Obama Navigates the Home Stretch
Start with this: every national election has been about race. Go back as far as you want. You'll find the slavery-oriented elections, the immigration-oriented elections, the Jim Crow elections. You'll find civil rights as an issue before the eruption of the modern civil rights movement (1948 anyone?). There's Lyndon Johnson's famous statement after the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ("We've just handed over the South to the Republicans for at least a generation"); there's George Wallace; there Lee Atwater and his Willie Horton ad. Down to now: the George Allen "macaca" incident effectively ended Allen's absurd status as presidential contender (along with his Senate career).
It's a "structural racism" scene. In the old days the racism was much more overt of course. Ask yourself why black voters are so astute, why they tend to vote in bloc? The answer is clear: they were "trained" under Jim Crow, when of course most blacks weren't permitted to vote. But the ones who could cast their ballot had to choose between, say, lynchmob candidate "A" for senator or governor who wanted to have a lynching EVERY DAY of the week, and lynchmob candidate "B" who only wanted to hold lynchings EVERY OTHER DAY of the week. Distinguishing between the worst and the merely very bad hones your voting skills big time.
OK. Ask yourself why white voters remain so susceptible to fear of a black hat, and the answer is also clear. Deep down, many whites (especially older voters, especially working-class men) still believe that blacks are less intelligent that whites and don't work as hard as whites, that they don't want to work, that they're criminal, that they're inferior. Or a part of them believes this: the unconscious part, the anonymous and disavowed part, the part that comes out when they're drunk or think they're alone with other white people who agree with them. The serious survey research on racial attitudes, and the best ethnographic work on race as "lived experience," bear this out.
Of course many whites are beyond this point, far more racially open than they used to be (especially younger voters and to some extent women). They've embarked on the journey of racial transition. Many whites are antiracist -- at least a lot of the time. There is now a white "double consciousness," something roughly parallel to the condition Du Bois's black American experienced: "...[A]n American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder...." Well, whites don't have to face anything like that kind of pressure; to a significant extent they can still think of themselves as "just people," people "without race." But not nearly so much anymore. Today they too have to consider their dual identities: an American, a white, two nervous souls. And in some places they're already a minoity themselves: California is now 58% nonwhite, and the whole country is trending that way. By around 2050, the US will be a "majority minority" society.
What what does Obama have to do with this? Everything. He's navigating it, in a whole new way. How many votes he gets depends on how well people can understand the course that he is steering through the shoals and reefs of the latest national election to be about race.
Before we consider his route in greater detail, take a look at those reefs! There's the Bill Clinton reef, the one that dismissed him as the "black candidate" in the Jesse Jackson mold after South Carolina. There's the Islamophobia reef (the turban picture, the madrasa charge, the stressing of his middle name). There's the anti-semitism reef (repudiate Farrakhan! denounce Palestinian terror! stand up for Israel!). There's a black nationalism reef (most effectively represented by Jeremiah Wright at the moment -- we'll get to him in a moment) and a black left reef (Adolph Reed, Glenn Ford), whose main criticism -- although it is not usually expressed this forthrightly -- is that Obama is "tom-ing." So whites and blacks are both going after Obama, rightists (mainly) but also quite a few leftists. He's steering through the channel, trying not to run aground, trying to appeal to voters who can still think, who are not ruled by fear or resentment.
It ain't easy, but it's still possible. Despite quite a few gaffes, Obama remains on the high road. He has not gone negative in any major way. His campaign operation has been well-crafted, well-financed, and well-organized. And most of all, he is approaching race, in the context of another highly racialized national election, in an entirely new way; he is recognizing the contradictions. Take a look at his Philly speech, where he tells us:
[W]e cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction...
In mid-March Obama still sought dialogue with the black radicalism and nationalism that necessarily and logically maintains strong roots in ghettos (and in black middle-class enclaves too) across America. He disapproved, he admonished, but he also recognized the roots of that anger. In fact he explained it as a generational phenomenon. He refused to spank Reverend Wright, settling for mere disagreement instead. He provided the nation, not only with a Lincolnesque speech, as Garry Wills has pointed out, but with an advanced lesson on race and democracy. And beyond that, he recouped some political points that Wright's fulminations had cost him, through the tender mercies of Fox News and the like.
But Wright was not reined in, not mollified. Perhaps he saw himself as a contemporary abolitionist, another Jeremiah, another prophet. Garry Wills sees him as playing the same counterpoint to Obama that John Brown (another wild-eyed preacher) played for Lincoln. One thing was clear: by late April Wright was steering an entirely different course than Obama. Far from navigating among the shoals of double consciousness, far from setting the helm for the proper destination -- winning the election -- as Obama was doing, Wright smashed his craft on the rocks of endemic white racism. Obama properly denounced Wright fiercely and thoroughly this time. Wright had not only betrayed his leader; he had arrogantly abandoned the quest for a new democratic racial politics.
