Apparently I'm a Racist

If Obama Loses
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. from Slate

At Slate, Jacob Weisberg comes up with a truly idiotic article, one of those that sets the blood boiling beginning as early as the title and not letting up throughout its thankfully brief length. Perhaps taking a leisurely stroll through the piece, with frequent breaks for sanity, will help break up the rage a bit...

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

Immediately, Weisberg makes a ton of assumptions and generalizations that immediately stack the deck in favor of his argument (that Obama can only lose because voters are racists), offering zero evidence to back them up.

Obama has "every natural and structural advantage"? The man has virtually no experience, while his opponent is a decorated war hero with decades of experience and years of making friends, building contacts, and establishing trust. Obama is a flash in the pan, elevated to his present position largely because of a swooning media, a nice convention speech, and a timely sex scandal featuring a Tom Clancy character and a Sex Trek sexpot. Sure, Obama is charismatic, if you enjoy hearing a man talk about himself and how great he is for hours on end, but I'm guessing many people don't actually find that to be a positive trait. A runaway ego, a pronounced lack of experience, a complete and utter lack of a defined platform, and a history of relationships with bigots, bombers, and criminal real estate developers doesn't really strike me as the definition of "every natural and structural advantage." But hey, I'm a racist.

Weisberg continues:

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

So Weisberg admits that are actually very good reasons for Obama's current failure to run away with the election, at least in the polls - his alienation of supporters of Hillary Clinton and the fact that many of the attacks on him still haven't really been adequately responded to (except by tossing various "friends" and associates under the bus), as well as his presumably sarcastically exaggerated third reason (although somehow I doubt he intended it sarcastically).

Too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected? Has Weisberg never seen Napoleon Dynamite? Or the 2000 election coverage? America doesn't like handsome, brilliant, and cool in its candidates, especially when it comes packaged with a massive ego, an overwhelming sense of entitlement, and a simultaneous effort to play the victim. America much prefers rational, humble, and dependable. But Weisberg ignores his own arguments and plunges right in, busting out the racism charge, blaming "older, white voters" for Obama's failures.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Weisberg initially cites three stats from the poll in question in an attempt to illustrate "white America's curious sense of racial grievance." The first instance cites 26% of whites claiming a specific instance in which they felt that had been racially discriminated against (vs. 68% of black respondents). Presumably, Weisberg's point is that this is impossible. Never mind that the poll offers zero context beyond that contained in the question, and zero information from the respondents for Weisberg to form his judgement. It's simply impossible for a quarter of white people to have been discriminated against.

The second question cited states that a nearly identical percentage (27%) of whites thinks that "too much" has been made of "the problems facing black people" "in recent years." The question is so vague as to be relatively useless, but even so, this doesn't stop Weisberg from taking some undefined issue with the white respondents. I guess we're supposed to assume that thinking Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel and Jesse Jackson are detrimental to black people makes one a racist.

The third citation is possibly the strangest, in which again, about a quarter of the white respondents stated that they thought that America was not ready to elect a black president. Again, the question is so vague as to mean next to nothing. Perhaps 25% of whites think the rest of the country is racist, even if they themselves have no problem with a black president. To infer, as Weisberg seems to be doing, that the answers to these questions make the respondents in question racists who aren't going to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin is ludicrous.

Finally, Weisberg compounds his work here by taking a roundabout way of addressing the poll question which actually most vividly illustrates the point at hand. Question #78 in the poll asks whether the person in question "would personally vote for a presidential candidate who is black." 91% of white respondents answered "Yes," while 88% of blacks answered "No"!

