A recent
AP-Yahoo poll was released that demonstrated that race may play a significant role in the upcoming Presidential election.
For those of us who are observers of racial politics this is not surprising. At the same time, there are a huge amount of general misunderstandings or questions that arise about the potential effect of race. So I will pose some questions that I get when I have either talked or written about race and the campaign and do my best to answer them in a thoughtful way. I will probably do a couple of rounds based upon some of the comments and questions that come in from this post.
Question 1: Are you saying if I am white and not voting for Obama does that make me automatically a racist?
The definitive answer is "maybe." Let me back up a bit. So when pollsters or social scientists say that race drives politics we are describing two kinds of effects. The first is that since the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, there has been a massive realignment in American politics. The South went from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. This was because, driven by Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan and the Bush father and son team, the Republican Party made one of its major issues opposition to Civil Rights policies. Issues like crime, affirmative action etc. were used to appeal to racial fears and concerns of white voters. As the Democratic Party embraced the Civil Rights agenda, the Republican Party took on the mantle of anti-Civil Rights policies and accepted many former segregationists into the party like former Senators Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. Thus, in public opinion surveys Republicans are far more likely to express negative attitudes about blacks and or resent blacks progress as being more than they deserve than Democrats. The realignment is covered well in a book by Edward Carmines and James Stimson called Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton University Press, 1990). I am not saying that “all” Republicans hold racist attitudes or resentment towards African-Americans. I am saying that expressing racist views makes one significantly more likely to be a Republican. In fact racial attitudes are one of the stronger predictors of partisanship. This is good and bad news for Barack Obama. The good news is that those who hold negative views about Blacks are most likely to be Republicans and would not vote for him anyway. The bad news is that there is some evidence that the threat of a victory by a black candidate motivates those with negative attitudes about blacks to vote at higher rates. Ebonya Washington, a Professor of Economics and Political Science at Yale University, covers this in her article “How Black Candidates Affect Voter Turnout,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2006, 121, 3. Therefore despite ambivalence about McCain among the conservative base, Obama’s race would likely motivate Republicans to turn out in higher rates despite the malaise caused by losing the Congress, corruption and the President’s low approval ratings.
The much more troubling problem for Senator Obama is a non-trivial number of white Democrats and independents express similar views as documented in the AP-Yahoo poll. That is perhaps largely why Barack Obama is underperforming the “generic Democrat” in this year. Thus, if faced with a white Democrat these voters would break towards Obama but race is making them either pause or run towards McCain. The AP-Yahoo poll shows that this includes a substantial number of Clinton supporters. Clinton supporters perhaps are not moving toward McCain/Palin because of gender or some other factor but because of race. An entertaining account of this written by Tim Wise is entitled,
“An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who Are Threatening to Withhold Support from Obama in November: Your Whiteness is Showing.”
Of course this is not only the case for Democrats. Returning to the Republican Party, they have had similar patterns. Thus, Republicans cross party lines at much higher rates in elections when the party runs black candidates. Black Republicans have difficulty garnering black votes because they disagree with them on the issues, and Republicans are almost 25% more likely to cross party lines when a black candidate is running in a general election on the Republican side. This is why despite running high quality Republican candidates like Michael Steele in Maryland and Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania, those candidates performed far worse than the generic Republican.
Given the larger percentage of Republicans with negative views about blacks it is no wonder why there are so few African-American Republicans who have been elected to office. The bottom line is that an African American candidate on one side of the ticket predicts when whites are likely to switch parties. Blacks don’t cross party lines, period! However, one check on this is the learning effect that occurs as whites have experience with black elected officials. Political Scientist Zoltan Hajnal has shown this effect diminishes over time as whites realize that African Americans can be effective representatives (Changing Attitudes toward Black Political Leadership, Cambridge University Press 2006). Thus, in states where you have blacks elected to visible statewide offices Obama should have a better shot with white voters who have grown accustomed to such leadership.