Obama continues on the high road. Though he still holds the formal lead, his drive for the nomination remains in peril. The threat does not come from black supporters, who remain solidly behind him. As in earlier days, the black electorate is the most percipient, and blacks are still pound-for-pound the wisest voters in the nation. No, the threat to Obama comes now from white voters, especially older ones, the ones still disdainful of blacks, still afraid of blacks in ways they may not realize, still new to white double consciousness, still out of touch with white racial dualism. Obama must convince these whites to trust him, at least as much as they trust the other guy.
There is only one way to do that: to fight for their class interests. As working-class, as middle-class, they have suffered at the hands of the corporations, the elite, the Republicans. They have been screwed by Bush, screwed by the war. Obama must articulate their anger, as John Edwards did to some extent. He must turn that anger against the greed an corruption, the callousness and brutality, of the Republicans. He must channel that anger, lest it return to the anti-black racism that runs so deep in American culture.
We haven't seen much anger from him yet, maybe a bit in his repudiation of Wright, but his chief emotion then seemed to be sadness. Obama needs to develop some serious and articulate anger at the powers that be. He'd better do it fast. Can a black man get angry in a national election? Can he channel the righteous indignation of America, not just black but also white? Can he represent BOTH class resentment AND racial tolerance? America's future depends on the answer to that question.
Howard Winant teaches sociology at UC Santa Barbara, where he also directs the Center for New Racial Studies. He is the author of The World Is a Ghetto and (with Michael Omi) Racial Formation in the United States.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Why does everyone wanna see Obama get tough and angry? Are you kidding? So then everyone can call Obama rev wright? an angry black man? so then all those lil ole white ladies that are scared of black men already can see obama get angry and then they can clutch their lil purses harder? NO! Obama does things the way he is supposed too. He has been honest and even tempered from the start...and if anything is good...its a CONSISTANT candidate...someone who says one thing..claims one thing...and sticks to the script proving they are what they say they are...not an angry black man
what needs to happen is all those "whites" that are scared to have a black president..they need to get with the day and age..judge this man by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin...womp womp
I think Obama will have huge issues going forward after this Tuesday evening! The bottom is dropping out of his campaign, look out below!!
Sure pal, and Clinton is gonna blow away all her competition on Super Tuesday. Oh maybe in the Potomac Primaries. Well she'll wrap this thing up with Texas and Ohio. Maybe she can do it at Pennsylvania. Let's rely on NC and Indiana to settle this thing.
Do you people even bother to read the numbers? She is behind, she will not over take him in pledged delegates. Superdelegates are coming off the fence for him in larger numbers. I really fail to see how "the bottom is dropping out of his campaign".
This article is interesting because it talks about "whites" and "non whites". For example we are told that California is fifty eight per cent "non white".
Guess what Obama's race problem is? whites? No. He is getting killed in the latino vote, the brown vote which is technically "non white" among our current demographers.
The brown vote is going better than two to one for Hillary.
Will they vote for Obama over McCain? This article doesn't discuss that rather important question in states like Texas, New Mexico and others.
Obama is 50% white. Exactly.
Obama is about Obama
He could care less about the south side of Chicago and even less about the rest of the country.
Do something. Then run.
Anything!
"We haven't seen much anger from him yet, maybe a bit in his repudiation of Wright, but his chief emotion then seemed to be sadness. Obama needs to develop some serious and articulate anger at the powers that be."
Not yet. He needs to keep his powder dry just a little bit longer. His foe now is the power structure. Hillary and McCain have joined forces to defeat him, in order to defend the status quo. He needs the nomination. Then he can go for the win.
In this article you make statements that are untrue. A black person who will vote for another black person just because he is black? What does that mean?
A young college student who propably does not remember or identify with those who came before them who made it possible for a black person to be in a postition to run for candidacy are more likely to be non racist? Older people still think black people are unintelligent then white people?
What about sound, intelligent black people voting for whom they think is a better candidate?
What about not so sound and just learning, idealistic and not so experienced (either on the street or in general life) voting for a black president because they are not quite as racist as the older white people?
Hmmm, sounds like you are trying to make an arguement here, but all I can get from this is that you think everyone is making decisions not based on intelligence.
Take a look at the article again. Regarding the black vote he said, "As in earlier days, the black electorate is the most percipient, and blacks are still pound-for-pound the wisest voters in the nation."
I couldn't sleep so I'm sitting here reading the Clinton/Obama stuff. Race and gender, 24/7. It would appear that Democrats come in two flavors. Black people and white middle class women. From my distant perspective as a working class white guy it gets a little boring sometimes. I see that the country is on hard times and getting worse. People need jobs. They need to live indoors and eat regular. They need to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. None of this seems to interest the Democrats. They cant be bothered. They are "having a conversation".
