If mainstream America's ignorance of Appalachia were oil, due to its ample supply, we'd be somewhere near $1.25 a barrel. That said, central Appalachia has a long history of racial groups coming together during the labor organizing movement of the early 20th century. (e.g., John Sayles 1987 film "Matewan") To paint all Appalachian people and Appalachia generally as a land of backward thinking morons is far from the truth.
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)
The Clinton Vote And The Racist Tipping Point
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.
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
(con't)I
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.
Has anyone counted up/done an analysis of the black and African American vote for Obama?
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?
Oh Gawd, symmetry arguments. Gerry Ferraro rears her ugly head.
Let's review: African Americans trend Democratic in large numbers (about 90%). There is nothing wrong with membership in the Democratic Party. It is a very nice party, in fact. Obama is a Democrat. So is Hillary, but she is also a liar, a race-baiter, and a person who lacks vision and leadership. Is this so hard to understand?
No Democrat ever bitched before when 90% of the African American vote went to Gore, or 88% went to Kerry. Why should it matter now?
If you're voting AGAINST someone because of their race or gender, that's racist or sexist.
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.
The difference is that African Americans have repeatedly shown that they are willing to vote for white candidates, even when Black candidates are also running. These white voters are making clear that they will never vote for a Black candidate. There is a huge difference between somebody who is willing to vote for a white candidate, choosing a Black candidate and somebody who WILL NOT VOTE FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
I am so very disappointed in the Clinton campaign right now. I never thought I would witness in a historic campaign such as this, is Hillary Clinton actually using race to propel herself forward to her ultimate goal. I cannot believe that Clinton and her "first black President" husband would actually insinuate through others that Obama's racial makeup is going to cause the Democrats the election. When is the Clinton campaign going to get it through their collective heads that the huge wins in West Virginia and Kentucky are racially motivated votes. The electorate in these states are following the Rush edict of electing Clinton so the Republican party will gel again and get McCain elected. Why in the world would she allow her staff to use the MSM to constantly complain about her coverage, labeling it sexist when the man she is trashing has never once made a comment about her sex except to compliment her about breaking barriers for all women. This has got to stop, or McCain and Clinton should run on the same ticket. She agrees with everything he says when it serves her purpose. I was truly hoping this historic election would finally break the racial barriers that still exist in this country. The truly shocking thing is the people answering the exist poll questions actually admit Obama's race is a problem for them. This is going to go to the convention floor and leave the party completely fractured. McCain will be our 44th nightmare.
COUNTER HEADLINE: The OBAMA Vote And The SEXIST Tipping Point.....oh wait!...I forgot. We've already determined that sexism doesn't exist and that Hillary (and her supporters) simply made this up as a way to win the race. I forgot....my bad....back to article dealing with the only legitimate form of oppression in our country...
Sexism is very real, but Obama has not made insulting women in order to recruit the male vote part of his campaign strategy. Clinton has made insulting African Americans in order to recruit whites part her campaign strategy. Big difference.
Excuse me but 90% of African Americans going for the black candidate is every bit as much about "race being a deciding factor" as racists not voting for him, even if they don't say so in polls. If he were white he would not have been able to rack up his delegate lead, it's as simple as that. He would have lost South Carolina and that would have been that.
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.
Voting for a white candidate when her competitor is black is not racism. Stating that you chose not to vote for the black candidate because of his race is racism. The article references racism as at play among the people who revealed that their reason for not voting for Obama was because of his race. Not voting for Clinton because of her gender is sexism. Choosing to not to support a candidate because you like or dislike her/his policy on the issues is simply exercising your right to choose. Oh wait, I'm certain that there are people who believe that they have the right to choose to be a racist, and I actually agree, but only up to a point. Your racism becomes my problem when it starts affecting where I can live, work, and play, when it starts affecting my access to my rights as an American.
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.
According to all exit polls to date, 95% of blacks say Obama's race played no part whatsoever in their vote. I guess that is why 95% of blacks are voting for the black candidate.
