Views » May 9, 2008 » Web Only

Acknowledging the Race Chasm

By David Sirota

When it comes to race, American politics is as polarized as a red and blue election map. On one side are those who try to distract from the issue; on the other side are those who work to sensationalize it. As this campaign season shows, what unifies both is bigotry.

Take the reaction to my recent In These Times article about Barack Obama winning states with either very small or very large black populations, but losing most states in the middle.

Those results, while troubling, aren’t surprising. In very white states, racial themes are simply not part of the political dialogue, and a black candidate therefore faces fewer inherent disadvantages. In states with large black populations, race is a major political force, but the African-American vote is big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote. It is in the Race Chasm — the states whose populations are more than 6 percent and less than 17 percent black — where race is a political issue but the black vote is too small to counter a racially motivated white vote.

The trend continued in the last few weeks, with Obama losing two states in the Race Chasm (Pennsylvania and Indiana) and winning one outside the Chasm (North Carolina). Nonetheless, the response to this phenomenon by some in the intelligentsia has been willful ignorance.

The Atlantic Monthly’s Reihan Salam said the data are not driven by race, but by Hillary Clinton’s “waitress-mom sensibility sell[ing] well in these regions.” The New America Foundation’s Michael Lind said the evidence does not reflect America’s historic black-white divide, but instead Germanic and Scandinavian migration patterns (I’m not kidding). This is typical behavior from the Establishment’s “serious” thinkers. When confronted with race, they become ostriches and shove their heads in the sand.

The news industry and politicians, on the other hand, are happy to discuss and exploit race, whether by manufacturing controversy (think Jeremiah Wright) or by promoting racists (think MSNBC hiring Pat Buchanan, or Republican senators re-electing Trent Lott to a leadership position). The media and political elites aren’t ostriches — they behave like minstrel show producers, portraying African-Americans as subhuman, alien and unimportant, except for their entertainment value.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, for example, differentiated between “regular people” and black people. Pundits refer separately to the “working class” and to African-Americans — as if they are mutually exclusive. Hillary Clinton this week claimed, “Obama’s support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening” — the implication being that non-white Americans are lazy. These terms — “regular,” “working class,” “hardworking” — have become euphemisms for “whites,” who are subsequently billed as the only ones who matter.

Think I’m imagining that last part? Then you weren’t watching ABC’s “Nightline” last week. The Jeremiah Wright brouhaha may be roiling the black community, correspondent David Wright said, “but the real question now is what do white voters think.” That’s right — according to “Nightline,” painful questions in the black community aren’t “real.”

Such denigration happens all the time, and you can tell it is rooted in bigotry because the black vote is — by any mathematical measure — crucial. Political scientist Tom Schaller notes that if Clinton had won slightly more African-American votes, she might be winning. And black turnout for Democrats could decide general elections in many key swing states. Yet, we are still told “the real question” is only what white voters think.

Some will read this and go on pretending the Race Chasm doesn’t exist, while others will keep insisting that the black vote is irrelevant. Both sides will claim they aren’t prejudiced. But racism, whether from ostriches or minstrel show producers, is racism — and it will persist until we recognize it and reject it.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Perhaps the “Race Chasm” will persist as long as individuals on each side continue to exploit and benefit from it.

  The 1964 Civil Rights Act supposedly prohibited the use of race (along with gender and religion) to discriminate. Before the word discriminate became only used negatively it meant to distinguish between by some trait.

  Rev. Wright uses black profusely on his church’s website as he also uses white in his sermons and political criticisms. (I notice you gave him an inferred pass in this article.)

  When I was in the army in Alabama in 1963, I was appalled and sickened by the labeling of all the every day places and things with White Only and Colored Only — drinking fountains, benches, public transportation.  Being from the north I had only heard and read of such and never really thought much about it.

  I had hopes the 1964 law would make things different.

  Well, it at least removed those shocking signs.  But different isn’t always better. Since that time we’ve seen color added to things like Black Entertainment Channel, The Black Pages, Black Pride, and in plain clothes as Affirmative Action.

  While I think I can understand these as attempts to compensate and encourage the black side of the chasm, I also see it as widening the divide in its exclusion of the those of us on the white side.

  Whether used to label a whole category of the voting spectrum, as an adjective in a list of crimes and social slights, or a method to unite those who have so long faced the negative-only definition of the word, such distinctions will not help to bridge any chasm — real or perceived.

  Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2008 at 12:54 PM

  “In states with large black populations, race is a major political force, but the African-American vote is big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote.”

  Why is it just assumed that blacks that vote for blacks are NOT racially motivated (or females voting for females), whereas whites voting for whites IS racially motivated (or males voting for males)?

  “The news industry and politicians, on the other hand, are happy to discuss and exploit race, whether by manufacturing controversy (think Jeremiah Wright)”

  Wright has done this himself, surely one cannot think him un-newsworthy?

  So what is the fraction of blacks who vote for Obama anyway? If whites were as massively racially selective as blacks have been in this primary season, Obama would be long gone (thankfully, the “race chasm” is almost entirely a black phenomenon, especially for people like me who are Obama supporters, regardless of his race).

  Posted by wolf on May 9, 2008 at 4:10 PM

  Wolf,

  Good observations.

  Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2008 at 5:26 PM

  I feel certain the racial tinged remarks made by Sen. Clinton, many in the media and those who would like to make race an issue have raised the percentage of blacks who prefer Sen. Obama.  Consider the effect if those remarks were directed at the Jews, Hispanics or American Indians.  These are all groups that have suffered and continue to suffer prejudices.  These people, over time, have been sensitized to the most subtle of remarks directed against them or designed to sway public opinion against them.  You can bet these minorities would swing their votes to candidates who are least likely to be biased against them.  In this case blacks know that the remarks of Sen. Clinton are designed to activate biases against Sen. Obama and will, predictably, react defensively.  I would.

  Humbug

  Posted by humbug on May 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM

  When you wish upon a star,
  makes no difference who you are,
  anything your heart desires
  will come to you.

  Red and Yellow,
  Black and White
  and any colour
  in between.

  (my thanks and props and kudos to Louis Armstrong and C. Herbert Woolston and free use laws)
  (and in case the Disney{.tm} police are after me; my thanks and such to Uncle Walt too.)

  Posted by Jiminy Cricket on May 10, 2008 at 3:36 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 51 posts.

Also by David Sirota

• The Case for Choosing Life
  Judging by Tim Tebow's much-hyped Super Bowl ad, "choose life" remains conservatives' favorite… morePosted on February 5, 2010
• Our Addiction to Disaster Porn
  The black t-shirt--so tight, so come-hither. And oh, those safari button-downs--joke-worthy on Eddie… morePosted on January 30, 2010
• Democratic Corporatism Brings Reagan Back from the Grave
  "After months of struggling to find their footing, it looks like the GOP… morePosted on January 23, 2010
• Right Is Not Center, But 2010 Resembles 1984
  "War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength" -- more than… morePosted on January 15, 2010
• Why Year One Matters
  Don’t listen to apologists who say Obama’s first year in office is not important, and who insist Americans must be patient for change.Posted on January 4, 2010