« Hillary Hate, Barack Love | Main | Russert »
October 31, 2007
On Obama Love
Mike Meginnis suggests there's an element of anti-racist signaling to the sudden elite affection for Obama:
it’s hard to adopt any low-cost behaviors that signify such anti-racist perspectives without causing awkwardness. We all feel sort of weird around that white guy who spends every waking minute talking about civil wars in Africa, blood diamonds, his appreciation for the music of Bob Marley, and so forth. He means well enough but we don’t know how to read him — to what extent is his conspicuous demonstration of virtue an endearing flirtation with genuinely progressive politics, and to what extent is it all just a cover?
Obama support offers people a chance to symbolically demonstrate their enlightenment at no cost. I’ve heard and read a number of times now about racist white people developing a strange attachment to Obama. They don’t normally like Democrats but this kid seems alright. It doesn’t hurt that he uses language designed to help him buddy up with those who are, more or less, afraid of black people — he is, in some ways, professionally a nonthreatening black man. I don’t mean that as a criticism. To an extent this highlights the expert way in which he has navigated this country’s complicated and often awful relationship with race, but ultimately it doesn’t mean much for his chances come election day. People are brilliant in this country at finding ways to vote conservative when everything they know tells them not to. My mother knew Bush was a disaster and she voted for him anyway not because Kerry would do anything to make abortion more common but because he approved of it. They’ll find something or other like that come election day if Obama gets the nod.
What do you guys think?
October 31, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Uh, does the elite give the decisive votes? Elite fanclub, fine, but as I already mentioned, Onama just recently manged to p*** off both the gay community and the progressives. What share of the voters is this, maybe 15%? Doesn't matter, by any means too many for Obama to recover. No chance to beat Hillary this way.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 11:16:23 AM
I’ve heard and read a number of times now about racist white people developing a strange attachment to Obama
Really? Who? Where has he read these things? I'm unaware of any KKK chapters endorsing Obama.
Perhaps Fred/El Pendejo can tell us if he likes Obama or not. Any of the other racist trolls around her can feel free to chime in on whether they think he's an unthreatening black man or not.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:51 AM
Bah. Three months ago Obama was my favorite candidate by far, almost entirely based on the intelligent and inspiring things that kept coming out of his mouth. In my pretend mental life, if I were a candidate, I would want to be saying the things Obama says, more than any other candidate. I accept that he is probably too recessive as a campaigner to support right this moment. The extra racial thing does matter, but is it his race that makes it easier for him to "inspire," a la Oprah, or is it an added bonus? Who can say.
Posted by: Martin | Oct 31, 2007 11:24:48 AM
Obama support offers people a chance to symbolically demonstrate their enlightenment at no cost. I’ve heard and read a number of times now about racist white people developing a strange attachment to Obama.
Sounds like how similar people a few years ago supported Colin Powell.
*
BTW ... I know some folks who don't like the Obama phenomenon and part of what they dislike is how people trying to be "not racist" have lined up behind Obama.
Posted by: DAS | Oct 31, 2007 11:27:18 AM
I think Meginnis has a pretty good point. I think it's worth probing these issues even though they are a bit uncomfortable.
The reason why is that the Republicans will find a way to bring it up. Just as they used Kerry's candidacy to probe Vietnam-era fissures, they will use Obama's candidacy to probe racial fissures.
Remember Limbaugh's "Barack the Magic Negro" song? That's just the beginning.
So, it is a legitimate point by Meginnis but it suggests we need a fuller discussion of the role of race in this candidacy, not some kind of dismissal of Obama's popularity.
Posted by: mk | Oct 31, 2007 11:44:11 AM
Thanks for the link.
Stephen: I think Andrew Sullivan has posted some stuff about the phenomenon I'm describing. I find Sully's own writing occasionally quite racist, and he loves Obama. He had a weird lapse a while ago in describing Obama as neither black nor white. I'm also thinking, though, of freinds' family -- my housemate says her dad, one of the few white men I've heard say "nigger" in the past several years and an avowed Republican, thinks Obama is just fine.
