Much of the world is fascinated by the US presidential election campaign.The main reason for the fascination is because the US is ready to do something that most developed countries are yet to do: elect a representative from an oppressed minority as head of state.
Could Australia ever elect an Aborigine or an Asian Australian as prime minister? Could Germany ever elect a German-born Turk as PM? What about a Black as head of state in Britain or France?
Yet here we are in the US discussing the real possibility that a man with a father from Africa, representing a community of descendants of former slaves, could be elected president of the most powerful country in human history.
So it is not a surprise that Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama’s skin colour and biracial origins is a subtle and not-so-subtle issue in the presidential campaign. During the Democratic Party primaries, Hillary Clinton and her supporters, made references to the “fact” that Obama could not appeal to enough “blue collar workers” — meaning the white working class — to defeat the Republican nominee.
Now the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, is playing the same dirty race card to undermine support for Obama. The most infamous ad involved the two young white female personalities (Britney Spears and Paris Hilton) and Obama.
There is a long history of race-baiting politics using the fear of a Black man with white women in US society.
Race matters
Will the US overcome its history of racial prejudice to elect the first Black president?
Race is the elephant in the room, but few will openly acknowledge its role in this unprecedented presidential race. Code words are used by the media to avoid the issue.
Yet the fact is, the Democrats expect to win big in the House and Senate races because of the very low approval rating of the Republicans — especially President George Bush (around 20%) and his diabolical Vice-President Dick Cheney (even less).
But the polls for the November presidential race show it is too close to call. McCain is in a statistical dead heat with Obama.
There is only one reason for this: Obama’s skin colour. The Republican attack machine, led by former Bush aides, is running negative ads that tell angry white voters upset by high gas prices, fewer jobs and a dark future that Obama can’t be trusted.
While it is true that racial prejudice among whites is at historic low levels, there is no doubt that the 23% of whites who openly state they will never vote for a Black person can turn the 2008 elections.
What’s striking is that the Republicans have been able to attack Obama by playing the “race card” then blame Obama for explaining how the race card will be used by the Republicans.
The media falls for the lie as it did four years earlier when the same tactic was used to smear (“Swift boat”) Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry over his military record during the Vietnam war.
Worse, the pundits have all accepted the false concept of “blue collar workers” being only white — leaving out Black, Latino and Asian workers.
Obama’s campaign has played their hand too carefully on the race-bating issue. The campaign has a strategic fear that any mention of race will agitate the “fear factor” among whites.
Race matters because racism is institutionalised throughout US society. The fact that an African American could be elected to the most powerful office in the world is not a concern to the corporate ruling class that wields power in the US. It knows Obama will defend its interests.
But that truth is not enough to be elected.
Many mainstream journalists are now beginning to openly discuss the issue. E. J. Dionne Jr., of the Washington Post, observed, “There is no doubt that two keys to this election are: How many white and Latino votes will Obama lose because of his race than a white Democrat would have won? And how much will African American turnout grow, given the opportunity to elect our nation’s first Black president?”
Dionne notes that in 1960 when John F. Kennedy ran and won as the “first Catholic president”, his religion was an issue and he won 80% of the Catholic vote — about 30% greater than the Catholic share won four years earlier.
Obama is fully aware of this history. It’s why he is shifting on issues like affirmative action and talking more about “class” as the basis for qualifications to enter higher education and other positions.
The fact is skin colour is always a factor even for wealthier, more educated Blacks. Study after study reveals that equally qualified whites and Blacks applying for jobs, nine times out of 10 whites will get the job first. Affirmative action is necessary to level the playing field and to ensure equal opportunity.
The problem for Obama and his supporters is that while the blatantly racist campaigns of the past (Richard Nixon’s infamous 1968 “Southern strategy” to get poor whites to change parties) are no longer viable, today’s campaigns are more subtle as the Spears-Hilton ad showed — and they tend to work.
The Republican attack machine uses “fear” of the Black man and Obama’s alleged “elitism” (he attended Columbia University in New York and Harvard Law School) as wedge issues for white workers.
The “fear the Black man” machine is not just aimed at working-class whites but Latinos and Asians too. It is noteworthy that two thirds of Latinos are polling for Obama, who they see as closer to their concerns especially on the issue of immigration. The Asian community is more divided but a majority still favour Obama.
If the Republican attack machine succeeds in turning the election into the “white guy versus the Black man”, the outcome of the election could change with many anti-racist Americans voting for Obama to express opposition to the race baiting of the Republican campaign.
There is no way today to predict what will happen in November.
In the late 1960s, after the victories of the civil rights movement that led to some important legal changes in law, the first Black candidates for higher office (big city mayors) faced vicious racial attacks.
Whenever those elections were nominally labeled “nonpartisan” many on the socialist left backed those candidacies as a rejection of racism and support to the right of the Black community to have elected political representation. They knew that these candidates still identified as Democrats.
The 2008 presidential election has some similarities. The difference of course is that Obama doesn’t pretend to be independent.
He isn’t running against the old guard of his party. He is campaigning as a “centrist” new Democrat — as seen in his positions on major issues from energy, the economy, health care and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Moving rightwards
Obama’s quickly organised and highly publicised international trip in July, in this context, was to prove that he is “presidential”. What he said was in line with the shift in US imperial policy that began under former president Bill Clinton and accelerated under Bush.
His trip to the Middle East was not a repudiation of the Bush-Cheney policies but an argument that the Democrats have a better strategic plan to protect Israel and defend US interests. Obama supports US domination of the Arab world. He advocates a more aggressive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He even told his staff and reporters not to wear green while in Israel and Jordan because it symbolises Hamas!
Obama also told the media that he sees generals as tacticians carrying out the president’s orders. Obama like Bush will pick generals who support or accept his polices.
When Obama addressed hundreds of thousands of people in Berlin, he focused on the responsibility to defend the “free world” from terrorism.
While much of the left sees Obama shifting positions on Iraq by proposing a long-term withdrawal, he strongly advocates a new “surge” into Afghanistan — a horrendous war that has killed untold thousands and further impoverished an already devastated people. He is also for a more aggressive policy toward Pakistan.
Obama simply believes he’s smarter than the Bush team and thus more capable of defending US interests.
Obama’s domestic programs are centre-right too. The “yes you” rhetoric taps the real desire for a change of leadership. While he will support some liberal positions on women’s rights and civil rights, his health care program is modest and does not guarantee health care as a right.
On energy policy, he first opposed any new off shore oil drilling. But as the Republican attack machine pushed back hard, he shifted his stance to allow it if it was “part of a comprehensive energy plan”.
The differences with McCain are sharper on social issues like affirmative action and abortion rights. But even on these issues, Obama is fudging more and more to appeal to conservative prejudices.
Two contradictory realities
The rightward shift assumes that minorities, particularly African Americans, will turn out big and vote for him anyway.
It is likely that Blacks will, due to the historic nature of electing a Black president. But for other groups, it’s not so clear. Obama will need a big turnout to overcome the white fear factor backlash.
While “lesser evil” politics can never be a solution to oppression, the issue of race could be decisive if the Republicans are successful in turning the election into a referendum vote for or against the candidate best able to protect whites.
The contradiction of the Obama phenomenon is that it reflects two realties. One is the possibility that the world’s sole superpower is okay with having a Black man as its president.
Second, is the polarisation and legacy of racism in the US. The reality is the ruling class may be okay, but white politicians seeking to advance are not ready to give up their privileges and power.
The election of a Black man as president would send a message that citizenship and rights should not be based on the false construct called “race” or the shade of your skin.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sacerdos