Race Within The Race
Congratulations to the junior Senator from New York State on her victory in West Virginia. We should, however, temper the big-win enthusiasm for her, since somewhere between 2- and 3-in-10 voters identified race as an important issue for them in who they cast their votes for.
Now, I'll get dinged because black folks are voting 9-1 for Obama nationwide; some will call that injecting race into the race. And if you said that, you'd be right. But here's the rub: black voters by themselves, cannot elect a presidential candidate. Further, if there are somewhere between 20% and 30% of voters in West Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and (coming) Kentucky who identify themselves as racists, what does that say for the state of race in America. Bear in mind, these people who admitted such racial tendencies said these things to total strangers, in the form of the press. Total strangers. I'd bet that there were another 5-10% more who felt the same, but won't ever admit it.
And let's also put things in context. In the roughly 420 years of modern North American history, there have been three -- three -- African-American senators, and two black governors -- and those two governors have been elected in my lifetime, more specifically in the last 20 years. So if 90% of black folks want to "vote black" to try to even the tables, you'll get no brook here, so the cries of "racist black voters" falls on deaf ears.
This issue of race is salient because Hillary Clinton makes the argument that she wins with these less-than-forward-thinking people, code-named "working class whites" and for that reason, she should be the nominee of the Democratic party. She argues that those voters will go to Senator John McCain rather than Senator Barack Obama, and that the Democrats only savior is her. Because she's a white woman.
Poppycock. Talk about pandering.
Nonetheless, this is the great paradox of race-based politics in the United States. Poor white folks, poor Appalachian and southern white folks particularly, identify with politics and politicians that often stand diametrically opposed to their best economic interests. Fact is, that they -- these white voters -- have much more in common with broke, city blacks, but will sooner vote for a white person -- any white person -- against the black person that may have their best interests at heart.
Now, the 20% - 30% of West Virginians are willing to give up their parochial attitudes towards gender relations -- Appalachians are notoriously chauvinistic -- and vote for the white woman over the black man.
What does that say about race in America?
It says there is still this illogical inability to vote for a person of a different hue, damn the consequences. A good friend of mine and I had some fairly heated discussions earlier in the primary about whether Americans were more ready for a woman than black man as president. She thought that Clinton was getting penalized for being a woman, and I obviously disagreed. Seems that many in this country will forgo any gender issues they might have, when pitting a black man against a white woman.
We have at least a partial answer to the debate: Can a Black -- man or woman -- be president of these United States? At least in some parts of the country, it appears that "ABC" is the answer, and the rule of the day: "Anything But Coloreds."
Now, I'll get dinged because black folks are voting 9-1 for Obama nationwide; some will call that injecting race into the race. And if you said that, you'd be right. But here's the rub: black voters by themselves, cannot elect a presidential candidate. Further, if there are somewhere between 20% and 30% of voters in West Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and (coming) Kentucky who identify themselves as racists, what does that say for the state of race in America. Bear in mind, these people who admitted such racial tendencies said these things to total strangers, in the form of the press. Total strangers. I'd bet that there were another 5-10% more who felt the same, but won't ever admit it.
And let's also put things in context. In the roughly 420 years of modern North American history, there have been three -- three -- African-American senators, and two black governors -- and those two governors have been elected in my lifetime, more specifically in the last 20 years. So if 90% of black folks want to "vote black" to try to even the tables, you'll get no brook here, so the cries of "racist black voters" falls on deaf ears.
This issue of race is salient because Hillary Clinton makes the argument that she wins with these less-than-forward-thinking people, code-named "working class whites" and for that reason, she should be the nominee of the Democratic party. She argues that those voters will go to Senator John McCain rather than Senator Barack Obama, and that the Democrats only savior is her. Because she's a white woman.
Poppycock. Talk about pandering.
Nonetheless, this is the great paradox of race-based politics in the United States. Poor white folks, poor Appalachian and southern white folks particularly, identify with politics and politicians that often stand diametrically opposed to their best economic interests. Fact is, that they -- these white voters -- have much more in common with broke, city blacks, but will sooner vote for a white person -- any white person -- against the black person that may have their best interests at heart.
Now, the 20% - 30% of West Virginians are willing to give up their parochial attitudes towards gender relations -- Appalachians are notoriously chauvinistic -- and vote for the white woman over the black man.
What does that say about race in America?
It says there is still this illogical inability to vote for a person of a different hue, damn the consequences. A good friend of mine and I had some fairly heated discussions earlier in the primary about whether Americans were more ready for a woman than black man as president. She thought that Clinton was getting penalized for being a woman, and I obviously disagreed. Seems that many in this country will forgo any gender issues they might have, when pitting a black man against a white woman.
We have at least a partial answer to the debate: Can a Black -- man or woman -- be president of these United States? At least in some parts of the country, it appears that "ABC" is the answer, and the rule of the day: "Anything But Coloreds."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Race Within The Race.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.obsidianhustle.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/182
What about the fact that African American voters have voted Democratic at a rate at or above 9 to 1 for the past few decades? Is that racial, or a response to a political party that seems to make it a habit of demonizing poverty and race (the War on Drugs, Welfare Reform).
Is it racial that white folks, black folks, hispanics, asians, have voted for white candidates for president almost 100% of the time in previous elections because there were no African American candidates?
And how is this different than HRC pimping her daughter to campaign or pandering her opportunistic tears in order to connect with female voters?
And what does it say about so called Democrats who would rather vote for a polar opposite republican rather than another democratic candidate, African American or not?
What about this commentary by the Democratic candidate HRC who states that the fact that she gets the Working Class White Voter she is more qualified to be president? And if she can't persuade folks with college degree's that she is viable or able, what does that say? And how does economic, social, political, education, technology, and ecological reform that she is always talking about happen without those intellectuals she's been sh*tting on lately?
Race will be an issue. It is an issue. But the economy, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Russian, the EU, China, Gun Reform, Economic oversight, agricultural challenges, education inequity, poverty, healthcare reform, trade agreements... Well, race isn't really an issue, is it.