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
Follow Michael Fauntroy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MikeFauntroy
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
This election has really opened my eyes to the racism that still exists in this country, but I have faith we can overcome. The fact that Obama won the primary and beat Hillary Clinton- a powerful, popular democratic candidate demonstrates that we are a lot farther along than we might admit.
I think we will all be surprised that on Nov. 4, America will vote for Barack Obama because he is the right candidate to lead this nation. They may not tell friends or family but when it comes to going to the voting booth, they will have to battle with their conscious about choosing prosperity for their future or succumb to racial prejudice leading to 4 more Bush years.
I asked my father in law who is a Republican, white 85 year old male why he says he is afraid of Obama? He couldn't give me an answer. So I told him my observation: "I find it interesting that people who say they are afraid of Obama or that he is an elitist cannot articulate why they feel that way. I find that very interesting". The next thing he said was " well, he probably will be a good President". He suddenly changed his tune. Try it next time someone makes a statement like that.
Yes We Can Heal This Nation! Obama '08
"I find it interesting that people who say they are afraid of Obama or that he is an elitist cannot articulate why they feel that way. I find that very interesting".
Good point. They don't want to answer a question like that because their probably uncomfortable about what the answer will reveal about them and their mindset.
Obama will be fine. I believe there are a lot of older whites who will be voting for Obama, but aren't telling anyone, or trying to pretend their undecided.
Turnout will shatter the record, but Obama is winning the ground game and will win this election.
Very good post Kate4Change!
Obama got half the white vote in the primary, but garnered 90% of the black vote. Bill Clinton said Obama purposefully played the race card against Hillary. There is no way blacks did not vote primarily on race in the primaries; otherwise, we'd have Hillary running against McCain. The Democrats would be well advised to cut out all this race nonsense. Many white Democrats do not want to vote for a black man, but are more than ready to vote for a man who happens to be black. Democrats are too consumed with identity politics to understand the difference.
As a non-Democrat let me say that when a bee stings me I say ouch no matter how many people are around to say I imagined I was stung. I do not give a damn about the outcome of this election in the face of kowtowing to racist mindsets. If a person has cancer in their heart and maggots in their brain then that is a personal issue for any bigot who has that affliction. People could vote for David Duke and I would not care. America is going to get a real @ss whooping and continuing to vote prejudice is going to speed up that day. So stroke on, stroke on, I love a good spanking.
As for Bill Clinton he is fast becoming Bill who? Whites have voted for whites as the only choice available since the beginning and you want to talk about the voting tendencies of blacks -- get a clue! Hillary lost her majority support of “blacks” when she showed her @ss on the campaign trail. Now that’s the hard truth and I do not give a damn who you vote for.
"Democrats are too consumed with identity politics"
That's precisely what fueled Hillary's campaign: identity politics. And when it didn't work out, many of the "aggrieved middle aged white female supporters of Hillary" cried sexism against Hillary as the major reason she lost instead of doing a thorough examination of what she did wrong: (1) running as an "incumbent" rather than a "change agent" like Obama; (2) picking staffers and advisors for "loyalty" over "compentence"; (3) not aggressively competing in the caucus states; (4) relaying on "old money" (big fundraisers) instead of diversifying like Obama did with "new money" (internet fundraising).
But most of all, she underestimated Barack Obama.
Those middle-aged white women who feel aggrieved by Hillary's loss, and were quick to scream sexism forget that Obama's victories would not have been possible without the support of young whites ages 18-35 - particularly the landslide support YOUNG WHITE WOMEN gave him over Hillary. When this last point is factored in, its easy to see how the "Hillary lost mostly because of sexism" narrative loses credibility.
Yes, Obama got votes from men (and women) who didn't want a woman as the president, just as Hillary got votes from mainly older whites who didn't want a black man to be president. But Obama won. And he proved that "coalition politics" is much better than "identity politics".
