Letters to the Editor

• To Joan: starting points

  [Read the article: Can Democrats learn to talk about race?]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I'm a big fan of the question you ask, Joan. I think it is a conversation that must be addressed. The following comments are what I consider to be related to an issue that must be addressed before we assume our starting assumptions are rock solid.

  Joan, you said:

  “To unite the party behind the eventual nominee, who is almost certainly Obama, Democrats will have to talk about the motivations behind those numbers, the grievances, the affinities, the hopes, the dreams, and the biases.”

  Prediction: I agree with you that this a wonderful conversation to have, important. But not necessarily now. If your assumption is that the democrates must figure those numbers out and really come to a mature understanding of them in order to win, then you MUST BE inclined to think Obama simply can’t win. Joan, do you have any reason to believe that in the next few months, the democratic party is going to simultaneously begin distinguishing Obama from McCain and providing agreed-upon explainations for the racial numbers in this primary?

  Joan you say:

  “I do believe this: Obama can't win without doing better among white-working class voters in key swing states;”

  Ok, agreed. So let’s look at the issues around “better”. And let’s give Clinton both credit as a candiate and as a white person (just as we do for Obama). She doesn’t decimate Obama in the white vote, right? For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that a certain percentage (rather small) of that support is due to the type of racisim that will esure those voters never vote for a black person. I doubt you are arguing that democrats need to immediately have the type of discussion that changes those folks minds, right?

  Ok, but what about the kind of racisim that isn’t so cruel and painful, but that causes a decent person to prefer the white candidate when they have an option to between to satisfying candidates? This very distinction between the kinds of implicit and the kinds of explicit racism might need to be addressed first in order to go into your question.

  The Oscars cause us to get rightous and upset about movies that we actually find enjoyable and that we are happy we saw. I really liked “little miss sunshine” but once you start comparing it to (X; don’t remember) I get mad at “little Miss” and say things about its weaknesses…I can’t believe those who say it is better….etc….

  Are we believing that Clinton’s support from White voters is due to a deep and inherent dislike or suspicion of Barack? If so, we need to point to that sort of evidence. I don’t see that as the primary reason Clinton gets that vote. I concede that there are those who explicitly won’t vote for him for racial reasons. But just as sexism had some people lean towards the democratic dude and I don’t assume those leaner would NOT vote for Clinton against McCain, why are we thinking that the white Democrats leaning into Clinton won’t mostly go for Barack. Is exit polling suggesting this?

  I agree with you about the importance of talking about the nuances of race, but if you emphasis is really going to be a sort of strong instance that we figure out these numbers and really be concerned until we have a mature dialog that explains the divide, my bet is your blog will look much like it has lately. Notice I’m not suggesting we don’t talk about race. Nope. It’s the approach that I will be concerned about, the assumption you start with…

  I don’t assume that the split in numbers is screaming about an issue that must be resolved in 4 months for Obama to win. I think if that is just the assumpti0n and tone you start with…ugggg…

  But if that is the question you are asking I think it can be a very good conversation. My hit on the tone of your post is that you are NOT wondering about the racial vote in this manner; that you are starting with the assumption that Hillary’s strong white support is only a function of a serious problem.

  I think any way racism functions (implictly/explicitly) is a problem, but I don’t necessarily assume that a great amount of those white democrates who’s Hillary support has some implicit racial undertones are not able to appreciate Barack in the general.

  As I said, I don’t think those folks who’s support for Barack has implicit sexist undertones would unable to vote for Hillary. The problem hasn’t been the undertones, in my opinion, but the polarization that we do AFTER we pick our candidate. My sister may be supporting Obama for some implicitly sexist reasoning (she feels safer because he’s a man); now my sister would be VERY ready to vote for Hillary over McCain AS LONG AS she hasn’t gotten Overly Concerned about Hillary because of the polarization tendency. Do you see what I mean.

  I think the kind of intelligent and mature discussion you are asking for will have to distinguish the real causes and effects of this hyper-polarization FROM the real causes/effects of subtle racism. If we don’t START from this kind of distinction, I think you’ll see the discussion you are encouraging reflect the very polarization that concerns you. I think we have to take responsibility for being clear about what we really know about are starting assumptions and I am not convinced that the split in numbers we see reflects the problem as you see it. I think there is a conflation between subtle racism and hyper-polarization and, in my opinion, they have very differenent sources and consequences.

  Permalink Friday, May 9, 2008 12:37 PM