So the bad news is, there are a substantial number of white independents and Democrats who are likely to resist Obama’s appeals on racial grounds. The good news is that the issues for this group of voters are entirely on Obama’s side. If one remembers how the
“Willie Horton Ad” featuring a black murderer was used to turn the electorate against Michael Dukakis in 1988, we see that black and white Democrats have suffered from the parties being organized by race, rather than other issues like class. In fact, many whites regularly vote in contrast to their pocket book issues because of racial fears or concerns. Policies like universal health care, increased education funding and unemployment insurance have often been defeated by racial appeals. Whites turn against these policies if they perceive that “undeserving blacks” or increasingly “illegal immigrants” (in quotes because I prefer the term undocumented) will benefit. They oppose these policies even they might also benefit.
In this election with the failing economy and the clear idea that McCain supports a standard set of Republican policies associated with Bush and Reagan that pursues growth by deregulating the economy and tilting the table towards wealthy investors, versus Obama who wants to work to pursue growth by increasing wages and thus demand, the choice has never been more stark for working class white voters. Obama has made this clear with his proposed tax cut and demand for stimulus for working families while not increasing the deficit relative to McCain who would maintain the Bush tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy. (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html) In addition McCain plans to tax employer health care benefits. This would mean a substantial tax increase for many working families who have employer based coverage or begin to eliminate employer based coverage all together and substantially increasing out of pocket health care expenditures for most American people or many would lose their coverage. Obama is struggling with white senior citizens because of race as well. This is obvious in the midst of McCain’s proposal to offer social security proceeds to Wall Street in the midst of a historic collapse and failure of regulation in financial markets.
Even McCain admits this but has not yet reconciled it with his plan for privatizing and increasing risk for seniors on social security. Obama needs to boil his economic message to a clear slogan and he needs to highlight what financial insecurity might be created for seniors and middle class families by McCain’s plans in exchange for potential growth. In an environment of tanking financial markets security should win the day.
My hypothesis is, America is at a cross roads in terms of the use of anti-black racism in politics (immigration is another story). If Republicans can’t beat an African American named Barack Hussein Obama using their normal playbook of cueing racial resentment, they will have to rethink the strategy. It will also rob them of defeating regulatory policies and other policies that will benefit working and middle class Americans.
Question 2: What about black voters? Isn’t it racist that Obama is getting 90% of the Black vote?
In terms of the general election this is not an issue. Blacks overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic presidential candidates at rates almost always in the mid to high 80’s in general elections. However, there have been some defections. Black Republicans like conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and former General and Secretary of State Colin Powell have expressed pride and openness toward Obama. They see his non-confrontational style, his intelligence and commitment to family values as things that represent what for Black conservatives should be examples for black youth. Obama’s message of African American personal responsibility, while angering Jesse Jackson and others, had impressed Black conservatives and Republicans who are willing to set aside their disagreements on issues like Gays and abortion.
Also, Obama’s story of hard work and achievement obviously inspires African Americans even if it provokes resentment among some whites who brand him as “elite,” “arrogant,” etc. He is literally a self-made man in the American tradition and that appeals to blacks. On the margins and in terms of excitement race matters for black voters but only at the margins. The difference may only be in larger black turn out for the historic election rather than a major motivation. In fact the only substantial opposition to Obama seems to derive from Black Nationalists and some Black Marxists like Adolph Reed.
Looking back to the primary, had Clinton held on to 30% of the black vote she would now be the Democratic nominee. However, this was perhaps unrealistic, not simply because of race, but because of issues. African American voters were overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq from its inception and have only grown more skeptical of the invasion. Senator Clinton voted for the war and never really apologized for her vote. On the day Iraq was invaded, over 80% of African Americans opposed the Iraq War — the only American demographic group in line with world opinion. I added the latter in order to counter the perception of African Americans as “extremists.”
