Skip to main content

Playing with Race

It would be imprudent on Sen. Barack Obama’s part to imagine that racism will take a holiday during his campaign. It is therefore prudent of him to head it off at the pass.

At the end of June, after Obama warned a friendly crowd it could expect a resurgence of racism, the Washington Post ran a story about neo-Nazis and segregationist groups spurring racism on internet sites.

The presence of some racist bad apples on the internet should not give anyone pause to suppose that the opposition party apple cart is infested with racists and, though it doesn’t happen often enough, even racists are redeemable. Sen. Robert Byrd waved farewell to the Klu Klux Klan long ago and grew up to be, at present, the longest serving senator in the U.S. Congress. Conservatives and Republican well wishers have in their stables many non-racists politicians and political commentators such as Condoleezza Rice and Thomas Sowell, both of whom are African American non-racists.

Still less should anyone suppose that Obama’s primary opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton, has caught the disease simply because her campaign has made reference, when appropriate, to Obama’s race. Indeed, Obama himself has made such references, and we all can agree he is no neo-nazi skinhead.

In the coming days, it will be important to remember that many Republicans welcomed Obama’s campaign as an indication that the candidate had successfully presented himself as a trans-racial candidate, a man who would be able to unify and even heal racial ruptures between black and white Americans.

There are two ways to be racist, both offensive. One may be either an unapologetic racist – neo-Nazi skin heads fall into this category -- or a subtle racist, someone who is able to sublimate his racism by taking refuge in racially tinged metaphors that hitch the lodestone of racism to ideals, Christian or secular, loved and cherished by most people.

The subtle racist, made familiar to us most recently in the sermons of Black Power preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, falsely accuses right minded, well intentioned whites of racism to advance some private cause.

The seat of racism is the heart, not the mind. The mind may be moved by convincing arguments. But the heart is moved by affections, as puritan divine Jonathan Edwards, the author of "A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections," well knew. One supposes the book is not much reccommended these days in theological schools.

There are dangers in imputing racism where there is none. At some point, the public figures out that the imputation is a rhetorical gimmick usually used by adept politicians to escape scrutiny, and the Peter and the wolf principle kicks in. Having cried “Wolf!”a sufficient number of times when there is no wolf, the public will discount all cries when the wolf really turns up at the door licking his chops.

Not all criticisms of Obama ought to be labeled racist simply because they are directed at a black presidential candidate – not even when they are launched by Democrat spoiler Ralph Nader.

In a recent interview with Rocky Mountain News, perennial “also ran” presidential candidate Nader speculated that Obama had not come out strongly against exploitation in the ghettos – payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos and lead poisoning – because he may have fallen into the habit of “talking white.” Questioned further, Nader explained, "He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

Nader has his own agenda, but he is no racist. Nader is an anti-corporation Kropotkinist. He quite understands that in a general as opposed to a primary campaign, candidates who do not appeal to the broad middle but remain, as he will, on the bitter edge of marginal political movements tend to lose campaigns. Obama's march to the center has little to do with appeals to “white guilt” and more to do with effective campaign strategy.

There is no question that Obama knows how to run a campaign. Whether he knows how to run a country better than, say, Nader or Sen. John McCain is very much an open question that can be best explored only when racists of all stripes are ushered from the room.


Anonymous said…
If Barack Obama became the most powerful man in the world, would there still be an altogether "white power structure" in America? Also, how do you pronounce "Kropotkinist?" I think I know a few people that fit into that category.
Don Pesci said…
Peter Kropotkin’s name is pronounced (crow-pot-kin). He was a much respected Russian anarchist whose most famous and often read work was “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution,” published at the turn of the century. He started off as a student protestor of sorts, drifted into anarchism, wrote about the Paris commune, returned to Russia after the 1917 revolution and was praised by Lenin.

The white power structure in America, a construct of Black Power racists like Obama’s former preacher, would be dealt a blow.

Certainly Jesse Jackson’s message would have to be updated. A black American president would mean, at a minimum, that less than half the population in the US were racists.
Anonymous said…
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are, to coin a phrase from Ronald Reagan, going to relegated to the dustbins of history.

I have heard the time "socialist anarchist" to me and it makes no sense. Perhaps I will read Kropotkin's book to make more sense of it. In order to enforce economic equality you need to have a state.
Don Pesci said…
Yeah, the term “socialist anarchist” does seem to be something of an oxymoron. It may mean a socialist who is willing to commit anarchy on all other forms of government. Anarchism was all the rage in pre-Lenin days, and some anarchists were what we would call soft on socialism. Lenin thought they were useful as agents prepared to overthrow the ancient regime. Stalin was of a different mind and did away with them at the same time he destroyed the Old Bolsheviks; one does not want anarchists cluttering up the new Soviet paradise. There are degrees in all these things. William Buckley’s mentor, Alpert Jay Knock, once wrote a book called “Our Enemy the State.” As best I can make out, he was a bristly libertarian, as was Buckley, though he is more often viewed as a conservative. One of Buckley’s last books, “Happy Days Are Here Again,” is subtitled, “Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist.”

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton, a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Dave Walker, Turning Around The Misery Index

Dave Walker, who is running for Lieutenant Governor on the Republican Party ticket, is recognized by most credible political observers as perhaps the most over qualified candidate for Lieutenant Governor in state history.
He is a member of the Accounting Hall of Fame and for ten years was the Comptroller General of the United States. When Mr. Walker talks about budgets, financing and pension viability, people listen.
Mr. Walker is also attuned to fine nuances in political campaigning. He is not running for governor, he says, because he had moved to Connecticut only four years ago and wishes to respect the political pecking order. Very few people in the state think that, were he governor, Mr. Walker would know less about the finance side of government than his budget chief.

Murphy Stumbles

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy has been roughly cuffed by some news outlets, but not by Vox, which published on April 16 a worshipful article on Connecticut’s Junior Senator, “The Senator of State: How Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, a rising Democratic star, would run the world.”
On April 15, The Federalist mentioned Murphy in an article entitled “Sen. Chris Murphy: China And The World Health Organization Did Nothing Wrong. The lede was a blow to Murphy’s solar plexus: “Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy exonerated China of any wrongdoing over the global pandemic stemming from the novel Wuhan coronavirus on Tuesday.
“’The reason that we’re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did, is not because of anything the WHO [World Health Organization] did,’ said Murphy during a prime-time interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.”