DAS: That seems like a weird reason to have a problem with Obama
Posted by: Mike Meginnis | Oct 31, 2007 11:45:41 AM
Sorry, the more important reason (more important than Rush Limbaugh) why we should discuss these matters is that it will help people better sort out what they like about Obama. His race, like it or not, is highly relevant.
In a "logical" sense, of course, it is highly irrelevant, but since we are not perfectly logical beings we need to keep the psychological and the logical perspectives both in our heads at once.
But you have to trust your gut, even if your judgement might be clouded by some lingering traumas or racial tensions. There is no excuse to say we should turn away from a black candidacy because we can't trust our own feelings.
Posted by: mk | Oct 31, 2007 11:50:15 AM
The Bob Marley example is really, really badly chosen. There are any number of reasons why persons can, and do, go on and on about Bob Marley, including: a) he's one of the greatest and most influential musicians of our time, and b) it's a somewhat socially acceptable way of expressing a love of the ganja and/or profiling a certain social style. Either of those factors comes in WAY before 'this shows I'm not a racist', don't you think? Where in the world did the Marley example come from?
Posted by: drinkof | Oct 31, 2007 12:00:31 PM
I too think Meginnis has a point here. Although I think there's an interaction effect with the anti-HRC stance of these voters (Why does the word "elite" come in, btw?). There is undeniably sexist opposition to HRC, but a way to temper that bias is to say, but see, I'm not prejudiced, I like that articulate, educated, affluent light-skinned black male candidate just fine. See how race and gender doesn't and shouldn't matter? It's true, it's a totally non-threatening, no-cost way to demonstrate cosmopolitan political values (though probably no one would use the word "cosmopolitan" to describe their positions).
Furthermore, by backing the least experienced but psychologically appealing candidate in Obama, these folks can then easily step away from their support should he win the nomination, by voting for the white male GOP candidate as ultimately "more qualified" than Obama.
I would also add that Obama's recent carousing with homophobic campaigners would make him even more appealing to this hypothetical group of voters we're discussing.
Posted by: Redstar | Oct 31, 2007 12:07:55 PM
PS: I am so over obama.
http://www.grahamad.com/blog/2007/10/31/so-over-obama/
Posted by: Redstar | Oct 31, 2007 12:09:23 PM
I agree with this:
"Obama support offers people a chance to symbolically demonstrate their enlightenment at no cost."
I think this line is just plain silly:
"I’ve heard and read a number of times now about racist white people developing a strange attachment to Obama."
To reveal my prejudice, I do not view Obama as a member of the Afro-American experience...I mean the Obama's family just got off the boat...the guy's family tree missed...slavery...Jim Crow...the crushing of Afro-American communities in the late 19th and early 20th century...that's a lot of history to miss and then to turn around claim the mantle of the Afro-American community...well frankly, his platitudes are directly targeting whites to the exclusion of black folks...that's a tenuous claim to the voice of Martin or Malcolm. In fact I remember hearing Martin Luther King dismiss men like Obama as worse than useless.
...besides Obama time is up, he served Hill & Bill well, that's why Clinton's friends pimped him, I thought he knew that, but now that he seems dazed, I'm not so sure. I would have thought he understood that his role was to blunt Edwards appeal and hand Hill & Bill the crown and like a Bush retainer [say Powell, who had to go through a similar humiliation] be handed a job that made him a token, maybe VP...although anybody who thinks Bill ain't VP has got their head up their fanny.
Posted by: S Brennan | Oct 31, 2007 12:44:33 PM
I think Andrew Sullivan has posted some stuff about the phenomenon I'm describing. . .
I - I don't quite know what to say. It's rare that someone puts up such a great response.
The idea makes some sense, but I wonder just how deep that 'support' goes. They really hate Hillary and many of them probably agree with Coulter about Edwards being a "faggot" - which sentiment is still fairly ok to have, of course.
So when thinking of hypothetical Democratic Presidents, Obama is the least "icky" to them, in part because pundits have wondered if he's black enough. It's not like any of them would be real interested in proving their non-racist cred with Al Sharpton.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 31, 2007 12:44:49 PM
This is an important insight. It reminds me up how, a year or so ago, the Freepers were gaga to run Condi Rice for president.