Granted, with a question of this sort, it's only natural to assume that some people, despite the anonymous nature of the poll, will give what they think is the "right" answer. However, when Weisberg is basing his entire column on the information found in the poll, and presumably putting faith in the accuracy of the answers contained therein, you would think he wouldn't fail to overlook the one question that actually speaks quite specifically to the validity of his argument. One would hope, anyway. And yet, Weisberg instead chooses to pounce on the 5% of white respondents who say they wouldn't vote for a black candidate (again, ignoring the 6% of blacks who answer the same way). So far, Weisberg's evidence is not very compelling.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Weisberg then goes on to attempt to back up his central tenant with stats taken from exit polls in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, in which 1 in 6 voters claimed "race was a factor" in their decision. Weisberg assumes this to mean that 12% of white Democrats in Pennsylvania didn't vote for Obama because he's black. Never mind that the question doesn't seem to indicate what factor race played in the voter's decision. Maybe some of those voters cast their ballot for Obama because he is black. Race would certainly be a factor in that decision. (By his reliance on the combination of the NY Times poll and the Pennsylvania exit data, Weisberg also seems to be claiming that there are far more racists voting in the Democratic party than there are in the nation on average...)

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Weisberg continues with a paragraph, that as before, basically lays out a perfectly appropriate counterargument to his racism one, and yet Weisberg dismisses it out of hand, with no reason given. Maybe "some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel" because Obama's actions, from calling for talks with the Israel-hating Iranian regime to breaking bread with Edward Said to long attending a church that has given an award to Louis Farrakhan have done nothing to convince them otherwise. Maybe people view Obama as an elitist because Obama acts like one, making statements like the famous arugula gaffe, and the equally elitist "clinging to their guns and religion" remark. Maybe Obama is charged with playing the race card because he repeatedly does so, as whenever he falsely accuses the McCain campaign of doing exactly that.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

Wow, and now he's resorting to referencing Pat Buchanan to bolster his claims of bigotry. You know you're reaching when the most shocking example of a public figure supporting racial solidarity is Pat Buchanan. I'm not sure what point Weisberg is trying to make with the Obama Nation reference, except that perhaps he thinks that it's supposed to be John McCain's job to go around researching and denouncing attacks on his opponent by someone unaffiliated with McCain's campaign?

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Building upon his already flawed, non-sensical, and inconsistent arguments and "evidence," Weisberg begins to wrap it up by stating that Obama's (or, presumably, any black person's election - Condaleeza Rice in 2012, anyone?) would election would somehow heal all the racial divisiveness that has done so much damage to this country over its history. Prejudice would immediately disappear, and most importantly, in my opinion, "the rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America." Oh joy! The absolute last thing I would want would be for Iran, or North Korea, or China, or Russia, or Venezuela, or Syria, or any number of other countries to be fearful of America. God forbid those who have expressly threatened or acted against our safety and freedom actually fear us.

And, if in our infinite racism, we pass up this magical opportunity to instantly end all forms of prejudice, it will signal to our children that equal opportunity is a myth? Huh? Because a white man with extensive experience and relatively popular policies is elected president over a black man with relatively radical, divisive, socialist policies, equal opportunity is a myth? I fear for Mr. Weisberg's children, if that's all it takes to dash their hopes and dreams.

And this just cracks me up: "In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race." Ha! Good stuff. "The world's judgment"? Hee! God forbid people vote out of self-interest.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

All I can say in response to this paragraph is: Good!

Mastery of a personal computer, whether McCain can or not, is not a prerequisite for a president, in my book. Does Weisberg expect McCain to start a blog or something? And I much prefer a Bush (or Kennedy, or Roosevelt)-like belligerence to security challenges from Iran. But Weisberg gets a bit off-message here. Not sure how this supports his whole racism thing...

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

First off, I'm not really sure I (or anyone else) knows what Obama's policy "prescriptions" are these days, beyond withdrawing our troops immediately from Iraq, raising taxes, and magical perfect universal healthcare, but in my book none of these constitute a "serious attempt" to deal with anything.

Weisberg really gets off point at the end here, sort of ditching the "Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist" theme that served as the basis for his column in favor of a vague attempt to argue policy superiority, although doing so sort of tends to ruin his argument, if it wasn't already strained. If the only possible reason for Obama not being elected president is racism, what's the point of debating policy at all?

For my money, it's absurd, fawning, blatantly insulting articles like this from that are driving voters away from Obama, not the color of his skin. I can't believe I took the time to even write this...