Sean I couldn't agree more, every point you made was spot on. Hillary Clinton ran her campaign like it was owed to her and she really didn't have to work for it and Barack ran his campaign like he was behind at all times. Hillary did, to her credit start running a good campaign towards the end but it was too little too late. I honestly think if she would have admitted the war was a mistake from the start and apologized she would have possibly done better in Iowa.
Ok. So, based on your own theory, should we also assume that every white person who votes McCain is doing so because he is white?
Give me a break. Most black support was behind HRC at the start of this thing (check the facts). Because of jaded images of blacks by people like yourself, many of us tend to over-analyze black candidates because of the scrutiny they are sure to get...so we didn't back Obama until we were sure that he wasn't just a flash in the pan. Many blacks were also against this occupation in Iraq from the beginning, so when he stated that he opposed it from the beginning, that was the difference maker, as many of his and HRC's policies were similar.
And by all means, please explain to ME, what the difference is between a "black man" and a "man who happens to be black". I cannot WAIT to hear this!
If you are black, you wouldn't be asking this stupid question, and if your white, you simply do not understand what you are asking.
Read up on Martin Luther King, Jr., and perhaps you might find some insight.
There is often a presumption that people are stupidly voting against their own interests. But in an open election, people generally elect the politician who is most effectively able to demonstrate a capacity to represent their interests. Individuals may be stupid, but people act wisely in open groups. Assuming there isn't another intervention such as the one which robbed Gore, the election is Obama's to lose. The country is on an unstainable course so Obama would have to do something stupid for the electorate to decide to damn the torpedoes steam full speed ahead.
I agree that people are not stupid; however, they do, at times, vote against their best interests. Take the last presidential election, two issues--abortion and same sex marriage--trumped all of the other issues that affect Americans directly and economically: health care, social security, energy, education, employment, housing, job creation and training, regulation and oversight and so forth. A person's choice to have an abortion or marry a same sex partner does not affect my pocket book or family's quality of life--that is more important to me.
Instead, people voted against their best interests and elected Bush for the second time. How is that working out?
Those who would vote for McCain would be voting to continue Bush's policies. How is that not voting against ones own interests? We do not know what we would have with Obama, but we know what we would get from McCain--more of Bush. That is not smart.
We, as Americans, like to set aside days to commemorate those people or events that have had an impact on this world, no matter whether that impact be negative or positive. This society is great at commemorations. We know how to put on a show on holidays.
I was thinking about Coretta Scott King today, Rosa Parks, and Mamie Till. In no particular order, these women came to mind. I then thought about Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodwin. For some reason I remembered a little reported story about a “white” woman from Michigan who was murdered during the 60s. She was a community organizer with five children who risked and gave her life because right is right and wrong is wrong, it has no color, it has no ethnicity, it has no country, it is, or it is not. If you want to know what a true woman of substance and courage with five children did, read the linked wiki article on Viola Fauver Gregg Liuzzo. A true patriot, who paid the ultimate price for freedom, has no special day to commemorate her valiant life. I am taking it upon myself to pay tribute to her today in word and song. Rest and flow easy Mrs. Liuzzo, the struggle continues and you are remembered.
http://en.
http://www
Thank you for this story.
Have you ever gone to the Drug Store to purchase band-aids? They are "flesh" color...BU
I've heard for years, "My relatives never owned slaves. I'm innocent". Innocence, literally, means "not knowing". They don't see that if they sit back and do nothing, they are part of the problem. Here's a for instance: If Linda Smith is hurt by racism...t
Perhaps, I'm over simplifying things. The thing that irritates me to no end is the fact that by and large, people of color are suspected of desiring some kind of unearned advantage.
Senator Obama's campaign slogan is "CHANGE". How about letting that "change" begin with you? Is it ever too late to do the right thing?
It is never too late until it is. I am weary of the long walk with the racial question. My time has been so short and easy by comparison because many have walked longer, harder, and up steeper hills than I have. That is what makes the subject so utterly sad. With all that has transpired, some are still afflicted by hate. When I comment here, I would like to focus on science or politics as a method for change for all people. I would like to read the articles about living and contemplate there validity, applicability, and just the overall topic of the article. I am not much into the celebrity culture so I tend to avoid entertainment.
