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
Maybe its just me, but I've been wondering, Where are all the polls related to voter's opinions about senior citizens? How about polls regarding cancer sufferers? Is there an "elderly tax" or a "cancer tax" that will never be quantified? At the age of 72, John Mc Cain is 7 years past the mandatory retirement age of many major corporations and he has faced a life threatening disease known to accelerate with age. Less than 50 days to the election and we have yet to see his full medical history. These, too, are taboo topics that are much less discussed than race that may be hidden factors in the outcome of this election to Mc Cain's detriment.
We hear this over and over:
"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 may come as a surprise to some, but, I personally know many African Americans (especially older ones) who also hold such generically negative views. Welcome to America.
Fortunately, "all African Americans" are not on the ballot. What will matter on Nov 4th is how voters will judge Barack Obama in particular, not every African American real and fictional.
In Obama's favor is that most polls also show that the more voters get to know about Barack Obama and his ideas, the more they like and trust him. Conversely, the more voters see and hear of the Mc Cain/Palin ticket (Palin in particular) the less they are liked and trusted. Even Mc Cain knows this. This accounts for the press lockout by the Mc Cain campaign.
What I appreciate about the Obama campaign is that rather than complaining about or focusing on those whose generic opinions may never change, they are reaching out with concrete policies and proposals that appeal to the majority of voters, regardless of race, especially younger voters who do not hold these views.
Besides all that, this time, the economy trumps all else. I believe that the color that will matter most this Nov 4th will not be black, white, brown, etc but GREEN.
EXAC A M O!!! True dat!
It's not the fear of the unknown. Obama is his own worst enemy. His numbers were high when no one was paying attention. The more he talks, the more he sounds like just another liberal democrat.
Look at the polls, his numbers are currently about the same as they have averaged for the whole campaign...a couple points above McCain.
"40 percent of all Whites surveyed admitted to holding negative views of African Americans"
There are many reasons behind this in my opinion:
1. Blacks make up about 14% of the population yet account for 50% of the homicides.
2. 7 of 10 black children do not have a father in the home.
On the election, I don't see race as a major factor, 1% swing at most.
(VikingQuest)
You need to lay of the KOOL-ADE. Also find another talking point. Those stats you refer to is so far off base. Before you start quoting stats, you need to know what you are talking about.
70% of black children don't have a father in the house
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/roland.martin/index.html
VikingQuest,
The statistics you have listed mean nothing. They are so off-base you should be embarrassed. You prove the point that race does matter in this election. Most white people probably think like you, which is a negative for Obama. You watch COPS, Law & Order and CSI and you think you know all black people. Please, stop listening and taking talking points from Rush.
Ninety-five percent of black people are hardworking and law-abiding. They want the same things you want in fife.
If I said white people commit 98% of serial murders, 79% of mass murders, 85% of arson cases, 82% of embezzlements, 75% of theft (including automobiles) and use more drugs than any other group (excluding crack), you would argue that is not true. The only thing NOT true are the numbers.
That is how easy it is to make up statistics. The difference is that because most white people were raised to believe blacks are the lowest denominator, they cannot view them any other way--regardless of education, career and financial attainment. Sad but true.
By the way, ignoring the numbers, whites lead in all of the listed categories (SEE Federal Bureau of Statistics)
VikingQuest -
nah let me leave it alone. Quick point - Your statistics are completely incorrect.
VikingQuest-
You speak the truth.
For that, you will not win any popularity contests.
Actually, in 2007, blacks accounted for 37.9% of homicides (according to fbi.gov) ... this is still WAY too high but not 1/2 which is my point. Lots of folks take what the media reports at face value. Remember the post-Katrina reports that called black folks stealing 'looters' but white folks stealing were described as 'pushed to take desperate measures' to provide for their family. No, this is NOT an excuse for blacks folks stealing, just an example of how the media reports. This is a cry for folks to simply do their homework and not make Obama pay for the sins of his race(s) ... this is way to important of an election to let race control the outcome.