And it's not without political importance. JFK skillfully exploited people's deep wish to convince themselves they're not bigoted (in this case, anti-Catholic) to help him beat Nixon.
Posted by: Rick Perlstein | Oct 31, 2007 12:46:00 PM
I think it's a rather cynical way of stating the point. Another way to put it would be that Obama represents the ultimate achievement of racial equality, and people are eager to believe that America is ready to get there. But Obama is also appealing and charismatic in person as well.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Oct 31, 2007 12:57:03 PM
Outside the blog echo chamber, the whole Obama / "recovered" gay thing is getting zero traction. It's barely made the MSM at all. I don't see it as a big issue over the long term.
Oh, and this is a good point: "There is no excuse to say we should turn away from a black candidacy because we can't trust our own feelings."
Posted by: lux | Oct 31, 2007 1:11:59 PM
This echoes David Ehrenstein's op-ed "Obama the 'Magic Negro,'" which placed him alongside the countless literary and film characters who appear, seemingly out of nowhere, to help the white man with his discomfort about racial matters.
Rush Limbaugh latched on to this (mentioned above) as a kind of totem that allowed him to both attack liberals and say the word "negro" over and over again on air. But the original op-ed, which has different problems, is worth reading.
And to reiterate Mike's final point, these are generally supporting characters. Bagger Vance does not win the tournament or get the girl.
That said, we're talking about Obama in the mind of many whites. The actual Obama is indeed running for president and not to make us feel better for disliking rap.
Posted by: Other Ezra | Oct 31, 2007 1:18:37 PM
The Obama phenomena is quite complicated, since motives for supporting him are diverse.
I have no doubt a large part of the support for him comes from people who a stridently anti-Clinton or are afraid that Clinton can beat any Repub. contender and want to bring her down early.
I also have no doubt that if Obama is the Dem. candidate much of this so-called support will devolve into subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on his race, experience and anything else they can conjure up (his name, his 'real' religion, etc.).
The GOP knows that Obama (and probably Hillary too) can't carry the white, conservative areas, but that is to their advantage. The primary season is just in their minds a staging area for cutting down the opposition in anticipation of the real war to come in the general election, which will bring out GOP/conservative/racist/sexist tactics like never before. They have to counter the weakness of their Guliani/Romney/et al candidates by guerilla war, and guerilla war is what we are going to see.
We Dems should choose our best candidate, but in choosing we need also to anticipate what will be coming in the general election. Between Clinton and Obama the general election issues are not so clear in my mind: both have inherent features that offer targets for rightwing hate. So be it.
On the primary fight, I think the main job of the GOP is to bring down Hillary - I think they think that Edwards and Obama would both be easier general election targets but for different reasons which aren't hard to determine. And, post-election, I think the GOP thinks both Edwards and Obama would be easier to freak into submission - mistakenly, in my opinion, but they know Hillary will not be a submissive President to GOP mau-mauing.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Oct 31, 2007 1:42:25 PM
Just to be clear, because I'm afraid I'm being misunderstood here, I'm not saying this is a point against Obama. I still like the guy and would prefer him to Clinton, even though his campaign has looked like amateur hour recently.
Posted by: Mike Meginnis | Oct 31, 2007 1:52:22 PM
Mike does an excellent job of describing whites in denial about their own racism & bigotry. All of us have known people who say they support a candidate simply because they are black or female or whatever, yet never mark their name in the general ballot. I have myself been one of them.
In a race between Obama & any of the other front runners of the Republican Party, I would vote for Obama. However, I believe that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, he would lose primarily because he is browner than most of us. As Mike states so well, most would remain blissfully unaware of that being the primary reason for their choice.
We have come a long way, baby, but we still have a long way to go.