Yet, far too many times, I have been stimulated to comment on this election process from a standpoint of race. Some do think as an African American I somehow cling to this conversation. Those people do not know my family, my friends, my teachers, my heroes, or me. They only know a caricature or a stereotype. I would care never to discuss racism again, but that is unlikely knowing the world and knowing myself as I do. This country stinks and until it gets a clue, life for it is going to hang in the balance of a spark and powder keg to be realized in a fickle wind of comeuppance. I want a better America and all getting older has taught is America has a ways to go.
I can't agree with "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."
Obama has everything to lose by going that path: Not only he would shift the focus from the issues that matter (like economics) where he is perceived as the best candidate, but he would appear as a whiner which would be absolutely suicidal.
agreed.
also disagree with... "Racial prejudice and fear of the unknown has long led people to vote against their self-inter
folks often find their interests to lie in the nexus of cultural and economic capital, hence the rise of hegemonic social relations to maintain a certain order...
This post should discuss the methodology.
You cant quantify racism (or sexism) from the result of a political contest. To many variables.
"40 percent of all Whites surveyed admitted to holding negative views of African Americans"
What percent of black voters hold negative views of white people? It just doesn't work. White racism will be one of many factors in this election. What do we conclude if Obama wins? That there is no white racism?
"40 percent of all Whites surveyed admitted to holding negative views of African Americans"
If that is the case, one should ask, and given the historical context one should ask WHY?
"What percent of black voters hold negative views of white people?"
Of course one should never genaralise - that is the essence of racism; but, given the historical context, can you think WHY some Black folk would hold negative views of their erstwhile oppressors?
Naturally, given the circumstances one would conclude that Barack Obama OVERCAME white racism....
A co-worker and I were discussing the campaigns and she mentioned that initially she was afraid that Obama would surround himself with others whom she considers dangerous (like Jesse Jackson).
She is an avowed feminist and yet she sees through Palin (which is a good thing) and she also said she would vote for Obama but does not tell anyone. Perhaps if we speak on this again I will encourage her to share her views with other white women because her opinion is respected. in any case, it was encouraging that some white women will silently vote for Obama despite what they are telling the pollsters.
I know more than a few white North Carolinians who'll be voting
for Obama and aren't 'telling anyone.' It's tragic that we are so close
and yet still so far apart on race in this country. To let fear get in
the way of choosing a man who is a superior choice in so many
ways just boggles every brain cell in my head.
"Obama will pay a "Black tax" in November that may cost him the presidency"
Look Mr. Fauntroy, while whites constitute just over 60% of this country, Obama doesn't need to get a majority of the white vote. Obama, who believes in "coalition politics" instead of identity politics, only needs at least 35-40% of the white vote, which is likely.
Moreover, Obama needs to get heavy turnout with Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Arab Americans - four groups he is currently crushing John McCain with by wide, eye-popping margins. But, in a multicultural society, the AP poll you referenced presented the white vote as "central and functional", the black vote as "marginal and peripheral", and all over racial and ethnic groups as "insignificant".
Yes, one could say that "resentment" of some whites could cost Obama the election if its close. But let's have some fun and hypothesize: (1) If the election is close, "economic resentment" from whites about McCain's 19 votes against raising the minimum wage could cost McCain the election; (2) If the election is close, "white female resentment" over McCain's intention to overturn ROE v WADE (and his 1994 vote in favor of charging rape victims for RAPE KITS) could cost McCain the election; (3) If the election is close, "young white resentment" about McCain's unwillingness to prose a concrete plan to help students with college loans (like Obama has done) could cost McCain the election.
Translation: I'll see you at Obama's inauguration.
I envy your positive attitude. My spirits are lifted for now. Fingers still tightly crossed.
excellent post. you are the true professor
“America’s convoluted reaction to race” There is nothing American or convoluted or racist; just that people all over the world vote for people that looks like them, and it is fair and nice. 91% of the blacks are voting for Obama many do it because he is black and it is fair and nice, the same for the whites that favor McCain because he looks like them, fair and nice, as Latinos like myself voting for Latinos, no Problemo. Racism is not voting for somebody because of his race but favoring your own is a valid reason for all; black, white American Indian, Irish. Here, there and everywhere we humans favor the alike.
