A Word or Two on Racial Tensions

Up until recently, the biggest "racial moment" in this election season occurred months ago when Joe Biden called Barack Obama "clean," sending Al Sharpton into something of a tizzy while Obama politely took it as a compliment. Well, that's all changed. And in such a historic election, we knew it would.

I'm sure you've heard about Hillary Clinton's remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon Johnson (find a refresher here). In short, she stated that it took a well-seasoned politician (LBJ) to get the dreamer's (MLK's) ideas put into action. So, she is LBJ, and Obama is MLK? Or, she is LBJ, the Democratic Party is MLK, and Obama is... I don't know what. Either way, comparing one's self to Lyndon Baines Johnson does not seem like a wise strategy.

So, anyway, the Obama campaign is saying that Hillary (and Bill, too) are downplaying the importance of civil rights activists like Dr. King. Hillary is saying that she is simply being pragmatic, that Dr. King was a great man with great ideas, but those ideas needed someone sympathetic to the cause within the system in order to get them to become a reality.

Really, Hillary is right. Civil rights legislation wouldn't have been passed without a president fighting for it. But, there's an important caveat: a president wouldn't have been fighting for it without activists like Dr. King fighting for it. So, it's rather circular. MLK wants change, pressures LBJ. LBJ enacts change. LBJ wouldn't enact change without MLK's pressure. So, who is really responsible for civil rights legislation?

It's a stupid question, isn't it?

Sure is. The answer doesn't really matter, and Hillary was rather stupid for throwing the question out there in the first place. I mean, come on! It's basically as if she is saying "Hey, you remember that famous civil rights activist, MLK? Yeah, I don't want to be like him. I want to be like that guy who tried to take credit for his work."

Seriously. Comparing yourself to LBJ? What the Hell is the matter with you, Hillary? You'd be better off continuing your habit of taking credit for your husband's eight years.

On Obama's Race

People have been wondering for quite a few months now whether Barack Obama's race would play a role in the 2008 election. Janet Elder over at The New York Times has an article discussing this topic (or at least one aspect of it). In relatively recent history, there has been a phenomenon which allows black candidates to poll better than they actually perform in the election. It has been hypothesized that white voters like to think that they are comfortable voting for black candidates, but come election day, they cannot overcome their reservations. So, will this happen to Obama?

I don't think so. In a very recent example, Harold Ford, Jr. (a black Senate candidate from Tennessee) actually performed slightly better in the election than he did in the polls. There might be two explanations for why the phenomenon didn't happen. First, perhaps Americans are getting less racist. Compared to the 1950s, I would say this is generally true. However, I think another reason explains it better, which may, in a way, be linked to the first. I don't think Ford was viewed as (and I don't think Obama will be viewed as) a "black candidate," but rather "a candidate who happens to be black." Now, perhaps that subtle distinction is only made because Americans are less racist, but it's important. After all, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would be viewed as "black candidates" and they would lose for that reason.

So, when a black candidate can be viewed as "a candidate who happens to be black," I don't think there will be much of an effect. After all, the only people who would completely rule out voting for the latter would be complete racists, and they would not be compelled to seem more open-minded when questioned by pollsters. So, nowadays, I don't think this phenomenon applies to so-called "candidates who happen to be black."

But, there is something else to think about. As the article points out, 90% of Americans say they would be "completely comfortable voting for a qualified presidential candidate who was black;" however, only 55% of Americans say that "Americans are ready to elect an African American or black as president." 35% say no. So, that means that at least 25% of people are comfortable with voting for a black candidate, but do not think that Americans are ready. Odd.

But, even with this mystery, I don't think Obama's race will effect him. The 35% of people who say America isn't ready are almost certainly Republicans anyway, so I don't think there's much to worry about.

Oddly enough, black people are tending to support Clinton more than Obama. He is not "a black man's black man," at least not in the way someone like Al Sharpton is. He is a black man who can draw a very broad base of support, because he does not campaign based on his race or based on racial policies.