TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 5:30 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
02.03.2008
The End of Racism?

Yes, I know, America is a racist country just like we always thought it was. Right? Well, actually, wrong, despite the insistence of those who argued, among other persistences of the old order, that "whites simply won't vote for black candidates for higher office." How disappointing the Obama campaign must be to them, how deeply exasperating. America has once again let them down.

It is no surprise to me that it is Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom (see my posting on their work awhile back) who have marshalled the statistics to prove that a fundamental change has occured with regard to race in American society, and the Obama campaign is the latest and most devastating refutation -- no, repudiation -- of the grim assumptions.  

Forget, for a moment, about white women, many of whom have been drawn to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton through a strong sense of sisterhood. Look instead at white men. In a remarkable number of states, according to exit polls, Obama won more than 40% of the white male vote. Those states included Clinton's home state of New York (where Obama got 43%), Arizona (45%) and, most remarkably, the Deep South state of Georgia (46%). Indeed, in Connecticut, New Mexico, Illinois, California, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, his support from white men was in the quite amazing range of 56% to 64%.

In fact, the Obama race to the presidency would have been an even clearer shot had it not been for the whining woman who is his opponent.

What's more, Obama would probably have won similar levels of support from white female voters -- if he hadn't ended up in a race against a woman. After all, there's no evidence to suggest that white women are less likely to vote for an African American candidate than white men are. If Clinton weren't running (and pulling away votes based on her gender), there's no reason why Obama's numbers among white women wouldn't be as high as his numbers among white men.

Of course, the stunning accomplishment of Barack Obama does not absolve the nation of its racism. But stands for something nonetheless. 

Posted: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:52 PM with 22 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jacobt1 said:

"In fact, the Obama race to the presidency would have been an even clearer shot had it not been for the whining woman who is his opponent".

Why do you have to be such a whining  putz?.

March 3, 2008 1:23 AM

jm_rice said:

"Yes, I know, America is a racist country just like we always thought it was. Right? Well, actually, wrong..."

"Of course, the stunning accomplishment of Barack Obama does not absolve the nation of its racism."

Peretz, your sanctimony makes me want to puke.

March 3, 2008 2:49 AM

citizenghost said:

"Of course, the stunning accomplishment of Barack Obama does not absolve the nation of its racism. But stands for something nonetheless."

Just wait.  If McCain wins the election, we'll hear  that Obama's accomplishment merely proves that America is not as racist as it is sexist.  (Didn't the 15th Amendment precede the 19th by 50 years?)

Yes, it's a lot of nonsense.  But it's the sort of rationale that is inevitable -  a product of  archaic and superficial  categories and the media's reduction of Obama to the "black" candidate. And the reduction of Hillary to the "female" one.  

Which isn't to say that Obama's accomplishment is NOT stunning.  It is.  The simple fact is that it was scarcely imaginable just one year ago.   But what really does Obama's accomplishment stand for?  

Does Obama's success mean that Americans ignore race to a greater degree than previously imagined?  Do they look at Obama with color blindness,  putting aside all conception of race or color, and choose to see only the candidate?  Not likely.  But it does seem as if America's understanding of race has changed in a significant way.

Maybe Americans see Obama, not as the "black" candidate, but as the multi-ethnic candidate and therefore, the one who most closely represents the American people - or at least the current population trends in the United States.  Just a thought.

March 3, 2008 8:00 AM

chess_burke said:

"whining woman"....why couldn't you have simply said "woman"?  I see that sexism is alive and well in America.

March 3, 2008 10:15 AM

citizenghost said:

chess_burke posts:    "'whining woman'....why couldn't you have simply said 'woman'? I see that sexism is alive and well in America.

Yes and no.

To avoid any taint of sexism, Mr. Peretz should have simply referred to Hillary Clinton as the "whining individual."  

Much better.  Yes?

March 3, 2008 10:39 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

peretz,

I am of course, heartened by the fact of your support for Obama. That is good. Never spit on progress. A sane person must however acknowledge that your support of Obama seems to me to primarily animated by your Medea like hatred of the Clintons. Also, your support of Obama also appears to this observer to be some sort of expiation for your quarter century of disrespect and dismissal of almost all prominent AA politicians and leaders, plus the fact that you, as owner of this magazine, never deemed it a high priority to actually, you know, put some dark folks on the staff of this magazine.

Atonement is good and admirable and I applaud your support of Obama, however configured in your manichaean plagued noggin, but please spare us the sermons. You have neither the history or the credibility to be preaching to anyone about "the end of racism."

March 3, 2008 10:40 AM

scottlooper said:

Jeez, Peretz: in an discussion about the end of race-identity politics, you argue that all contrary votes were due to gender-identity votes.  You've certainly progressed.