What an honest bunch!
You do not know what you are talking about. Most blacks are voting for Obama because the Clintons insulted them. Black people are not stupid. You can't race bait and then expect to get our vote. We put the Clintons in the white house twice, stood with them during Lewinshy and Bill's impreachment.. Please. We do not owe the Clintons shit. Also, why is it that black people are always expected to put their own self interest aside for osmeone else. Obama is the first viable black candidate we have had to run for presient. So what if we want to see him win. Black people have voted for white candidates in the past. Most white people now voting for Obama are voting for a black person for the first time in their lives. In fact, we have voted for whites over blacks. So cut the racist bs out. We are the DEMS most loyal base and we will vote for whom we want.
"Most blacks are voting for Obama because the Clintons insulted them."
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.""
Part I
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.
Having spent a good deal of my life, dedicated to better racial relations,
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.
To repost from another thread:
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
To repost from another thread:
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
The Clintons are ugliest when their backs are against the wall. The race-baiting started in South Carolina and continued through her remarks about Senator Obama's difficulties with "hard working white people" ("white Appalachians" would have been more accurate, since Senator Obama has won some of the "whitest" states in the nation).
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?
There are two groups of people in the "white working class", there are the white working class voters who admit that race is a factor in there vote choice, and there are the white working class voters who vote and do not consider race as a factor. We should diferentiate the two groups when discussing Obama's "white working class problem".
Must feel great to know in your heart that the majority of voters in these states are racist. Strange that no one ever feels that they should sit down and listen to these people. It's so easy to call someone a racist, but harder to listen to what they say. Often even when someone is "racist," they will reveal that their vote really is for other reasons. For example, people who cite the economy as the primary interest vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. Such a voter might even say something that an aloof elite interprets as racism, but that doesn't mean that he or she voted because of racism. Of course, it's so much easier to sit in one's armchair and judge people based on polls or reports than it is to listen to them. This is my big problem with Obama and Obama supporters. They don't think they have to do real retail politics because, we are told again and again, we have entered a new age of new politics.
I would have thought that catering to white racists runs counter to the Democratic party's fundamental platform. Given that neither Kerry nor Gore won these folks either, why are they suddenly the "backbone" of our party? And if they are, shouldn't we change that? I am okay if white racists feel they are better served by the GOP. Indeed, notwithstanding Hillary's gas tax holidays and beer swigging, I think she'd ultimately let them down. (And that is meant as a compliment to Hillary.)
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.
That's it, I am moving to Oregon! We don't need to pander to these people who vote on race. We do not want white racists being part of our party. I see some very sad remarks on different blog pages. Sometimes I am so stunned by them, I do not even know how to begin to respond. This Democratic primary race has brought out the worst in some people and the best in others. I guess you can call it The Tale of Two Primaries. I believe that man is good by nature and that some will see the light just as Senator Byrd saw the light many years ago. Maybe Senator Byrd could campaign with Obama in "hostile" territory to see if some of these people could be moved to support Obama. He could even tell them how he came to be who he is now. Personal stories like that really move people.
I agree that everyone is running away from the racism discussion when it comes to WV and KY. Hillary and the pundits can spin it that Obama cannot win the "white working class" votes but this is blatantly false. Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, etc... are predominately "white working class" states. It is not an education gap either because he also won states like Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota that are predominately white and have a low percentage of college graduates. What these states don't have that states below the Maxon-Dixon line do is a deeply rooted history of racism. It is embedded in their psyche and culture. And, with WV and KY being the bottom two states in the nation in percentage of college graduates they probably won't be shedding these views and beliefs any time soon.
It is very sad to see Hillary Clinton delight in this racial vote and it tells us a lot about her character that she deliberately pushed this vote up with her demeaning campaign. I cannot wait until we no longer have this type of candidate ever again in the democratic party.
Amen!
Loading comments…
Posted May 21, 2008 | 08:48 AM (EST)