In the exit polls from Kentucky, racism once again played a major factor in Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming victory. The racism revealed in Kentucky (where 17% of the voters were whites who said they voted against Obama partly because of race) ranked a close second to last week’s vote in West Virginia, where 19% of the voters fit this criterion (more than any other primary).
Here’s my theory. High concentrations of racist views create a culture of racism in a community, and even an entire state, what I call a racist tipping point: In areas like Kentucky and West Virginia, high levels of racism and the lack of countering forces reached a point where racist messaging (such as the Muslim rumor nonsense) spreads widely and is believed.
It’s possible that similar levels of racism exist in other populations, just waiting to be triggered by events. It’s possible that whites in other states are simply better taught how to conceal their racism, even though it still lurks beneath the surface. But I believe that the willingness of so many whites in Kentucky and West Virginia to admit their racism openly reflects a more powerful culture of racism that dominates in these states. With a very small black population, and few white progressives who are willing to speak out against racism, these racist communities reach a tipping point.
Obama’s substantial victories in many heavily white states (such as Oregon, Vermont, and Iowa) show that it’s not race, it’s racism. These states reflect a different political culture where openly expressing racism is less accepted. Kentucky and West Virginia are the worst of all political worlds for Obama: states on the border of the South, but lacking the reality of integration found in the deep South. The demographics of these two states (very old, and poorly educated), make it less likely for them to experience contact with people of other races. It’s notable that Obama also did poorly among white voters in other Southern states, but fewer of those white voters expressed the kind of racism (for example, only 6% of the voters in Georgia were racist).
It’s also notable that racism in these states seems to be separated from sexism. The sexist vote was only 3% of the total vote. The people who voted for Clinton based partly on her gender constituted 13% of the total vote. Gender-based voting helped Clinton gain approximately 10 percentage points in Kentucky. Race-based voting cost Obama 13 percentage points in Kentucky. So identity-based voting accounted for most of the margin of Clinton’s victory.
In all of the media analysis about Clinton’s overwhelming victories in Kentucky and West Virginia, there’s a strong desire to avoid talking about racism. The pundits talk about the "white working class" rather than the "white racists." The two are not the same; plenty of white working-class folks oppose racism. And most of Clinton’s supporters aren’t racist. But we’re simply in denial if we imagine that racism is not a factor in these elections. Credit to Chris Matthews for at least broaching the subject on MSNBC tonight, as he noted these exit poll numbers and even asked, "Has Hillary spoken out against racial prejudice recently, or just gender prejudice?" Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough declares, "This is not so much about race."
One particularly strange column about race appeared by Meghan Daum in the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. Noting that Barack Obama ranks #8 on the humor website Stuff White People Like, Daum concludes that the white working class supporters of Hillary Clinton should be deemed "off-white." This is an example of an intellectual lightweight who doesn’t quite understand a joke website that mocks white liberals in general. According to Daum, "You don't have to be white to be white. You just need enough disposable income and the desire to buy the lifestyle accessories and adopt the points of view that were once exclusively associated with it." Daum concludes, "the greatest tension may not be between black and white but white and off-white." In this bizarro world, racist whites who hate Obama are deemed "non-white," while blacks who support Obama are deemed "white." The notion that blacks and progressives are the "privileged" part of our society is strange.
Daum’s kind of nonsense comes from the desire to avoid confronting the question of race, and by claiming that poorer, less educated whites are the true victims in our society, oppressed by blacks and progressives. The real problem is the truly privileged people in America (the rich, who are almost entirely white) have convinced parts of the white electorate that blacks and liberals are the enemy, rather than corporations and their lobbyists.
We don’t need a conversation about race. We need a conversation about racism. I know some people may feel that bringing up racism hurts Obama, because it raises questions about whether any black candidate can overcome the high levels of racism revealed in these exit polls. However, I believe that confronting racism is the best hope for Obama’s campaign. The white states of Iowa, Vermont, and Oregon supported Obama in part because racism is less accepted in the places where they live. We need to confront racism everywhere in this country if we want to defeat it. And we need to talk about racism if we want to reduce its influence in the fall election.
UPDATE: Oregon's exit polls have been released. The vote of those who said race was a factor was only 10%, and they split evenly between Clinton and Obama. That means only 5% of Oregon's voters were racist. About 7% of Oregon voters were sexist, but that was outweighed by the 10% of voters who supported Clinton partly because of gender.
Read More at John K Wislon's DailyKos Diary. Crossposted at ObamaPolitics.
One study in the 1970s of Cincinnati urban Appalachians suggested that black Appalachians in that city preferred accessing Appalachian-specific social service resources when there was a choice between Appalachian social services and more mainstream resources. Appalachian cultural and class ties still existed even when Appalachian people moved away from the region and very regularly transcended race. (con't)
Certainly racism exists throughout Appalachia as it, too, permeates all of American society. However, how do we explain that the town of Matewan, Mingo county, West Virginia, 95% Caucasian, had elected and re-elected--for several terms--a black mayor? A black man still sits on the Matewan Town Council today. Also, how do we explain the numerous inter-racial relationships which existed between high school students in Matewan and Williamson, WV as far back as the 1970s? I could go on, but will not belabor my point.
For Obama to find his voice, for Appalachian people, HE MUST GO THERE. He must attend small venues and speak directly to the people--THEY WILL LISTEN. These are people who Bill and Hillary made to feel special and important, and the Appalachian people responded. The UMWA endorsed Obama today. They understand their constituents.
