Obama's "Black Tax"

The recently released AP-Yahoo News poll is further evidence that race, or rather, America's convoluted reaction to race, presents a reality for Barack Obama and his campaign that is beginning to come into focus. This race is far closer than it should be and those who try to downplay the role of race to this point have their heads stuck in the sand. Obama will pay a "Black tax" in November that may cost him the presidency.

Obama should be walking away with this election. He has been a political phenomenon since bursting onto the national scene at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. No politician in this country has received the volume of favorable coverage as Obama. He's running against an incredibly unpopular Republican Party, whose leader -- President Bush -- has operated under historically high disapproval ratings for most of his second term. The party's standard bearer in the upcoming election -- John McCain -- has so badly contorted himself to curry the approval of his party's right wing that he is now unrecognizable to moderates and independents that fueled his rise to presidential contender status nearly a decade ago and saved him from ruin during the Republican presidential nomination fight. And, oh, by the way, McCain will be 72 by the time he's inaugurated, should he win in November. This nation is not kind to the elderly, so McCain is also facing a sub-rosa ageism.

Some analysts have pointed to McCain's resiliency, his "game changing" choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, and Obama's relative inexperience as among the reasons why this race is as close as it is. These are all valid and legitimate reasons for why the race is as close as it is, but they don't tell the whole story. Any analysis of the contest that does not prominently include the sticky wicket of racism is incomplete.

The poll, however, shows why McCain's resiliency, Palin, and Obama's inexperience may not matter in November: 40 percent of all Whites surveyed admitted to holding negative views of African Americans (one can reasonably infer that some who hold such views didn't admit so to the pollster). This number may help explain why Obama is still having trouble winning over some disaffected Hilary Clinton supporters and why independent voters have not come around as expected. A particularly worrisome finding is that there was not even a majority of self-identified White Democrats who viewed African Americans as friendly, law-abiding, good neighbors, dependable, or hardworking. Self-identified White Republicans had consistently harsher views of African Americans than all Whites surveyed, White independents, or White Democrats. The bottom line finding is the suggestion that Obama's support would be six percentage points higher if there were no White racial prejudice.

Obama has continually downplayed race and any impact it can have on his campaign. Perhaps this is for public consumption while his private position is more closely aligned with reality. Be that as it may, the poll suggests that Obama won't lose much by speaking more authoritatively on the possibility that he could be denied the presidency just because he's Black. Those inclined to not support him because he's "uppity" or an elitist, or other racial code words, won't come around no matter how much he runs away from race.

Some have suggested that losing six points by virtue of being Black won't be enough to keep Obama from winning. I say get you head out of the sand and look at the polls. The four closest battleground states -- Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida -- are all within the margin of error, according to a poll average conducted by RealClearPolitics. That's certainly enough to allow the six point "Black tax" that Obama will pay to move at least a few of those states to McCain. That could be enough to cost Obama the election.

Racial prejudice and fear of the unknown has long led people to vote against their self-interest. Indeed, part of the Republicans' ability to get poor and working-class voters to support the party despite its fealty to corporate interests at the expense of those on the low end of the income spectrum is largely attributable to people voting against their self-interest. Don't expect these extraordinary times to miraculously bring clarity to some voters. Old habits are hard to break.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and conducts research on race and politics. He blogs at: www.MichaelFauntroy.com

Comments

[chamberslee]

I am from the south and have lived or traveled most of the country, and I know that race still matters. When people see me, they think back to the black image they saw in the media. It does not matter how I am dressed, speak or what position I hold. I am black first. Therefore, I have to prove that I am not the person they saw on television or their parents warned them about. Imagine have to prove yourself 365 a year several times a day for your entire life. That is what is means to be black in America.

My experience as a black man in America tells me that Obama will lose the election because of skin color--nothing more. The economy is in shambles and McCain will continue the policies that are responsible for the downturn. Nevertheless, many white democrats will vote for him--over the democratic candidate. Why?

[chamberslee]

White privilege means not having to deal with race in America. Conversely, people of color carry the burden of being black, everyday. We are never allowed to forget: in the workplace, academia, public. We are held to an unrealistic, unattainable expectation, while whites are not. In other words, we have to be nearly perfect in order to be considered almost average. For example, whites can speak nonstandard English and one deems their entire race inferior. In fact, no one cares.

Another good example of white privilege is Palin announcing that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, and there is little criticism or outrage, on the right or left. If that were Obama making the same announcement, we would never hear the end of it. The discussion would switch to black pathology and black teens are having babies. The message is clear if you are white, you get a pass.

[Mental Deficit]

Fauntroy is *DANGEROUSLY* wrong, to write:
"the poll suggests that Obama won't lose much by speaking more authoritatively on the possibility that he could be denied the presidency just because he's Black."

No, the poll does *NOT* suggest that. Read the poll. It contains nothing remotely related to that assertion.

