Not voting for the “dusky Dukakis”? You racist!
D.A. Ridgely on Sep 22nd 2008
Not my words or accusation, folks! The quip is thanks to Christopher Hitchens, and the scolding thanks to Jacob Weisberg, both men writing in Slate, the web-mag so ruthlessly crammed with middle-brow analysis that the hairs tickle its navel.
Filed in The Barracks, The Bench, The Bookshelf, The Bureau
Christopher Hitchins echoes my thoughts perfectly when he says, “Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant, and gutless?” I’m beginning to feel like I’m watching a replay of ‘04, when John Kerry willingly let himself be swiftboated.
Weisberg, however, takes an important issue and proceeds to inflate it beyond all meaning. It is true that the “not willing to vote for a black” crowd could tip the election. However that’s a slender reed on which to build the claim that “racism is the only reason Obama might lose” (emphasis added). Obama had a chance to win my vote. In fact I like the idea of voting for him because he’s black, and I’d like to stand on the side of breaking the color barrier. But Obama has lost my vote by continuing to be vague, and by refusing to listen to his economic advisors.
Then Weisberg lapses into ridiculous hyperbole.
No, the fact that Obama’s candidacy swept aside his white male challengers as though they were no more substantial than snowflakes, the fact that even if he loses it will be by a slender margin, means that equal opportunity has become more of a reality than it was in the past.
In blaming it all on racism Weisberg is assuming that all a Democratic canidate would have to do this time around is just show up. But as Obama is finding out, the candidate still has to play the campaign game–he still has to persuade the persuadable middle that he would be a better president than McCain.
McCain also had a chance to win my vote, and he also has lost it. But it’s clear to me that a person can vote for McCain on grounds other than race.
In fact I like the idea of voting for him because he’s black, and I’d like to stand on the side of breaking the color barrier.
An excellent point, Mr. Hanley. I wonder if it ever occured to Mr. Weisberg that there may be others like you. Taking it a step further, I wonder how many Pennsylvania voters could articulate a significant policy difference between Obama and Clinton?
I think a fairly large number of liberals and Democrats (however closely or not those two Venn diagrams may overlap) believe but will not admit out loud that any credible white male Democratic nominee this year couldn’t possible lose but that it’s the cruel and ironic fate of the Democratic party (because, you know, its inclusive unlike those racist, sexist Republicans) that it would be this year of all years to have had to pick either a black man or a white woman to run.
Weisberg is just tuning up, just in case Obama does lose, for the official post-defeat lament. If it had been Hillary, he’d have been making the same argument on grounds of sexism. *shrug*
I despise the idea of voting for Obama because he’s black (or Palin because she’s female, etc., etc.) although I perfectly well understand and share the desire to have the opportunity to support on legitimate political grounds and then to see a black (or female) candidate win. A subtle distinction but I think a tremendously important one.
DAR,
I would never vote for someone based solely on race. But given that (a) my vote won’t change the outcome, and assuming (b) I’m going to be dissatisfied with either of the two major party candidates anyway, then (c) I don’t think using race as the deciding factor is particularly egregious.
However given Obama’s views (what I can make of them, through the vapidness of the change mantra), I think there’s too much weighing against a vote for him for race to be my deciding factor.
Matt Huisman,
Perhaps there are others, but I’ve learned never to assume there are many people who share my political views. I’m either more sophisticated, or perhaps just more eccentric (a crank, my wife says). ;)
I apologize for picking on that comment out of context. It’s an interesting question, though, whether race really would be a morally acceptable tie-breaker given your conditions (a) and (b). Mutatis mutandis, could one also ethically vote against Obama because of his race?
The principle reason race remains an important fact of American culture and politics is that we insist on continuing to treat it as an important fact of American culture and politics. I understand, of course, that having a black president would be an important factor in reducing that importance. And I note the qualification that one’s vote would not be outcome determinative in any event. Still, I think giving any weight to otherwise irrelevant demographic facts about political candidates also serves, however inadvertently, to perpetuate their artificial importance. If so, then we get in the whole utility calculus of whether the one outweighs the other. But even if we end up with a net plus, it seems to me that there is something troubling deontologically about the process in the same way that purely utilitarian justifications of affirmative action leave me at the very least uncomfortable..