I will vote Obama but Mc Cain will most probably win. The reason is not that America is racist it is just that this is a majority white country. In Haiti all presidents are blacks; perfectly nice and fair.
The problem is for the democratic party not having considered this before nominating a minority candidate.
racism (n): Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
discrimination (n): Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.
Voting for someone because he/she looks like you is the textbook definition of racism.
Voting for somebody is not discriminating against other. How can you then explain 91% of blacks voting for Obama? they are not discriminating against Mc Cain they just chose somebody that looks like them in a proportion higher than other segments of the population. It is their right and is fair and clean for them to do so.
I hope you are not suggesting that the Democratic Party should have not nominated a black man just because ignorant people cant get over themselves. It is not "fair and nice" to vote "familiarly". Its biased and it could lead to your own detriment, blindly accepting someone just because they are "like you". Just because someone is the same race as you, does not mean they are "like you". I wouldn't vote for Jesse Jackson if he was the last Democrat in the universe. He could run against Bush again (if it was possible) and I woudn't vote for that crazy nutcase.
Blacks have been voting Democrat for decades. Where have you been?
Yes but this tendency is well stablish all over the world. And of course when there is not a viable black candidate minorities should and will conform. Many black do not votes when there are 2 white candidates.
How can you otherwise explain 91% of blacks for Obama? I am a white Latino and I will vote for Obama that does not mean anything, If there were a latino candidate I will probably vote for him and will do so proudly, nothing wrong with that it is my right.
Of course I would not vote for Alberto Gonzales so what... all general tendencies are relative but statistically significant. And all organizations or parties that want to win should and do take these tendencies into cosideration when choosing a candidate.
The democratic experiment of putting forth a minority candidate may, indeed, backfire. Obama lost 9 or the last 14 primaries. We were seeing the beginings of what has been plaging the campaign ever since. The Superdelegates did what they were not suppose to do, which is to favor a candidate that can not win. How do you explain that after losing 9 of the last 14 primaries, superdelegates continued to go to Obama? There had to have been a back room deal. And Howard "Heck of a job, Howie" Dean's experiment might not work. Way to go, dems!
You keep posting this BS about "91% of blacks are voting for Obama just because he's black". I've tried to control my rage and disgust at the sheer condescending and patronizing way of thinking that must produce that kind of sentiment. But I can't hold back anymore.
How do you know what black people think?
Do you know blacks are VERY familiar with Obama's policies, and those policies are standard for any Democratic candidate running for president?
http://www
Stop insulting the intelligence of black people based on a racial stereotype you THINK you learned in Brazil or wherever else you've been. It's the height of arrogance to posit you KNOW blacks are voting for Obama purely on race. If that was the case Shirley Chisolm, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Jordan, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, and a couple of others could have gained the 91% of black votes you are so paranoid about. You're hiding you're obvious racism behind a fake objective argument. When you become an anthropological mind-reader, THEN you can tell us what blacks think.
http://www
Just some facts:
- About 90% of Blacks have always voted for the democrat candidate in presidential elections.
- It's not the Democratic Party that decided to nominate a minority candidate, it's caucus and primary voters.
- In Haiti 95% of the population is black.
Following your logic, we should conclude that people like Bill Richardson, Deval Patrick or Bobby Jindall should not be governors of their state for they were minority candidates.
I would think that a responsible and rational way of voting is to elect the person who thinks alike, not the one who looks alike.
Here's a thought on the Bradley effect -- the idea that black candidates will lose votes because of race alone. McCain may have reduced this effect by picking Palin to be his VP. If he had picked someone like Romney, this choice may have been sufficiently reassuring to convince swing voters to find reasons not to vote for Obama. As Chris Rock's father once defined racism: "If you have six and the white guy has five, the white guy wins."