Think: If a (consciously or unconsciously racist) undecided voter hears Obama _WHINING_ that voters should give him an Affirmative-Action-Bailout when they enter the polling booth, are they more likely to vote for Obama? No -- they're more likely to break *against* him.

Obama's best chance to transcend racial prejudice is by being perceived as an *individual*, not as a *generic* stereotype that a voter associates with negative qualities. It would be a fatal error if, instead, Obama takes Fauntroy's advice, and "plays the race card" against undecided American voters.

If Obama wins the presidency, he will have ample time to talk about race. In the meantime, race is a *distraction* from what Obama should be talking about -- how Bush/McCain have destroyed our economy, our national security, and our global environment.

Indeed, McCain's new ad showcasing Franklin Raines is an attempt to force Obama to portray himself as a victim of racism -- thereby changing the subject of the election from the economy to racial issues. (Read Drew Westen's material -- American voters don't like victims; they like strong "heroes".)

It's disappointing to see alleged Obama supporters advising Obama to fall into the trap McCain has set.

[chamberslee]

Whites don't have to deal with race daily, so it is easy for them to put their heads in the sand. Not talking about it will not make it go away.

[chamberslee]

To paraphrase Bill Maher, there is a reason why white presidential candidates have won 43 times while black candidates have won zero. I am amazed at how closed-minded some are when it comes to the discussion of race in America. It is now a taboo subject for many whites and some blacks. How dare we discuss racism in America. We now use the "race card" construct to minimize anyone who dares injects race into a serious discussion--regardless of how factual and pertinent race is to the discussion.

The fact is that race will play a significant role in the presidential race. Refusing to discuss it will not negate this fact. Negative stereotypes of blacks are ingrained in the minds of many whites and no amount of achievement by a black candidate will change their view. Many whites cannot separate the negative actions of a few blacks from those who are hardworking, law-abiding citizens who want the same things whites want: good education, affordable health care, affordable and healthy housing, safe neighborhoods and affordable college education. Instead, they see the actions of a few as a representation of the entire population. My education and hard work mean nothing. I am BLACK first and nothing else matters as much. Education and financial achievement does not enter into the equation. Obama is still BLACK.

[chamberslee]

It is simple for many whites to say "get over it"; they do not have to think about race daily when applying for a job, interviewing for a job, interacting in the workplace (and higher education), renting or by buying a house, shopping, seeking medical services and so on. Not having to consider race is one of the privileges of being white in a white dominated society.
This is not to say all white are racist; they are NOT. But the majority has racist tendencies that are unconscious. This is due to the lack of interaction between whites and blacks. Most whites know of blacks only through the media, which uses the most sensationalized images of people of color to increase viewership and ratings. As long as that is the accepted norm, many whites will continue to allow the color of the candidate"s skin to determine the outcome of the presidential election.

The fear is that a black president would give too many rights and services to blacks, and whites will no longer have a monopoly on everything vital -- white supremacy.

To use Obama's metaphor, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig." That is true of race in America, also.

[BluebirdofUnhappiness]

Still, my father, as much like Archie Bunker as anyone you'll meet (still says them coloreds and the nword) is voting for Obama. My mom doesn't say much. I 'll bet what's left of my 401K she's voting for McC. I understand she's a product of her generation and experience, but I don't get how that trumps logic and voting for someone who represents her best interests.

[RhondaSTL]

Mr. Fauntroy, you are right on target, I'm sad to say. Many of my own family members are among those who would never vote for a black man. The arguments that come out of their mouths when the topic of the election comes up are just incomprehensible.

I read all the comments that deny racism is really much of an issue and wish that I wasn't aware of the ugly truth. I don't know if it's just dependent on where you live (I'm in the Midwest and my family is mostly in the South) or just the inability to see the ugliness. The political analysts are constantly asking why the election isn't closer. I'm constantly rolling my eyes at their unwillingness to explore the glaring truth.

I'm not saying you can't legitimately have issues with Obama without being racist. But if it was reasonable to assume those legitimate issues explained the closeness of the polls, the question wouldn't be asked so frequently.

[montemalone]

Anyone that has attended an Obama speech or rally can tell you, his support is broad based.
I went to see him earlier this year in Dallas. In the middle of the day. The crowd was white, black, brown, and all shades in between. There were high school kids and little old ladies with walkers. There were drag queens and men in drag (some were kinda scary, but hey). There were church groups. There were blue collar, whitre collar, and dog collar.
Reunion Arena was filled to capacity and thousands of people were forced to stand outside.
This was in the middle of the week on a workday.
The racism factor will have some effect, but the opportunity that many see to change the status quo, meaning no more old white guys, should win out.
I'm a middle aged white guy. I think Obama is the best thing that can happen to this country at this point in time.