Rasmussen's State by State snapshot poll shows Democrats losing FIVE states simply by having Clinton head the ticket against McCain. These same 5 states flip to Obama when he heads the ticket.
See for yourself:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_snapshot
Blacks are wise for supporting the black candidate.
Whites are racists for supporting a white candidate.
Yeah that's a position that's going to win over a whole bunch of blue collar and older voters.
How about blacks are wise for voting for their self-interests, and whites who vote for their gut reactions are stupid?
That's how I read the article
Every election has been about race? Puleeeese. What is Obama going to do to combat racism, that hasn't already been done on the governmental side?
Your basic premise-that every election is about race is just absurd. Race is a PART of elections, it is not their essence. Enough already.
"Class resentment"? I beg your pardon...I don't have any problem with somebody who tries harder or is more gifted than I and so exceeds my achievements - and wealth.
But to warp the tax laws and use "free trade" to destroy America's Middle Class in order to enrich themselves?
I have a real problem with people who usurp my government in order to legitimize economic oppression and theft from the Treasury of the United States of America.
Very smart piece...Obama has to speak to the sense of working class white whose lives and communities have indeed been by distant powers. He can do it with cool anger, cool moral outrage, rather than a rant, but he has to keep acknowleding that choices that have been made that leave some people rich and others increasingly desperate--across racial lines. He's done it some, but this can't be an aside, it has to be a primary theme.
Obama is between a rock and a hard place.......He can't win for losing.
If he shows anger he is labeled ANOTHER ANGRY BLACK MAN.....If he doesn't HE'S WEAK.
If he brings up Hillary's past he is accused of DIRTY POLITICS, if he does not HE'S WEAK.
He was NOT BLACK ENOUGH, then the MSM found Rev. Wright and he became TOO BLACK.
He is labelled a MUSLIM, even though he has has a rough road to travel JUST BY BEING A MEMBER OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
He is SMART, ARTICULATE AND COMPOSED, and because of this HE IS AN ELITIST.
Obama is FIGHTING 5 FRONTS ......HILLARY, BILL, JOHN McCAIN, THE GOP MACHINERY AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA......WITH ALL OF THEM HE IS DAMNED IF HE IS, AND DAMNED IF HE ISN'T.
He has to work harder than Hillary JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK........AND HILLARY HAS THE NERVE TO SAY THAT HE IS NOT SRONG ENOUGH TO GO UP AGAINST McCAIN......HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He is elitist. he said that he if got the nomination, that Hillary supporters would vote for him. But he said that if she got the nomination, Obama supporters wouldn't vote for her. I'd call that pretty friggin elitist. THEY ARE BOTH DEMOCRATS.
These so-called members of the "new electorate," have no loyalty to party. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, most say they'll either vote for McCain or stay home. No genuine democrat would ever consider voting republican. Especially after the last 7 plus years of republican malfeasence.
Sorry, but Clinton would force Democrats to lose 5 states: Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. It's not based on elitism or race, just plain ol' Clinton fatigue.
See for yourself:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_snapshot
No "genuine democrat" would try to win an election by lying and by using politics of personal destruction. She was quick to accuse the other candidates last year when they dared to question her. But now that she is losing she thinks those tactics are acceptable.
There is only one democrat vying for the nomination and I hope racism doesn't prevent people from seeing that.
I heard him tell his supporters to support the Democratic nominee in the general election, because the differences between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee would be far greater than the differences between himself and Senator Clinton. He's said this in many of his speeches. See his most recent speech in North Carolina.
tel8034, GOD bless you, you have spoken the truth,neither of the two other campaign can not deal with all the smears and dirty tricks that Sen. Obama has to deal with, and then keep to the high road, and as he goes through the baptism of fire he just keep getting stronger.
When Hillary went to Yale Law School, 90% of the other law students were men.
AMEN! I COULDNT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF...
I understand the logic of the argument for anger, but in reality, it's a loser for him unless it's specifically justified, as in the Wright denunciation. He cannot, like Clinton, expect white voters who are shaky on the racial aspect to be able to identify with him if he's angry, the way they do with her. He's gaining points for his coolness under pressure, his unflappability. To become "the angry black man" now would just echo Wright, and Obama will benefit from contrast, not similarity, between his former pastor and himself. Better for him to elucidate the anger in terms of what people have to be angry about, to show them he really understands them, but instead of flailing about punching the air like Clinton, he needs to spell out what has to be done to remove the causes of their anger.
It's funny that people perceive Clinton as having "fire in the belly" when she's actually just getting them worked up over their problems, and the fire's all theirs. It's a win for Obama if he can tap that energy and get the limbic to work with the cerebral so they can really hear that he has specific solutions in mind for turning things around, and he is truly on their side.
You are so right. Great post.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