Obama, go to Appalachia. Talk with them. You will find that these people are more class than race oriented. Although they carry unique cultural characteristics, they are not as different from the mainstream as we think.
From what I understand it is something like 93%.
Has anyone asked them if race is a factor in their vote?
Are any or all of these voters racists?
What about the black and AA voters who vote for Clinton? Are they racists?
Did anyone do polls on the white people who voted for Obama?
Are they voting for him because he is black?
What are the numbers? How many?
Are they being racists?
Does it matter?
If not, why not?
WTF?
If you're voting FOR someone because of their race or sex and they are considered a minority, that's not racist or sexist...it's choosing to support a minority (the underdog).
What's interesting in this race is that they're both considered minorities (not in numbers for women, but in power).
But I think the bottom line is that it's only racist/sexist if you will NOT vote for someone because of their race or sex.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with this. AAs can vote for whomever they want just as white racists can. But AAs won't decide the election in november, unfortunately, white independents will. Better hope enough of them drink the kool-aid before it's too late. The more time passes the less Obama appeals to people outside of his niche.
Btw, I'm black and I support Obama. I began as a supporter of John Edwards, after all I'm southern. But when he dropped out of the race, I like what Obama had to say. I don't support Obama because he's black, any more than I supported John Edwards because he was southern. Alan Keyes has managed to get his name on the ballot a few times. He happens to be black, but I have never and will never vote for him. Skin color is nothing but window dressing. Most of us have sense enough to focus on substance.
What an honest bunch!
No, most Blacks are voting for Obama because the media created the impression that the Clinton's insulted them which was a meme created by master astroturf expert David Axelrod.
Even Jesse Jackson, when asked laughed and said, no, come on, we know what is going on here.
in other words "politics as usual.:
And of course there is the clip with Russert asking Obama abiut his campaign pushing the divisiveness of it and of course, since Russert had 4 pages of memo's coming from the campaign pushing that meme he couldn't deny it. So he said yes, he regretted it in retrospect and also going forward. These memo's, in part were sent out/dated *after* Obama came out and said that Clinton said something "unfortunate" and they would not be discussing it anymore.
"Russert asked him if he regretted his South Carolina press secretary preparing a memo about Clinton's alleged racial offenses in "hindsight," and Obama jumped in: "Not only in hindsight, but going forward. It is my responsibility to make sure we're setting a clear tone in our campaign.""
Paradoxically, blacks and Obama liberals voting for Obama are - almost always unwittingly - participating in racism, since Obama’s post-racial politics benefit the white majority over the black minority. Too many liberals and blacks are moved by identity politics; coupled with a profound ignorance of the reality of racism, this has led both groups to support a candidate whose purpose is not to move us beyond racism, but to dissimulate racism in America, which is the new racist project.
Post-racial politics are necessarily post-civil rights politics, and these politics, in turn, necessarily assume that racism is (a) race-inspired individual acts of discrimination that (b) reflect the residue of a racist past. Post-racial politics are therefore distinctly harmful to the interests of the black community and contrary to the expressed desires of many white liberals who want to bring about an end to racism. First, post-racial politics (on purpose, by its creators) confuse the reality of racism, which cannot be reduced to individual acts of racially-motivated discrimination. Secondly, the assumption that racism is largely in our past is a key component in a modern racist myth about America, namely that America is no longer a fundamentally racist country. This myth is the “new racism” – also known as colorblind liberalism – and its politics are more insidious than the politics of the “old racism” because they turn victims of racism into advocates for racism.
I believe that you are on to something. Nobody talks about what you've coined as the "white or off- white" prejudice. For me its a discussion about "haves vs have-nots" that within various white communities are never discussed. I find it interesting that Hillary and Bill will use issues of race to bate white communities against people of color, rather then to bring the country together. This reminds me of the "let them eat cake" theory, hoping
that the masses won't catch on to what Hill and Bill are doing to us all. At the end of the day for the Clintons, its all about staying in power and hoping that people forget just how dis-connected they are from the rest of us.
David Gergen made a great point last night on CNN, a very important and obvious point that too many remain blind to and silent about..
He said, and I paraphrase:
"Hillary Clinton has an opportunity to take the high road and say to her 'hard working *white* voters' that if they are voting AGAINST Barack Obama because of his race, that she doesn't want their votes."
I salute you for this David Gergen. It's no wonder that so many presidents of both parties sought you out to serve them well.
Too bad Hillary is more about Hillary than about helping to heal any racial divide.
Au contraire - she's exploiting this racial divide for personal gain of political power
David Gergen made a great point last night on CNN.
He said, and I paraphrase:
"Hillary Clinton has an opportunity to take the high road and say to her 'hard working *white* voters' that if they are voting AGAINST Barack Obama because of his race, that she doesn't want their votes."
I salute you for this David Gergen. It's no wonder that so many presidents of both parties sought you out to serve them well.
Too bad Hillary is more about Hillary than about helping to heal any racial divide.
Au contraire - she's exploiting this racial divide for personal gain of political power
It can't be a surpise to anyone that some (though clearly not all) of her supporters are racists...she's been doing her best to haul 'em on board. The irony here is that these people are not going to be voting for the Democratic nominee in November whether it's a white female or African-American male. Won't it be nice to have a President who appeals to the finer rather than baser angels of our natures?
What's wrong with it if the "base" of our party shifts? It's already been happening. So what if the dems end up being a generally more affluent, more educated party for a while? That's not a bad thing. Money will be spent to narrow the wealth and education gap so that the poor are less poor and the uneducated are more educated. And then they'll come back to the party.
It's all good.