Blacks tend to support policies that are the norm for most modern industrialized capitalist countries: universal health care, unemployment insurance, federal government expenditure on education etc. This is chronicled in the book by University of Chicago Political Science Professor Michael Dawson, Black Visions: The Roots of Contemporary African American Ideologies. I sometimes say African Americans would make great Swedes, or Canadians where they would be in the center rather than the left of politics. That all being said the war was a major issue that cost Senator Clinton among black voters.
However, after the loss in Iowa and the near defeat in New Hampshire Clinton was faced with the prospect of needing to drive a wedge in the electorate lest it tilt completely towards a coronation of Obama. Surrogates like Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro and Senator Clinton herself began to implicitly and explicitly play racism and sexism off one another suggesting that sexism was the more significant barrier than racism in American life and politics.
This juxtaposition and a range of other racial gaffes angered the African American community and cost Clinton black support but rallied white women to her cause. This was in spite of evidence that among Democrats Clinton won overwhelmingly among voters who expressed sexist views. You can see an interesting debate between my good friend Princeton Political Scientist Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Gloria Steinem that highlights the problems of playing gender discrimination off of racism in the way that Clinton supporters suggested.
When you see the debate you can understand how alienated Black voters became from the Clintons. But also how this tactic was effective at motivating a sense of gender grievance against Obama among white women. Perhaps in the end ironically Sarah Palin has become the beneficiary of this anger as aptly captured by
Saturday Night Live. The form of gender first and gender only feminism articulated by some in and around the campaign was easily co-opted by the McCain pick of Palin. Let’s see how it plays out.
If you want to hear or read more of my thoughts on this topic you can hear me on
“Fresh Air” on NPR or read a
SOULS article I published.
Coming soon: the dreaded “Bradley Effect” considered.
On-topic comments that add to the discussion are welcome. Please respect each other and the forum by using your real name and a civil tone. Spam and comments judged by UCLA to be libelous, offensive or abusive may be deleted without notice
Saying Michael Steele underperformed the generic (national) Republican, though technically correct, is entirely misleading.
http://www.buy-specialist.com
Steele did just as well as Bush in Maryland. He, therefore, actually over-performed considering that 2006 was a year where Democrats won in a landslide. Moreover, 93% of Republicans voted for Steele, compared to the 86% of Democrats who voted for his opponent. http://www.quickweight-loss.com
Looking back to the primary, had Clinton held on to 30% of the black vote she would now be the Democratic nominee. However, this was perhaps unrealistic, not simply because of race, but because of issues. African American voters were overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq from its inception and have only grown more skeptical of the invasion. Senator Clinton voted for the war and never really apologized for her vote. On the day Iraq was invaded, over 80% of African http://www.google.lt Americans http://www.odlotowewakacje.com opposed the Iraq War — the only American demographic group in line with world opinion. I added the latter in order to counter the perception of African Americans as “extremists.”
Blacks tend to support policies that are the norm for most modern industrialized capitalist countries: universal health care, unemployment insurance, federal government expenditure on education etc. This is chronicled in the book by University of Chicago Political Science Professor Michael Dawson, Black Visions: The Roots of Contemporary African American Ideologies. I sometimes say African Americans would make great Swedes, or Canadians where they would be in the center rather than the left of politics. That all being said the war was a major issue that cost Senator Clinton among black voters.
Saying Michael Steele underperformed the generic (national) Republican, though technically correct, is entirely misleading. Steele did just as well as Bush in Maryland. He, therefore, actually over-performed considering that 2006 was a year where Democrats won in a landslide. Moreover, 93% of Republicans voted for Steele, compared to the 86% of Democrats who voted for his opponent. It appears that most of those crossing party lines were, in fact, African-American Democrats, as Steele won a quarter of the black vote.
While on the subject of African-Americans voting for black candidates, it stretches the bounds of credulity to say African-Americans were voting for Obama in part because he’s anti-war. Little correlation exists in surveys between Iraq views and vote choice among African-Americans. By this logic we should have also seen African-Americans rally behind Howard Dean in 2004, which obviously didn’t happen.
