Media Plays the Race Card Because They’re Too Lazy to Look Further
By LisaB on October 3, 2008 at 5:30 AM in Media Bias, Media Handling of Story, Race, Race Card, Racism
Bumped up its original publication date of September 25th by SusanUnPC because it’s important to revisit LisaB’s important reporting — always highly objective and rational — on the employment of the “race card.” LisaB’s thoughtful observations are critically important to consider.
…………………………………….
As this campaign begins its way-too-slow descent to November, I’m seeing more and more “it must be racism” op-eds and articles. If Obama loses – an unbelievable thought to supporters – then the ONLY explanation is white racism. Since Obama is so clearly the best candidate, the theory goes, everyone must realize this and only those offended by his race(s?) would not vote for him. An article at realclearpolitics provides a helpful list of some pundit-speak on this theme.
And it could become a rage the likes of which America has not seen in a long time, if ever. It will first and foremost come from within black America. The deep emotional connection that nearly every black American has to an Obama victory is difficult for even empathetic non-blacks to measure. A major evangelical pastor told me that even evangelical black pastors who share every conservative value with white evangelical pastors, including pro-life views on abortion, will vote for Obama. They feel their very dignity is on the line.
That is why the growing chorus — already nearing unanimity — of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism is so dangerous.
Read the rest ->
Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic: “White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win.”
Jack Cafferty of CNN: “The polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.”
Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: “The reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is … the color of his skin. … If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth.”
Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: “Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.”
Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: “Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children’s futures because he’s black?”
Similar comments have been made by Kansas’s Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and by writers in Time magazine. And according to The Associated Press: “A poll conducted by The Associated Press and Yahoo News, in conjunction with Stanford University, revealed that a fairly significant percentage of Democrats and independents may not vote for Sen. Barack Obama because of his race.” If you read the poll, it does not in fact suggest this conclusion. The pollsters assert that any person with any negative view of black life means that the person is racist and means that he would not vote for Obama. Both conclusions are unwarranted. But “Obama will lose because of racism” is how the poll takers and the media spin it.
Better add Clarence Page to that list. Realclearpolitics has an article on Sept. 24 from him saying the “Bubba vote” will be the problem. Page hides behind a quote from Dick Armey:
What is Barack Obama’s biggest remaining obstacle on his road to the White House? A nationally prominent Republican sums it up in a word: “Bubba.”
“The Bubba vote is there, and it’s very real, and it is everywhere,” former House Majority Leader Dick Armey recently said. “There’s an awful lot of people in America, bless their heart, who simply are not emotionally prepared to vote for a black man.”
Then Page goes here:
Anyway, as Armey implies, Obama fared worse in the primaries with white working-class males and their wives than he did with other identifiable groups of voters.
———–Yet even Bubba knows something about political correctness these days, so he won’t always tell the truth to pollsters.
Could this have been a class issue, where these “bubbas” see Obama as out of touch with them? Of course not. These people are white, presumably Democrat and therefore racist. Although I’m sure white Republicans will be faulted as well, the blame won’t really fall there because no one would expect a Republican to vote for Obama anyway. But the Democratic party and media pundits expect all white Democrats to fall in line with the party nominee and those who don’t are labeled racist. (It’s an intra-party thing.)
If Obama loses, it will be said it is due to too many whites who leave the party and vote “against their interests” because they will not vote for a black man. “Against their interests” implies against their economic interests – meaning had these people voted for Obama, they would do better economically. That they would vote “against their interests” means they are so racist they would vote against their own economic needs just to see that Obama does not obtain office.
The theory goes that these people are terribly stupid (low-information) or terribly racist and low class, without any valid reason for opposing The One. That doesn’t hold up though. Typically, Democrats with a beef against Obama can easily point to the issue they have a problem with: sexism, flip-flopping on NAFTA, FISA or other issues, experience, Obama’s history with distasteful people, or simply a perception of dishonesty. Whatever it is, those Democrats opposing him are usually quite clear about why.
But, pundits and party elders are framing those objections into racism, the former because they are simply too lazy to figure out what’s really going on or don’t have the skills to and the latter because it’s political strategy. Once in a while an article appears that sort of refutes this theme, but not because the author expected it. Salon had an article earlier this month where the author “toured small town America” looking for racists. This is what he found:
With less than two months until voting day, there are doubts hanging over Barack Obama’s campaign — and they aren’t just due to Alaska’s top moose-hunting hockey mom jolting the race and electrifying the Republican faithful. Although Obama has touted himself as a post-racial candidate, whether America is ready to elect a black man for president remains a vexing question for his supporters. In a tight national race, Obama continues struggling to gain wider support, particularly among white working-class voters and independents in battleground states.
