The Politics of Identity Politics

Last weekend's Washington Post/ABC poll of white and Black voters racial attitudes revealed, well, not much at all.

The headline was "3 in 10 Americans Admit To Racial Bias". According to this poll, when asked the useless question of whether one experiences "feelings of personal racial prejudice", Blacks (34% of respondents) rate worse than whites (30%). (I say Black respondents are more truthful. Meanwhile, yellow and brown apparently are still not worth polling at all.)

But the piece really focused on some obscure "racial sensitivity index" whose methodology apparently couldn't be fully disclosed for fear someone might actually call b.s. on it. According to this fantastical statistical invention, whites who have a Black friend on speed-dial, just bought a brownstone in Harlem, and have downloaded a Weezy mixtape in the last 3 years are about 20% more likely to vote for Barack Obama than their Lil Abner cousins.

(In the fog of a rowdy Saturday night wedding reception, I watched Sunday morning pundits making big hay of this "fact." Not to stereotype unfairly, but White Northeastern pundits shouldn't be so self-congratulatory. If I was a Southern white, well, I guess I wouldn't hate 'em any less than I do now. You see? I don't stereotype unfairly.)

So after creating a thoroughly bunk way of measuring how racist white American voters actually are -- the numbers go: 21% "congratulations you're not racist", 50% "you're pretty much not racist or probably you are a little," and 29% "you're embarrassing to us so please stay home unless John King needs to interview you"-- much of the poll's conclusions are completely useless.

Or just plain tiresome. Of the racially insensitive 29%, the Post intones, "Obama has some convincing to do..." Yes, colored folk--when your boss calls you a terrorist-fist-bumping radical Muslim baby daddy, you must excuse him and tell him nicely no, he's wrong, would he like to have a conversation about it. (Please excuse us if we spit instead.)

What was news to me was that the gaps in perceptions of race relations are as bad as they were on the eve of the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as "not so good" or "poor," while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination.

Right.

After Katrina, No Child Left Behind, Incarceration Nation, and two oil wars, it's apparently more difficult than ever to find any consensus that race relations aren't so great and racial discrimination still exists.

That's not just depressing, it's "two Americas" depressing to both of my consciousnesses.

But wait, it gets worse.

To wit:

Many think Obama has the potential to transform current racial politics. Nearly six in 10 believe his candidacy will shake up the racial status quo, for better or worse.

...

African Americans are much more optimistic than whites on this score: Sixty percent said Obama's candidacy will do more to help race relations, compared with 38 percent of whites.

Is it possible that Blacks -- and the great, underpolled mass of Latinos and Asian Americans (who will likely vote Obama in much greater majorities than whites) -- place too much faith that Obama can reverse the national course on institutional racism?

And why are whites -- who say they are overwhelmingly ready to elect a "Black president" (one almost hears the caveat "if he's qualified" being attached like a reflex) -- less likely to believe that race relations will get better if Obama wins? Do they know what's in the Kool-Aid? Or are they are sober about what may happen if Obama actually challenges white privilege?

It's impossible not to appreciate the kind of Jackie Robinson-like line Barack Obama must walk right now in this campaign. All of this comes in the face of the growing list of white pundits who would presume to lecture Obama on just how to win white voters, from the soccer moms to the lunchpail dads. Yes, forget all you've heard about angry feminists and people of color and feminists of color, because here are the real identity politics at work.

For as unilluminating as this poll is, it poses a key question for Obama's supporters and anyone concerned with racial justice, not just "feelings of racial prejudice": how do you find and engage those who don't want to know what change really looks like?

Originally posted at Vibe.com

Follow Jeff Chang on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zentronix

Comments

[tyrdofwaitin]

Jeff: Polls are no different than the MSM media. It's not the answers that are flawed, it's the questions. The Parrot Media (they parrot most of what they hear, distort the rest and don't ask the hard questions) delights in its own delusions.

