Letters to the Editor
-
Make sure you waste your vote the politically correct way!
Debra's original piece was not well argued, but her concerns seem to be threefold: 1. To the extent that there is now political cache in being black, Obama is an undeserving beneficiary because he does not share "the" black experience. 2. Obama makes it too easy for whites to congratulate themselves on supporting a black person. She may not feel this way, but Debra's argument implies that it would be OK for whites to congratulate themselves over a Dickersonian-black candidate. 3. Obama is not ready to be president, but he may become president anyway because everyone is all psyched to be voting for a (palatable, non-threatening) black guy.
We can dispense with argument #1 as follows. To the extent that there is still racism, Obama looks black, has the requisite one drop, cannot "pass" and is not immune to the dangers faced by black men, such as driving while black, etc. Or, more precisely, he is only immune to these things because he is famous. True, Obama has not been held back by the lingering impact of slavery. His upbringing was very different (and a plus, in my opinion - I WANT a president who has resided in another country). But his wife and daughters ARE Dickersonian-black, and Obama began his career as a ghetto community activist. Why is that not enough?
We can dispense with #2 because most whites, in supporting Obama, are not aware (till Debra and other point it out) that there are degrees of blackness, or that their support of Obama may not "count." It may be considered racist of them to not know about those distinctions, but that may not be quite fair because nobody calls it racist not to know the difference between white ethnic groups. If whites THINK they are supporting a black person, they are either doing it in spite of his blackness, or in total indifference to his blackness, or because of his blackness. The first two categories of whites are irrelevant to the argument, and the third group, that may be self-congratulatorily racist, or patronizing, or any number of things. But if you believe it's objectionable, you forfeit the right to whine about diversity, and must immediately withdraw any support for affirmative action you may have. Consistency demands it.
As for #3: here we have a kernel of an important issue, the propensity of voters to be seduced into voting for the wrong guy based on irrelevant criteria. While not really describing the harmful outcome of an Obama presidency (not being "soup yet" doesn't cut it), she SHOULD be arguing for people to vote on qualifications, not race. Instead, she is arguing "Dont' vote on race THIS WAY because, psssst! he isn't really the race you're trying to vote for."
Why have we suddenly forgotten that one's personal status does not define his political identity? Look at Al Franken's campaign announcement, where he acknowledges that he's been fortunate, but states "Let me tell you why I take progressivism personally." He then describes his widowed mother-in-law's empowered used of survivor benefits and Pell grants (i.e. "government handouts") to raise five children, launch them in successful careers, and send herself to college to become an inner-city teacher (a career in which Al's own daughter is following her grandmother's footsteps). That fact that Al grew up middle-class, did not experience his wife's family struggles firsthand, and subsequently got rich is not a factor in his understanding of poverty and progressivism.