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

Comments

[milo h minderbinder]

While there will be some whites who won't vote for Obama because of race, aren't there many black people who are voting for him for the same reason?

And how is one racist but not the other?

I think it will be a factor, but a relatively minor one, and one that's difficult if not impossible to quantify.

[PATina]

Black people are voting for Obama because he's a democrat. If Barack Obama were a republican he'd be lucky to get 30% of the Black vote (and that's stretching it). You can best believe if the parties were switched (Mc Cain the dem, O bama the Repub)... Mc Cain would be winning the Black vote by BIG numbers.

Remember..­. only about 10% of African Americans are registered Republicans w/ maybe another 10% who consider themselves conservative.

Party affiliation means more than skin color since a lot of African Americans view Black Republican­s/Conserva­tives as Uncle Toms and sell outs.

[milo h minderbinder]

While I see your point, can't the same argument be made that white people are voting for McCain because he's a republican? The GOP does have a considerable edge among registered voters.

[tbone99]

The DNC knew this ( is there anybody who doesn't know this country is hip deep in racism )... but were more concerned with making history than saving our country. They prevented it from even being brought up during the debates and the Obama fans quickly smeared anyone who broached it, as racist ,as if noticing racism is a racist act.

Arent we dangerously far down the road to be surprised that it is a crucial issue that may turn the race.
This speaks poorly of the top Dems - they've been living in the clouds way too long, making decisions out of vapor. Maybe they need to visit Little Rock,Tulsa, St Louis, Cedar Falls and Amarillo and come down from their ivory towers.

[milo h minderbinder]

First, if you think this is "making history" over "saving our country", then do you really think that the same people who are bigots and wouldn't vote for a black man would be happy to vote for a WOMAN? Doubt it.

And candidates are selected by voters. In primaries. Obama got the nod because more people voted for him, I don't get all the blame for the DNC.

[strangelet]

There would be some folks who would not vote for a woman because of her sex, and others who would not vote for a woman named Clinton. But something like 55% of all voters in any US election are female. I contend that a significant fraction of them -- even some Republicans -- would have voted for Clinton in the privacy of the voting booth. Just like a fraction of avowed Democrats will not actually vote for Obama (the "Bradley Effect").

Obama won the primary competition fair and square. My issue with the DNC is that they (that is, Howard Dean) constructed the competition in such a way as to select the "best Democratic" candidate, rather than the candidate most likely to win the general election. BTW, I do NOT mean that they "rigged it for Obama"; the selection criteria were largely set before Obama even announced. Dean's "Fifty-State Strategy" represents hope, but not reality.

I think/hope it is still possible for Obama to win. I'll vote for him, but I'm in CA, so it hardly matters. I also think that if Clinton had been the nominee, it would still be a close race -- the US electorate is still averages center-right, even if fed up with Bush. The difference would have been that the election day "surprises" (people voting differently from how they polled) would have favored Clinton. Instead, I predict that Obama will lose any state where he has less than 4% edge in polls.

[PATina]

That's what's wrong w/ America... we are so consumed w/ winning... that as long as our side wins... we could care less how well they will govern (which is why we have 8 years of Junior Bush). Win or lose... Obama would be the best choice for GOOD GOVERNMENT­... which is why I'm voting for him... not because I think he has the best chance of winning.

Let's just say that the Dems had elected Hillary as their nominee... and it looked as if Americans weren't ready for a woman president.­.. would you then say the Dems were wrong and should have elected Edwards because he would have a better chance of winning??? Let's just keep nominating white men then... problem solved !!!!!

[tbone99]

Given the logic of your first sentence I guess I'll vote for one of the the third part candidates whose platforms much more represent the direction I believe the country should go in , instead of trying to put a break on the Repugs by voting Dem..

[robXdion]

So the welfare of the country should be held hostage because white people can't get over their racism? That's kind of thinking has been going on for a long time, since 1775.

[tbone99]

held hostage? I really don't expect tthat much difference from a man who who has basicall yagreed to allow corporations to break laws with impunity, subsidize churches and give billions to Isreal while he huffs and puffs about radical Islamic extremists.

[themajor755]

100% spot on!!!

[Nicky6571]

Amen! Great piece ....

[gdcb1128]

This makes me so sad and sick to my stomach. Our country is in desperate shape. Barack Obama is an intelligent man who cares about changing the direction of our sorely misguided country. I want my children to grow up in a world where skin color and for that matter, religious preference doesn't matter. Do I sound idealistic? This is the first time in a long time I can remember actually feeling hopeful. For the record, I am white, liberal and unapologetic for being either. It's just who I am.

[strangelet]

I agree with your assessment of Obama. I agree with your aspirations for your children, and mine. I am a white, liberal, middle class male.
I am also 60, so I am no longer very idealistic. That is, I see my fellow Americans more as they are than as I wish they were. I think that Obama will be a good President, if he can get elected, although he is a good bit less liberal than many liberals seem to think. I also thought that Hillary would have been at least satisfactory as President, and supported her primary campaign because I thought she would have a better chance of winning in November because (drum roll) she is white. I did say I'm not very idealistic any more, right? The President wields enormous, centralized administrative, appointive, and agenda-setting power. I'm not sure the country can truly recover from the eight years of Emperor Bush, much less from yet another Repo.
I am sick to my stomach because I'm afraid my party (I've voted straight Democratic for 40 years) has done itself in again with idealism. I hope I'm wrong. If Obama can pull it off, it will be an indescribable step forward for the country. After Senator Clinton's campaign, it is clear that it won't be very long before we have a female President (maybe not long at all, if McCain wins); but Obama represents a milestone I wouldn't have expected until mid-century.
I hope we haven't over-reached.