Reverse Racism Argument Finally Emerges in Presidential Contest

When Obama started doing well in the Presidential primaries, I was actually embarassed.

That feeling came because I remembered two middle-aged white guy friends of mine who had told me months ago they supported Obama, drawn by the promise of a young, smart leader with good ideas who seemed poised to implement them without resorting to the same old nonsense of our political past.

I liked his approach and ideas, too. But I had a much more cynical view of race and politics. I never thought Obama would have a chance because I assumed America would never really let him compete.

So to hear so-called progressive politicians such as Geraldine Ferraro complain that Obama is only ahead in the Democratic primary race because of his race, sounds to these ears like hearing news that cats have been found on the moon.

You mean, somebody thinks being a black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama is a bigger advantage than being the wife of the most successful Democratic president since John F. Kennedy?

Then Politico.com blogger Ben Smith Tuesday unearthed a compelling nugget: Ferraro said the same thing back in 1988 about Jesse Jackson. And back then, her views were echoed by that great paragon of racial equality, Ronald Reagan.

Smith quotes Washinton Post writer Howard Kurtz's story: "former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."- Howard Kurtz (WAPO April 15, 1988)"

Ferraro still seems amazed by the concept that there is a problem with attributing Obama's 13-million votes in this year's primary elections solely to his race. She says, instead, that people who criticize her are being racist and that she was complimenting the way black people have supported Obama.

This is the way Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this election; allowing dunderheads like Ferraro -- whose biggest political claim to fame is being part of the team which got annihilated by the Republicans in 1984 -- to drive wedges between a coalition which was poised to unseat the Republicans in November.

This also touches on another complaint I've heard from Clinton supporters; that Obama is winning because the nation is more sexist than racist. Besides the fact that I think such comparisons don't make much sense -- black people and women are oppressed in different ways by different issues -- it also ignores some powerful facts.

There are more females than black males serving as governors, Congresspeople and cabinet members. I wonder how any of them would feel about people who said they got their jobs because they were female? (And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale's ticket because she's female?)

If Clinton wins this way -- basically encouraging working class white people and women to turn on Obama through race-based attacks -- the young people and black folks who were so excited about this election will stay home in November and John McCain will be president.  Because nobody plays wedge issues and the fear game like the Republicans.

This is why I wound up voting for Obama when the primary rolled around in Florida. I'm tired of fear mongering, wedge politics and Democratic ineptitude. And, though I'm sure Obama cannot pull off everything he thinks he can as president, I'm desperate enough for a change that I'm willing to give him a shot.

Frankly, Ferraro's assumption that people like me voted for Obama because he self-identifies as a black man is less insulting to Obama and more insulting to me.

She better hope people like me get over our anger before November, or the Democratic party is going to pay the price.

Comments

[mike]

I think it's safe to say that she didn't mean being a black guy is an advantage in itself. What she meant was that the cult-like following - and media fawning - are a result of his race. The media and democrats claim to be progressive and color-blind, but when they found a well-spoken liberal black guy, they turned him into the second coming. Of course it's because he's black!! What else has he done? What does he even believe in?!?! The guy just runs around spouting platitudes about change. By the way, if you're going to make insinuations about Reagan, why don't you back them up? I'm sick of you liberals who equate racism with opposition to quota's and a welfare state.

[Eric Deggans]

I think New York Times columnist William Raspberry wrote an excellent piece about Reagan's disappointing racial legacy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39345-2004Jun13.html

Others have noted that Reagan fired members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who disagreed with him (causing one judge who overturned a firing to say "you can't fire a watchdog for biting"), promoted the idea of the welfare queen in modern politics, remained strongly aligned with outh Africa despite its racist Apartheid polices and tried to gut the Voting Rights Act which ensures fair voting participation for everyone.

At best, Reagan was indifferent to the problems of institutional racism and poverty. At worst, he pioneered the GOP's use of coded racial language to mobilize white voters who believed in prejudicial stereotypes like the welfare queen image.

[Eric Deggans]

Also, i think there are several black men who have run for President who have never suceeded as well as Obama has.

Are you saying men like Alan Keyes, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton didn't advance as far in presidential politics becuase they didn't run when America felt guilty enough?