Posted by: bob in fla | Oct 31, 2007 1:59:36 PM
Jim,
What do you base this on:
Hillary will not be a submissive President to GOP mau-mauing. - Posted by: JimPortlandOR
Hill & Bill did an awful lot of cowtowing to the GOP and they got little to show for it. What they ran on in '92 and what they did where black to white. Hill & Bill have a history of incompetence on foreign affairs and domestic policy, fiscally they look good, but the tech boom accounts for a portion of that. Hill & Bill real accomplishment is being sandwiched between two of the worst presidents ever.
"...not be submissive...to GOP mau-mauing"...Hill is already so far to the right that Murdoch is a full fledged supporter.
Let me repeat...Murdoch is a full fledged supporter of Hill & Bill. Why Jim? Is Murdoch a fool?
Posted by: S Brennan | Oct 31, 2007 2:15:21 PM
Barack's appeal may have something to do with race but it has more to do with passion, intelligence, charisma, charm, Kennedyesque idealism, I could go on. If Barack Obama were white, he would be president *right now*.
Posted by: interloper | Oct 31, 2007 2:19:43 PM
remember when everyone was wondering: "is America was ready to elect an X?" we were all questioning whether America is more racist than sexist or vice versa?
for the Sully-types, they're clearly more sexist than racist.
Posted by: David | Oct 31, 2007 2:39:19 PM
it has more to do with passion, intelligence, charisma, charm, Kennedyesque idealism...
No, it has more to do with the wish that a candidate had those things. It's tied into race because supporting Obama gives supporters a reason to feel good about themselves. They can tell th4emselves that they are the people who want everyone to work together in harmony to "bridge the divide" that separates Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to work together for a better future. The problem, of course, is that these supporters can keep -- even reinforce -- those feelings if Obama loses.
What Mike touches on is what I'm worried about-- supporting Obama is not a means to an end, where that end is supposed to be acquisition of power and the use of it to push through policies that serve our interests -- rather, support for Obama seems to have become an end in itself, as an expression of moral righteousness. Sometimes I worry that Obama himself thinks this, given that he doesn't seem to have bothered to run a serious, media driven campaign, constantly pushing his own campaigns narrative...
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 31, 2007 2:41:05 PM
If you're openly or quietly racist (and believe the rest of the country is with you) saying that you support Obama is a perfectly wonderful signaling mechanism because you can rely on all those other unacknowledged racists to vote for someone else. So you can like him without the pesky fear (see Hillary) that he might actually get elected.
Posted by: paul | Oct 31, 2007 2:51:13 PM
he is, in some ways, professionally a nonthreatening black man. I don’t mean that as a criticism. To an extent this highlights the expert way in which he has navigated this country’s complicated and often awful relationship with race, but ultimately it doesn’t mean much
... except that the reason it doesn't mean much is that he hasn't navigated our complicated racial politics all that well - as Meginnis points out, rightly I think, Obama has settled on a nonthreatening perspective that makes white people feel comfortable. That's all well and good, but it's also picking a side. It's the very soft way he makes race a non-issue that's really hurting him with blacks, and that underlines his "half white" status, in many cases, to that audience. I say that as someone who lives in a similar divide (half black and half white) and who has chosen, similarly, to live largely in the more white community, the place where people of many different colors live in relative harmony... as long as we don't get too involved in the hard stuff. I'd go even further to say that I think Meginnis is utterly wrong here anyway - there really isn't an "expert" way to thread the needle here; Hillary Clinton's decided to go after the black vote in strong way that's really very traditional for Democrats, and that will affect the calculus for her in some places, while Edwards has chosen a race conscious, but working class focus for his approach that's also familiar but that's not got him past third place in national polls. If Obama's approach was so brilliant, he'd really be beating Clinton soundly; that, after all is the promise we were sold initially, and frankly, it hasn't worked out, because Obama is so, er, colorless on racial issues in particular (but really as a symptom of a larger problem of not being particularly daring anywhere). That's why I think Meginnis is right - like reggae (sorry drinkof, white people reggae love is what it is, no matter how we try to sell Marley as a genius), Obama liking is a painless thing for white people who like to show that they're broad minded. I'm glad they are, but it's not improving anything for Obama, or really, for the Democratic field.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 31, 2007 3:55:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