However, Palin has proven to be so unqualified, that it really calls into question McCain's judgment. McCain doesn't have five; he may only have three. The difference between the two presidential tickets might be so extreme, that those swing voters may have no choice but to vote for Obama.
What is lacking is the methodology. They polled folks who were skeptical of Obama so they were predisposed to bias. The AP is not without its own biases.
Just take it for what it's worth: MOTIVATION
This is not racism and it is not America. You are basically right and Mc Cain will win. All over the world people vote for people that look like them. In Bolivia the worst president ever who got the country in the brink of colapse Evo Morales (his spanish is worst the Bush's English) got 70% of the votes because he is indian as 70% of Bolivian population. We have the tendency to favor candidates of our own ethnicity to label this tendency as racism is inconsistent that will make the 91% of blacks that vote for Obama racist. When given a choice common people will favor a person of their own ethnicity over somebody of different ethnicity. It is fair and a well documented tendency. Balcs, whites, native americans and other ethnicities have the right to vote for somebody of their own ethnicity without bein called racist. I am white-latino and will vote for Obama but if the republican candidate were latino I will probably vote for him, that does not make me a racist. The white population of the US have as much right to choose and vote for a white as the blacks to vote for a black and that does not mean that they are racist, they are just like everybody else in every corner of this big round world just human with human responses.
I hear ya! Folks have been using that arguement here in Alabama for a long time.
Just tune into a local am talk show and you will hear people say, "Folks just like to be around their own kind, but that dang on Fed-er-ral gov'ment and them activist judges keep forcing people down each other's throats."
Pssst! Nobody ever claims to be racist. They always have some other reason.
Still, I find your point puzzleing considering the fact that the people discussed in the said answered a question saying that they had a problem with race. Why are we supposed to create an alternate story for them?
your post is stupid. blacks are not voting for obama because he is black nor did over 90% vote for Clinton because he's white.
We are so stupid about race.
Apparently "everyone knows" when someone is black, but you cannot prove that you are "white"
My great uncle went to alaska and was refused alcohol because he appeared to be a native. He had dark hair, brown eyes, a darker complexion and features that showed his German heritage (large nose, thin upper lip.) His name was Frederick Berg and he grew up speaking German in Odessa WA because that was his heritage--full German on both sides. Up in Alaska where he had no family nor context, everyone assumed he was "not white." He was the only one who came back from working fishing with a lot of money because they wouldn't sell him alcohol.
My brother (blond, blue eyes and pale complexion) sometimes encountered people who told racial jokes in his presence. He always said "That's really funny-my dad is black, you know."
The next thing you know people would study his features and say "yeah, now that you mention it, I can see it in your lips" There is no-one in our known ancestry who was considered black, but you can't PROVE there isn't a drop. People are stupid.
Love the comeback. It would behoove us all to remember that we all are genetically descended from Africa. All seven billion of us.
Amen to that! I try to explain to people how we are all related one way or another, you should hear the anger in peoples voices. Sad, sad situation!
My wife, a Hillary supporter, has said from the beginning that Obama would not be elected because of his race. Obama blew Clinton away in our local caucuses, here in Seattle. But we live in a bubble of relative racial harmony here in the Pacific NW. When I visit other parts of the country, I have seen both overt and covert racism that is startling in this day and age. If anything, this election is showing us that racism is still very much alive and well, and that our nation must do more to deal with it head on. Where are the evangelical churches on this issue, that profess brotherly love? If evangelicals make up a huge swath of the bible belt, why are those the states with the most racist attitudes? Has anyone bothered to point out this irony?
They believe they are the chosen ones so all others are subordinant by divine order. Christianity was used to promulgate slavery.
The silver lining is this discussion.
LOL!! Blacks in that region tell me the NW is anything BUT racial harmony. Maybe you should ask some of them what they deal with. Because you obviously live in a safe white bubble. All I hear about is how wealthy whites are forcing blacks out of the city limits via Southern Republican underhanded political and muscling tactics. What's up with THAT?
You obviously live in that bubble in NORTH Seattle, not the Central District or Rainier Valley.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