I think the bottom line is that telling someone who is doing this well that their success is mostly because of their race or gender is insulting, prejudiced and just plain wrong.

I've been voting for a long time, and I've never voted for any black man for president until this year. And telling me that I'm making that choice because of Obama's race is an insult to me.

[Oscar]

First off, I think Hillary and her husband are fixated on destroying the opponent in front of them (Obama) and not thinking about the big fight down the road (McCain). The Clinton's have always looked at anyone who does not agree with them as being less than intelligent, and they must think that the only reason that people are voting for Obama is from some misguided sense of political correctness. That speak volumes as to how they will govern this country if elected. Don't forget that the population Obama wins the most after blacks is the young and the college educated. Hillary is kicking butt with the bubba vote.

As far as Reagan goes, death makes saints of us all. He spent the USSR into submission and left others to foot the bill. His mistreatment of blacks, gays and single parents should be mentioned everytime someone lovingly praises "The Gipper.

[Paul]

As usual, you’ve read this dead-on. I’ll add, too, that what I find to be particularly insulting in Ferraro’s comments is the implicit notion that Obama and his campaign have no merit whatsoever outside the issue of race. This speaks clearly, I think, to the clearest distinction between Clinton and Obama, in that the former emphasizes what *she* will do while the later suggests what *we* can do. Ferraro’s no dummy; this was no slip of the lip, a mere reflection of her own view, but, rather, another step in the Clinton campaign’s divide and conquer strategy.

[Chuck Welch]

Eric, I can't agree more with the main point and yet disagree more with the final point.

If you truly believe in the principles of the Democratic party over the Republican why would you let the country suffer four more years ought of spite?

It isn't just you. Members of both camps have threatened to vote for Nader or McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nod. That's ludicrous. Isn't either candidate is closer to your view than the Republican?

[Eric Deggans]

My biggest concern about Hillary Clinton is the concern I had about Bill Clinton -- their deeds too often did not match their words.

The Clintons promised universal health care last time around, until the political cost grew too great. They promised significant progress on race and poverty issues, but instead passed welfare reform legislation which threw thousands of people off the rolls with a minima safety net.

They championed the working man while enabling legislation which allowed corporations to move thousands of jobs overseas. And they were secretive about releasing materials to the press, even when the documents actually refuted negative stories about them.

I fear there may be less difference between an actual Clinton presidency and a McCain administration than you might think.

[Robin 'Roblimo' Miller]

I don't think this proves the Clintons are racist, just that they will use any ammunition laying around. If Obama was 5' tall, there might be talk about how his condition affected his judgement. T'wer he albino, they'd bring that up. And so on.

A school bully picks on kids with big noses and little noses with equal fervor.

[Chuck Welch]

Eric, Other than a message it would sent to Congress, I think there is little difference between either party when it comes to President.

I also believe Congress is the group that should get the credit for most of the damage you mentioned.

[Eric Deggans]

Believe what you want. But the welfare reform legislation and NAFTA were their initiatives, as was their inability to forge a consensus on universal health care...

[JB]

The idea behind Ferraro's comment is that empty suit Obama is a better candidate than fellow empty suit John Edwards (or someone like him) because his African-American status somehow elevates him in the eyes of the media. He's insulated from the subject of race (he can let others play the race game for him if necessary), and his minority status shields him from harsh questioning. The media see Obama as fulfilling the promise of the nation, while Edwards is just another rich white guy and Hillary is old news, period.

[David Jenkins]

"... the young people and black folks who were so excited about this election will stay home in November and John McCain will be president."

Boy, do I really agree with that sentiment. And I think it will happen. I'd also add the fed-up not-so-young people who, to agree with another point of yours, don't feel there'd be a whole lot of difference in a McCain or Clinton administration.

[Elisa]

Ferraro did indeed say that her vice presidential candidacy would not have happened if she were "Gerald" Ferraro instead of "Geraldine." Hey, at least she's consistent.

[Brian Lupiani]

Consistent? I'd say she's honest about her own candidacy.

If she was consistent, she'd say that Hillary wouldn't be anywhere near where she is now if she was Hillary Rodham and wasn't married to Bill Clinton.