————-For three months during this summer and early fall, I’ve been traveling across America, exploring the nation’s small towns and rural areas and meeting the people there. From Michigan to New Mexico to North Carolina, I’ve conducted dozens of interviews with white working-class voters across 18 states, gauging, among other things, their thoughts and feelings about the first black man to have a serious shot at winning the White House. Beyond Obama’s race, what I found was a more complicated set of concerns — whether accurately informed or not — about his religious faith, values and cultural and educational background. That is, many of these white rural voters expressed a discomfort that may have more to do with unfamiliarity about the type of person Barack Obama is, rather than with direct concerns about his race.
Democrats cannot express their concerns about their nominee without being accused of covert racism. Although racism was first attributed to “low-information” voters in states like West Virginia, it now includes “high-information” defecting Hillary supporters such as Lynn de Rothschild. The LA Times said:
Maybe Milady, who was born in New Jersey, has spent too much time in England. She probably meant to say that Obama is uppity, not elitist. That’s got to be it.
I guess when you’re looking for racists, any Democrat not supporting Obama will do. I suppose it is also understood that all Republicans are racists under these circumstances. But is that a viable theme?
ABCNews and Columbia University conducted a poll about race and social issues recently. The data shows, in some respects, what you might expect. Different races respond to issues differently; with AAs responding differently from other AAs based on whether they identify themselves as victims of specific instances of racism.
Regarding Barack Obama and his run for the White House, the study briefly noted this:
Regardless of their candidate preference, 61 percent of American – 70 percent of blacks, and about six in 10 whites and Hispanics alike – think Obama’s candidacy will change the way blacks think about themselves, and nearly all who feel this way say it’ll be for the better.
Seven in 10 Americans, similarly, think his candidacy represents broader progress for all blacks and not a single case of individual advancement.
So, in this poll, people in general are favorably predisposed to Obama, even if they don’t support him politically. The author has this a little later:
At the same time, in a finding with broad potential ramifications, class identity trumps racial identity: Sixty percent of blacks, and about as many Hispanics as well, say they have more in common with members of their social class (e.g., working-class or middle-class) than with members of their race.
Ane even with their enthusiasm for Obama, blacks by a wide margin, 60-23 percent, say it’s more important for African-Americans to build economic rahter than political p woer.
Another key finding, perhaps surprising given personal experience, is that blacks do not broadly blame racism as the chief barrier African-Americans face in improving their situation.
While 37 percent say racism is the more important factor, slightly more, 44 percent, say it’s lack of initiative among blacks themselves. (Half of HIspanics, and 56 percent of whites, share that view.)
This suggests that AAs don’t necessarily see racism opposing them at every turn. I wonder how it plays in the AA community that Obama and his surrogates are doing this despite the many gifts – upbringing, education and relative wealth – that he enjoys?
Well, some AAs don’t support Obama. You can read many here at NQ and listen to Sugar and Patsy every Thursday night at NQ radio to hear their opinions about Obama. But many AAs do support him. Some support him because they think his positions are correct, and some simply because he’s AA.
I don’t have any problem with that. Given the history of our country and the way AAs have been marginalized, I don’t begrudge AAs voting for Obama on that basis. One of the reasons I supported Hillary Clinton was because I so wanted to see a woman as President, but that was not the only reason. I hope AAs don’t mainly vote for Obama because he’s perceived as AA, but if so, then that’s the way it goes. I don’t see that as racist; I just see it as “voting for the home team.” But it’s important to remember not all AAs will vote this way. Not by a long shot. And those AAs not supporting Obama? They’re feeling the heat too, but not usually in the press. They’re feeling it from friends, family and in their social circles.
Also, as many exasperated AAs will tell you, Obama is not really AA at all. His racial mix includes African / Arab / Caucasion. It’s only fair to note that his campaign and he himself are somewhat trading on a fundamental misunderstanding of who he is. While it is true Obama had an African father and a white American mother, he did not grow up within the AA community and only entered it as an adult and did so through what many AAs consider a fringe church. I think his books clearly show he did not feel “at home” in any particular community for a long time.
Bill Clinton had some very intelligent things to say about why people vote the way they do. When asked about women who voted for Hillary then switched to Sarah Palin, Clinton responded that voting is a complex act and people do not use only one measure for decision making.
People vote or, as Bill said, “give their allegiances to” people for many reasons. Reducing all those reasons to one ugly one is dishonest, anti-intellectual (!), unfair and, in the case of trying to drive a wedge between people, immoral.
Are there racist people who will vote in this election. Yes. Will they make the difference in winning or losing? NO. Obama’s fate has always been in his own hands. His popularity and ability to defeat, by any means necessary, his rivals show he can prevail. He could not have done either without white people voting for him.
Maybe those white Obama voters better wear an Obama or t-shirt, flash the Obama hand sign, display the Obama compilation CD jewel case in their windows, call each other to sound the Obama cell phone ringtone, drink from an Obama water bottle / coffee mug, model Obama jewelry or use Obama coins in the vending machines, because otherwise they’ll just be plain vanilla racists.
———————–
Want to see the article Bill refers to? NQ has it here. And you can visit the author’s site here.
Go ahead. It’s worth your time.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