[WorkingClass]

Mr. Chang: I agree. The poll is BS. Is that your point? It is my opinion that Obama will win in a land slide in November. Would that event tell us anything we didn't know before about the prevalence of white racism? If so, what would it tell us?

[KELLI2L]

We seem to have such a poor choice of candidate(s) that whomever wins will probably not be for love or trust in that candidate, but for desperation that the other one not get in.

[TERRYKEITH4]

exactly!

[JMBrodie]

Well, no. I like the person I am voting for. Excited about it, too. But I harbor no illusions that a president is like God. Just a person with a job to do.

[HFh]

The first thing that will happen if Obama becomes president is that I expect to hear a lot of: why would you ever claim discrimination exists? You people have a Black president.

Of course he won't be able to get a cab, but, well, there you go.

[TERRYKEITH4]

Uh huh.... And honestly I think that's one of the reasons why HRC still has Black supporters.

[Liberalfrombirth]

I was contacted last weekend for a Rasmussen poll in which I was asked "Are you more likely to vote for a party who will raise taxes and provide big government and services, or a party who will lower taxes and provide smaller government and less services". There was no answer stating "This question is nonsensical horseshit ", just "yes" or "no", so I had to vote "I don't know". If polls really wanted to find out the true answer to their questions, they'd give you a chance to reply verbally so you could challenge some of their stupid, biased questions.

[dadw5boys]

They interviewed IMUS listeners for their polls.

[BARRISTER]

Why does everyone FORGET that Obama's Mother was WHITE and, if he is "black" then he is "white" as well. Therefore BOTH blacks and whites can identify with him and claim him.

[HFh]

It doesn't really work that way, though. We respond to phenotypes, not genotypes.

[OhMyGoodness]

Because a child born to a black parent and a white parent has always been considered black. Obama is not different in that regard. I'm going to step out on a limb here and say that Whites have never identified with a person of mixed heritage and they're not going to start now. His skin does not look like theirs and as long as that holds true he will always be considered black.

[Anthrofreak]

Because the "one drop" rule is still in full effect. It doesn't matter that you are half white. In this country if you are racially mixed you will be defined as the non-white half. It's an unspoken rule. Tiger woods is more Asian than anything else percentage wise, yet he is still the first African American to win the master's.

The culture enforces this definition which is why people like Lisa Bonet, Halle Berry, Lenny Kravitz and Barack Obama all identify as being black, although they are as much white as they are black. A person with brown skin walking around calling themselves white is ridiculous in the context of American culture. So even though intellectually people know Barack is half white, it will not make white people identify with him more than they would otherwise, no matter how many pictures surface of him with his white mother and grand parents.

I despise the American MSM.

[dr4Will]

your left wing assumptions are ridiculous--at your age you have little knowledge of the reality of white Americas bias against minorities--put all your theories together they mean very little--prejudice exists and is much higher than 3 out of 10--you and your left wing followers will be mighty surprised when the election is over in November---who will you blame then!!

[Lolly]

Who indeed. Who are you "blaming?" Are you glad that there are racists and that "left wingers" are underestimating their presence? I really can't make sense of that comment.

[lafrance]

I think the parsing of the polls and the media obsession with race is more to confirm the media's desired storyline: Obama's problem with (insert demographic group here).
For months it seems all the pundits want to talk about is how Obama has a problem with (insert group here) and how it will destroy his candidacy.
Now they want to still hammer away on this theme. And they so want to make 75% of white america racist.
Yes, there are racists out there. But, there is bias towards McCain's age as well.
White America is less racist then many in white America assume. Look at all the white states who voted for Obama and are excited to support him. But, the media mysteriously forgets this. All they care about is trying to make their pre-written storylines fit. Even if they have to jam it.

[PioneerKing]

JEFF:

The poll did reflect poorly on The Washington Post and ABC - they do a poll on race and don't poll Asians, Latinos and Native Americans. Once again the Washington Post and ABC reinforce the notion that they are harbingers of bigotry and intolerance.
"...Meanwh­ile, yellow and brown apparently are still not worth polling at all."