I believe black people are voting for Senator Obama because they fill like they don't have a choice. Black people did not get pumped up about Sarah Palin. Here something else. If Hilary would have one, black democrats would not have commercials saying, "I am a Barack Obama supporter who is going to vote for John McCain." Black people can't afford to play around with a vote just to spite someone.
Black people would have supported Hillary Clinton. Blacks would have NEVER jumped ship and vote for McCain! That is RIDICULOUS!!! I would have support Hillary 100%! Barack and Hillary both share my vision for the country. I think that statement would also apply to my fellow AA Democrats.
You are doing the same that you criticize blacks of doing.
Sound like a TROLL.
(Undercontrol)
Randy Newman said it best..
"We're rednecks, we're rednecks, we don't know our a-- from a hole in the ground, we're rednecks, we're rednecks, keeping the ------- down..!"
Well sorta like that...
Race is the key and main factor that gave Obama the Democratic party nomination. 25% of Democrats are black. 95% of them voted for Obama. If only 10% of those black Democrats voted for any other Democrat, Hillary would have been the Democratic nominee. So Obama owes his nomination entirely to the black vote. Never the less I believe the race factor is a wash. Obama gets as many votes because he's black as he loses because he's black. It's a non issue.
News flash for ya, stevespelling. The reason why so many Black people voted for Obama was not because he was Black, but that he was inspiring. That's the same reason why so many White people are willing to support him. If your argument was true, then Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and any other Black person who had run for POTUS, should have done WAY, WAY better than they did.
Why didn't they? Answer: Black folks are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
I completely agree with your comment.
(SpoxLogic)
Your logic is flawed. With the exception of North Carolina and South Carolina, the primaries he won were in lily-white states. Montana, Wisconsin, Vermont? Not too many black folks there.
The author is right. However, given Obama's experience and not having paid his dues issue, it will be hard to separate the racism factor. In any case it is too late. The right democratic strategy would have been to elect Clinton in 2008 and 2012. By then many of the old racists would die out and the tax would be far less. Minority percentages would also grow helping Obama. Obama then could be president in 2016 and 2020 perpetuating a 16 year Democratic rule. But the Obama nuts were impatient and the blacks held the party hostage. In the process they may have just killed the golden goose of voter discontent with the Republicans.
WTF??? The BLACKS held the party hostage?? That comment alone is racist in it's context. How in the hell did WE hold the party hostage when the BLACK vote has been one of the most loyal pillars of the Dem party? For your information, democratic presidential candidates usually garner 85 to 95% of the black vote historically. It's ludicrous to think that those numbers would be any lower for Obama.
Secondly, why are we NUTS because we support Obama? I guess to you, McCain supporters are totally lucid in their pick for a candidate whose stances on issues change with the wind, who selected a running mate who had little knowledge of foreign and domestic affairs, and who is at the very least indirectly responsible for the current financial crisis? Was Palin REALLY the best candidate that McCain could pick? Really? Give me a break.
Hilary is great, and maybe she would be doing better, but maybe not. There are a lot of people in this country that are A) sexist, and B) don't like Hilary. If Hilary was a slam dunk then she would be in the race right now. She wasn't... not even in her own party. So give it a rest.
Except that Hillary probably wouldn't have had any easier shot than Obama is having right now.
And calling the Obama supporters "nuts"? Your HRC bias is showing. Let it go already, enough sour grapes.
Oh dude.. I didnt vote for Hillary because of her and Bills shoving Nafta up our collectives.
That and the fact that they are Neocons. If Hillary had been nominated they just would have
pulled out the other play book and would now be attacking her and Bill.. Right Wing sites would
be screaming about Bill . the Silent Partner in Hillary's white house, plus all the other BS they have dumped on the Clintons for years. Rove is going to attack based on race, gender and his favorite wedge issues, guns, gays and god.
I think we should look at the questions posed by the pollsters.
If you were to ask me, or anyone, if we read or saw anything that caused us to view an African-American in a negative context within the last 6 months, how many of us could say no?
Would I vote for the mayor of Detroit?
Do I like rap?
Before we paint with a broad brush, let's make sure of the quality of our product.
