims, immigrants, dirty effing hippies, environmentalists, evolutionists, commie Professors, the ACLU, the DMV, the Zoning Commission, the Trilateral Commission, anti-smoking laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, militant vegans, latte-drinking-Volvo-driving yuppies, tattooed punks who date my daughter, those damn kids who won't get off my lawn, or any other liberal demons in the pantheon of conservative resentments.)

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 29, 2008 11:30 AM

I'm sure if you interviewed some black people in South Philly about why they voted for Obama, you'd get something just as idiotic.

Most areas of South Philly are filled with racist ethnic whites (Irish, Polish, Italian). On my tiny street last summer (I live near 4th and Wolf), I was stirred from sleep by a guy outside my window screaming at the top of his lungs [Eagles Quarterback Donovan] "McNabb's a f**king n***er." Keep in mind, it was the middle of the football offseason and the outburst was unprovoked. Whether some black Philadelphians "hate whitey" is not really germane to Ta-Nehisi's larger point.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 29, 2008 11:31 AM

"point to a few racist white southerners and say, 'look, Hillary Clinton courted the racist vote and that's why she won those states.' However, that was a small fraction of the votes she got."

A few?
Small fraction?

We must have a very different definition of "a few" and "small fraction." While BHO shouldn't simply disregard this group of voters, let's not downplay the amount of Clinton supporters who admitted to a pollster that race play a factor in their vote.

Posted by Ted2 | May 29, 2008 11:40 AM

While BHO shouldn't simply disregard this group of voters, let's not downplay the amount of Clinton supporters who admitted to a pollster that race play a factor in their vote.

And what was the amount of supporters who admitted to a pollster that race played a factor in their vote?

Posted by Rambuncle | May 29, 2008 1:01 PM

I couldn't agree with the post more. To expand the point a bit more into the primary campaign coverage: why is it that the media contantly talk about Hillary Clinton "exposing" certian weaknesses in the Obama coalition with her performance among WCWs in Appalachia? What about what he has done in this race, which is to rip wide open what was viewed as an unchallengeable Clinton coalition one year ago. What about the evident weakness in that once-vaunted juggernaut? Just a thought I've been stuck with lately.

Posted by Mike | May 29, 2008 1:03 PM

Uh, the corpses had to be stacked pretty damned high before the "rest of the world" could do away with slavery with "the stroke of a pen". This isn't oversimplification; it's whitewashing.

Posted by Will Allen | May 29, 2008 1:22 PM

“The simple fact is that Obama has done quite well with rural, working-class white voters in many parts of the country. In these factory towns in Ohio and the hill country of Eastern Kentucky, something was exposed that only indirectly relates to education and economic class. These are areas where the local culture has been stubbornly resistant to the changes in the rest of the country; where parents and older classmates are passing toxic attitudes down to the next generation.”

What makes these areas so unique in terms of their stubbornness to change and their often racist attitudes?

This is a complex issue. Obviously, poverty and lack of education has to pay a role. Not that rich, educated people aren’t racist in some ways, they are of course. But Obama is winning the votes of those Democrats who are educated and/or wealthy across the board. But on the other hand, he was able to win enough votes from blue-collar whites in states where they are loads of them but in states like Wisconsin, Oregon and Iowa. Two blue states and a purple state.

So what is the difference between the blue-collar voter in Oregon and a similar voter in Kentucky? Keep in mind, the average income disparity is less than $2,000 between the two states but Obama lost Kentucky by 20 but won Oregon by 10. To say that a more liberal state is more enlightened seems very crass and I can’t believe something like that to be accurate either.

Posted by Raindog | May 29, 2008 1:53 PM

Well, if you want to classify “Serfs” as “Slaves” then yes, Russia got rid of slavery with the stroke of a pen. And many European countries never were tainted by the scourge of slavery.

But I have more of a problem with the "rest of the civilized world" part than the “stroke of a pen” part. Various countries dealt with slavery with varying degrees of difficulty. The US had a very hard time of it, no doubt, perhaps the worst of any large country. But we weren’t last to the party of emancipation.

Saudi Arabian diplomats had black slaves following them around the halls of the UN as late as the early 1960’s. This came as a rather large shock to representatives of many Western countries, black slaves on American soil and all. In the end, Saudi Arabia finally, formally abolished slavery after JFK demanded it. Of course, do you consider Saudi Arabia “civilized”?

Posted by Raindog | May 29, 2008 2:13 PM

Re Raindog's comment "Saudi Arabian diplomats had black slaves following them around the halls of the UN as late as the early 1960’s. This came as a rather large shock to representatives of many Western countries, black slaves on American soil and all. In the end, Saudi Arabia finally, formally abolished slavery after JFK demanded it."
--------------
They only got rid of their BLACK slaves.

They still have plenty of White slaves following them around the halls of Washington DC.

Posted by Don Williams | May 29, 2008 3:17 PM

Raindog,

Point taken. But I wasn't arguing that the U.S. was the last country to emancipate--indeed, here in the Western hemisphere, I think Brazil had slaves as late as late as the 1880s. My point is simply that 700,000 Americans is high price, and a fracture that lives with us today is a high price. I tried to think of a Western country where emancipation took that sort of toll. I came up with nothing.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | May 29, 2008 4:03 PM

Steve Sailer has said that Obama does well among the descendants of the Puritans and doesn't do as well with the Scots-Irish.

The conclusion always was, "Wow this is a huge problem for Obama," not "Wow. this is a huge problem for these people."

But it is a problem for Obama in terms of his getting elected. And it is not a huge immediate problem for the people who won't vote for a black person, except to the extent that they really, really want to vote for a Democrat but cannot bring themselves to vote black. When the gneral election comes around, if there are stories of people who hate McCain's guts but will vote for him specifically because Obama is black, then I think there will be stories of how racism is a problem for these people because at this point there will be an obvious problem for them.

Posted by Glaivester | May 29, 2008 8:07 PM

Nathan: "You can't blame white racist southerners for the fact there's more black people in prison than in college."

Well, yes, you can. How many southern white Senators prefer harsh prison sentences for crack cocaine over regular cocaine used by whites? How many southern white Senators favor harsh prison terms in general? I don't have the exact count, but I'd be almost certain most of them. Anybody can cite differently, fine.

It should also be obvious that, given human nature, when you have mostly whites passing laws on crimes that affect minorities, you're going to get harsher sentences on those minorities than on whites.

Not to mention that the economic status of blacks disproportionately results in a higher percentage of blacks per capita than whites engaging in those crimes. And that economic status has a lot to do with racism in things like housing lending, less tax money going to poor area schools, and the like.

This is not to say that the reaction of blacks in many cases has been ineffective - going into crime, turning to idiotic religions, etc. But there can be no doubt that white attitudes towards blacks for generations has had a negative impact on blacks ability to compete effectively.

"As for institutional racism, I see white people getting shafted in our society on a daily basis. Isn't that part of Obama's message - that we're all in this together?"

Yes - but the fact that poor blacks started out lower on the totem pole than poor whites - as a result of having been slaves - means they get the disproportionate effect, despite being a smaller demographic. That should be obvious.

And as I said above, when you a minority demographic, you are going to get shafted by the majority demographic. That's basic human - read: primate - nature.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 29, 2008 8:38 PM

"They only got rid of their BLACK slaves.

They still have plenty of White slaves following them around the halls of Washington DC."

Don-

It actually took me a few seconds to figure out what the hell you were talking about. Then visions of "W" doing that "Sword Dance" with that Saudi prince popped into my head.

Posted by Raindog | May 30, 2008 12:50 AM