[rayo]

I love all these positive minded comments. "We Shall Overcome" That is wishufl thinking on your part .
Mr. Fauntroy is telling you exactly the perception out there regarding race. Either you have never being faced with prejudice or bigotry, or just do not understand reality, I don't know what. And it will rear its ugly head. If you think that we are above these prejudices, talk to people that face it every day. Then tell me that everything will be O.K. Look at the swing states, he will lose because he need to be 8 points or greater in each state to counter the "Bradley Effect". I'm an Obama fan, but I'm also a realist. There is no way he can win in the close races. And the states that he has a comfortable lead, will diminish by voting day. I hope I can be proven wrong. We, the Democrats, should be more comfortably ahead by this time, and we are not.. And any one that discounts "Racism" is out of sync with the real politics, and the hatred in this country when it come to minorities. I can say that be cause as a Hispanic you see it every day.

[1will]

It's no doubt true that some voters will not vote for Obama because he's black. On the other hand if Obama were white it would be Hillary running against John McCain and there are millions of people voting for and supporting Obama merely because he's black.

[jimbobre]

You can't say some people (mostly white) reasonably voted for Obama in the primaries (he's liberal, a motivational speaker, very smart, handsome, calm, steady, a democrat, a leader, etc.) while other people (mostly black) ignored all the reasons listed above (and more) and voted for him for only because he's black. That's not a logical conclusion or inference to make without evidence. You're really saying you believe 90% of black people would vote for Flava Flav or the corner wino if they were running for president as long as they were black.

[MoeB]

Michael:

I understand your concern, but really the only demographic Obama is having real trouble with is white men...and, no offense to my white male friends, he doesn't need a majority of their vote to win in November. He DOES, to counter that, need a significant chunk of white women, and I believe he will get it.

And lets not forget the youth! I know many are skeptical about turnout in November, but as a 30 year old, let me assure you that this time could not BE more different. I've met only a small amount of younger voters (18-30) who weren't acutely tuned in to this political season. Even more than a year after his announcement, these folks are STILL pumped up! And many of these kids are in college or just graduated...so the mere fact that Obama has been able to keep them energized for THIS long says a lot, I think.

[Lauramd]

My in-laws have voted a straight Democratic ticker their whole lives....and this year they are voting for McCain. It's stunning because even when I've pressed them hard, they make up excuses about his experience or "treatment of Hillary". Finally, my mother in-law said,"He'll do more for the blacks than us."

My husband and I were disgusted and are working hard to keep them from voting against their own interests. My mother in-law works at Wal-Mart and can't retire at 70 because she needs that job...my father in-law retired at 74 from a job as a salesman making almost zero dollars. It's so frustrating that they are letting old racial prejudices, which were previously hidden make their choice. I come from a racially mixed family, so this is especially disturbing as they have always welcomed my family and love my African American brother, but underneath that lies the idea that "he's one of the good ones" and only because they know him.

[sdskelton03]

I would contend that white society's broad view of African Americans is irrelevant to white society's propensity to vote for Mr. Obama.

I don't believe white society equates Mr. Obama with those from which the negative attitudes originated from. Whites don't see Mr. Obama in the same light as the mysoginist thugs of rap music or the self absorbed immature profesional athlete. White's don't equate Mr. Obama with the unkept black man wearing a wife-beater with his pants hanging off his back side.

With the exception of the hay-seed yokel klan types, whites see Mr Obama as one of them, imho.

[Nexialist]

Independents whom you need to win do not subscribe to identity politics (what euphemistically is sometimes called "coalition" politics.) To the extent the left makes the election about racism and electing a "black," it hurts with independents. Obama is way up today. That should tone down some of the hysterical rhetoric on this website, which also hurts the cause. Just keep it about issues and tone down the crazies, and Obama should win going away.

[JohnIII]

I would agree with you. He does not come from that culture that you described. If he did, then he definitely wouldn't have a chance. He wouldn't be nearly as far as he is.

[barackobama4prez]

"We rise together and fall together as one nation."

-Barack Obama

[Academic]

Odium generis humani - hatred of the human race. Evangelicals take a huge delight in denouncing as false the established beliefs and conventions of civilized society and, instead, put the interests of their religion even above those of the state. What is objectionable about these so-called Christians and their fundamentalist counterparts in other religions is the arrogant certainty they subjectively cling to that whatsoever they believe is unquestionably right, while every view held by others that's contrary to their own, however proven or salient, is fundamentally flawed or downright wrong.

That's not the rational conduct of sensible, intelligent and matured persons open to dispassionate and reasoned arguments, rather it's the reaction of fanatical bigots who need to be vigorously challenged, and denounced as the racists they are, not embraced as saviours of a country that posits itself as a world leader.

Prof. Dr. Stanley Collymore
London, England.

[Nexialist]

What you're describing is called freedom of religion, and it is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment to our Constitution. England had a state church, something the founder fathers believed strongly against, thus the written guarantee. But many in this country believe as you, that (especially) rural Americans "cling to their guns and religion." You have your own brand of "evangelicals" in England, and the government is pandering to their beliefs. Perhaps you should clean up your own house, or at least read Gerard Baker in the Times.