March 3, 2008 12:36 PM

esmense said:

Ah, but if Obama weren't running (and pulling away votes based on his gender) how would Clinton be doing among men? That's the unanswered question, isn't it?

Actually, though women are voting in greater numbers (than men) in this election, they are dividing their votes more evenly among the two candidates than the men are.

March 3, 2008 2:14 PM

arsonplus said:

I'd like to refer anyone tempted to cast Obama's struggle in black and white terms to the P.O.V. docu Street Fight

O' and what thejauntyboulevardier said. If one more white guy says or writes something about "racism" that doesn't end in a question mark I swear I'll puke.

March 3, 2008 2:16 PM

boneill said:

No, it is pretty clear that people only vote for Hillary because they are women and so is she.  The idea that some people might think her the better candidate is a laughable and absurd notion.   Geez, Peretz, I didn't think it was possible but you make me feel bad for Hillary.

March 3, 2008 2:21 PM

jm_rice said:

"Which isn't to say that Obama's accomplishment is NOT stunning.  It is.  The simple fact is that it was scarcely imaginable just one year ago."

Nonsense!  It was more than imaginable eight years ago, when Colin Powell came close to running and only withdrew because he said he didn't have the "burning in the breast" to run and because his wife had health issues.  He might very well have won.

Obama fans should wake up to the fact that you're not supposed to elect a president to prove a point.

Jaunty...

And just who might those prominent Friends of Bob, oops, you mean African Americans, be, whom Peretz slights?  Jesse Jackson?  Maxine Waters?  David Dinkens?  Al Sharpton?  Louis Farrakhan?  Snoop Dogg?  I'm sure Marty has had nice things to say about John Lewis, Julian Bond, Barbara Jordan, Colin Powell, and even your and my favorite boulevardier, Willy Brown.  As for the hiring, maybe Peretz thought tokenism just as racist as the contrary.

You know, Desi, we all could do better.  I mean not just whites, but everybody.  The whole world is racist to one degree or another.  It's an issue that's very easy to get precious about.

Habitually tossed around by the politically correct and the over-dramatic, and exploited by demagogues, racism is a nasty yet facile accusation.

March 3, 2008 2:33 PM

citizenghost said:

"It was more than imaginable eight years ago, when Colin Powell came close to running and only withdrew because he said he didn't have the "burning in the breast" to run and because his wife had health issues.  He might very well have won."

Pretty big difference between "coming close to running" and coming within sneezing distance of actually capturing a party's nomination.

But just to add a correction.  Powell did not consider running 8 years.  He considered it in 1996 and he polled well enough nationally but he never even threw his hat in the ring.  Heck, in practical terms, Jesse Jackson came closer to being President than Colin Powell did.  

"Obama fans should wake up to the fact that you're not supposed to elect a president to prove a point."

Oh is that what accounts for Obama's success?   I guess some folks actually believe that.

March 3, 2008 3:29 PM

jm_rice said:

The point is that giving Obama credit for ushering in a new "end of racism" epoch is typical of the messianic hyperbole of his besotted fans.  An attractive, well-qualified black man has been electable long before Obama, going back at least ten years (thanks for the correction).  

"Oh is that what accounts for Obama's success?  I guess some folks actually believe that."

It's not a belief, it's a fact.  One need only look at his fatuous fandom.

Obama's success?  At what?  He hasn't done anything.  OK, I give him credit for salesmanship:  He can sell ice to eskimos.

March 3, 2008 4:05 PM

citizenghost said:

By "success" I am talking about Obama's campaign success.  

I agree that you can quibble with other claims of "success" - though in this, Obama is hardly in a different position than Hillary.   I understand that you may not be impressed with Obama's command of policy, his smarts, his policy proposals, or with the legislation he sponosored and worked on in the Senate, or with his career as a state legislator, educator or public interest attorney - but I can assure you that plenty of folks are impressed.

Critics of Obama like to point out the star-struck naivete of the Obama supporters.  Yet, the sour grapes are transparent.  Of course Hillary suppoters know full well that they are not nearly so enthusiastic about their own candidate.   They are holding their nose voting for the candidate they believe to be the least toxic.  Inspiration is not even part of the equation.  That's for suckers.  Clearly, THEY, the Hillary supporters are being practical, clever, appropriately cynical.   It's the wild-eyed Obama supporters who are the naive dreamers.  Sure thing.

And these same Hillary supporters insisit that "charisma" and "reaching out" and "consensus building" have nothing to do with effective leadership. Really?  "Forget that fluff", says Hillary supporters.  "Just trust her, she's a Clinton".  Talk about naive.  