These were very general questions
Racism, racism, racism. Didn't we have months of these articles during the primaries? How are these conversations highlighting the oppression between the races helping American decide who to vote for? And as important - doesn't the press care about ALL forms of oppression in our country? Why isn't the mainline press constantly creating articles highlighting the rampant sexism and ageism that has emerged as factors in this presidential run?
DETRACT AND DISTRACT ..that's the strategy folks! As soon as O starts progressing out comes the articles and polls by folks on race. Not too subtle..Don't fall for it!
If by now people can't see this multi-racial man as leadership material, then there is something bigger and better for him out there in global world. THAT'S IT, FOLKS.
My parents were (and are) huge fans of Dr. Martin Luther King.
They were 2 years younger than he was.
What was his spell ?
Well, they had to live through 5 years of Nazi propaganda during the German occupation of the Netherlands in their early teens.
Here was a guy, who - without violence - would protest racism, and draw huge crowds doing it - and earn a Nobel Peace Prize in passing.
Then the 5th of April 1968 came - when the news of his assassination reached Europe.
I still remember *my* resignation towards the US - that barbaric nation that killed a non-violent Nobel Peace Prize winner.
To my parents, the loss must have been much, much larger ...
There is a movie that Samuel L. Jackson played in, and if you get people to see that movie, then you have won. The movie is "A Time to K I L L ". Race is a factor, otherwise we would not see a poll so close. Obama is educated and knowledgeable but people do not care.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln
It is unfortunate, but America is being tested right now, and we will fail if we cannot see past skin color. Vote for issues and not race or gender. Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest Presidents of our time, and if we fail to listen to his words, we will fail as a country.
You are correct, KC333. The country is beign tested. It's a choice between what you feel is good for the country, or what you feel is good for your race, party, religion, etc. Will most see past their prejudices? The fact that someone is hurting economically, etc and is still willing to against someone who could alleviate that pain, simply based on color, is mind numbing.
The only problem is that if McCain wins, those of us that voted for country, are going to suffer right along side those that voted for race, party and religion, etc.
Tell them to watch the movie a "Time to Kill" and maybe you can get people to see with their hearts and not their eyes.
Thanks for speaking the truth. Now -what do we do about it?
Whine as we always do after losing. The Clintons figured out how a Democrat can win. But a black man must make history first by being the first presidential candidate (who lost)!
Thanks for providing an example of your own argument.
Hillary lost, now you're whining about it...
And I think you mean BILL figured out how a democrat can win. Hillary hasn't got it yet.
Almost half of all white people are racist? That doesn't even make sense. If that were true how were Jim Crow laws ever abolished how were equal rights ever created, where did affirmitive action come from? You mention that people rarely vote against their self-interest; with all these racists making up such a huge part of the country why did so many vote against their self-interest?
Because one holds a negative view of blacks in general means that they cannot vote for Obama even if they really believe he is the better candidate? They will again vote against their best interests?
Should racism play a part in this election it would seem that it was racism from the Democrats. Presumably the Republicans will vote for the Repulican. If the Repulican party is as despised as you say then there should be more Democrats than Republicans. Thus if the Democrat still loses it is because Democrats could not support their own candidate and since you have discounted inexperience or policy it means that the Democrats would have to be racists.
Maybe poor and working-class Republicans see that party as being what is best for America. Maybe they don't want to live in a welfare state with higher taxes and more government interference and fewer property rights.
In the end your collegue at George Mason, Walter Williams, has already granted a pardon for all past race sins: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.pdf
I guess you would rather live in a Republican Corporate Welfare state. Working class America gets to pay off the debts of GOP-induced bankruptcies. So much for your theory. I'll listen to right wing rhetoric the day that there is some evidence that it works. For 30 years its been a joke.
Help me out here the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was enacted in 1999 with 90 Senators voting in favor and 343 Congressmen voting in favor and signed into law by President Clinton.
I don't remember the exact percentage of Repub vs Demo in office back then but I don't believe it was that one sided. I'm tempted to believe that Democrats supported this bill as well.
The root of the bankruptcies are Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Obama was the second highest recipient of their PAC money. Get your facts straight.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