Yet you, Jm_Rice are so thoroughly convinced that Obama support is not really genuine - that we, foolish dupes that we are, are simply out to prove a point?   And what point what that be?

March 3, 2008 4:47 PM

basman said:

Who is "Desi" in the context of this little thread?

March 3, 2008 5:28 PM

CRS9TNR said:

Mr. Peretz, I would hold off a bit on the end of racism bit.  If Obama loses the primary or the general election would that be proof that America is still racist?  I think not.

I thought John Edwards would get the Democratic Nomination and I was half right.  I was pretty sure Hillary would not win.  I would never have predicted Obama back in December, he just wasn't on the radar screen.

But we have come a very long way on racial progress.  If you really look at today versus 1968, the changes are real and substantial.  Obama is one anedoctal piece of evidence.  Condi Rice is another.  

You should try and avoid playing this both ways though.  it muddles your argument and makes you look squemish.  Either we have progress or we don't.  

I prefer the progress argument because it's better for the Democrats and they can claim an accomplishment.  If you think racism is no better after 40 years of legislation, litigation and moral persuasion, wouldn't you think maybe you are up against something that may not be solvable by the government?  I have seen the progress and give the credit to LBJ along with others.

March 3, 2008 6:04 PM

Celines_Ego said:

citizenghost:

"Critics of Obama like to point out the star-struck naivete of the Obama supporters.  Yet, the sour grapes are transparent."

Only as transparent as the water (you) Obamichthyes are swimming in.  Or something to that effect.  :)

A personal anecdote that (I think) illustrates what jm_rice is trying to say:

I voted for my (black) state representative in our Republican primary specifically because supporting a black Republican was far more important to me than his views on extending the Ronald Reagan Hwy.  It's impolitic to say so, but I don't think I'm that out of the ordinary.  It feels good as a white person--- no, GReat--- to support a supremely qualified candidate who embodies our deeply-held ideal of a "colorblind" society.  If that candidate's policies happen to be tolerable.....so much the better.

jm_rice's original point, if I understand correctly, wasn't that Obama supporters aren't sincere, but that much of his support stems not from his policies, but from a genuine and laudable desire to realize the colorblind American ideal.  I think he's more right than wrong.

My $0.02.  :)

March 3, 2008 7:25 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

big jm...

As much as peretz may bug me, I would not say that he is a racist. I did say that both during his tenure as owner and on his blog, he is incredibly disrespect of AA politicians and leaders. He is also pretty quick to conflate civil rights perspective with his much derided sense of "identity politics".  But a racist?  No, I don't thnk he is a racist. Do I want to hear a lecture from him about the racial sensitivity and the should and shouldn't of racial politics. I think not...

itz, in the rather colorful vernacular of big jim, I am Desi.  I like it. Desi could dance , had great hair, and he was a ladies man.  I take it as an extreme compliment.

March 3, 2008 7:31 PM

basman said:

Ken:

Then I am the anti-Desi: can't dance, balder than a cue ball, and no women since 1987.

On a slightly more serious note the main post reminds why I think this blog spot is like a nifty community centre where some smart, interesting people get together: it's just the dog shit you have to pick your way through to get to the front door.

March 3, 2008 8:02 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

hee, hee...

it is an unjust world that some can dance, have hair, and can charm the ladies. Hey, I think I have just described Leon Wieseltier. If you don't believe me, just ask him. He says he's suave and charming.

On the more serious note, I wish I could put more credence into marty's comments on racial politics, especially in light of his support of Obama. But I have 25 years worth of print memories where the racially attuned editor in chief has been a negative influence for civil rights and racial justice and has done jack to bridge the gap between AA's and American Jews, that Obama so accurately mentioned in the last debate. One fights the inclination to think that, as I mentioned, marty's support for Obama is more calculated than he lets on and has more to do with his animus towards the Clinton's than a newfound desire to help craft a post racial world.

That said, if he wants to vote for Obama and help him win the nomination, then great. I just wish he would speak out more and defend Obama against the smears that he is anti Israel and in league with anti semites. This is the one area where the old fart can be of some help to Obama and so far, I have read nothing from him challenging these crazies.

March 3, 2008 9:05 PM

basman said:

It will be inerestesting to see, as other people have noted, if Obama gets the nomination--go Hillary, hanging by a thread, refusing to take a 10 count, fighting back, counter punching, scrapping, looser and easier now that she has nothing to lose, campiagning with self assurance and a real innate sense of self confidence, showing tremendous heart and game and impressively deep inner resources, no quit in her, at the bottom of the ninth etc.--if Peretz sticks with him or slides over to McCain.

W'ell see.

March 3, 2008 9:27 PM

sleepyavl said:

basman, of course Peretz goes to McCain. Give a month.

March 5, 2008 2:28 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.