DOES RACIAL BIAS FUEL OBAMA FOES?

it's the elephant in the room that everyone chooses not to acknowledge:

By JESSE WASHINGTON
AP National Writer


Is it because he's black?

The question of whether race fuels opposition to President Barack Obama has become one of the most divisive topics of the election. It is sowing anger and frustration among conservatives who are labeled racist simply for opposing Obama's policies and liberals who see no other explanation for such deep dislike of the president.

It is an accusation almost impossible to prove, yet it remains inseparable from the African-American experience. The idea, which seemed to die in 2008 when Obama became the first black president, is now rearing its head from college campuses to cable TV as the Democratic incumbent faces Mitt Romney, the white Republican challenger.

Four years after an election that inspired hopes of a post-racial future, there are signs that political passions are dragging us backward.

"We're at a tipping point," said Susan Glisson, director of the Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi. "But I don't know which way we're going to tip."

Glisson knows that many conservatives disagree with Obama solely because of his policies. "But I am also quite certain that there are others who object to the president because of his race, because they have a fear of blacks that is embedded in our culture," she said.

Her conclusion is based on something called "implicit bias"- prejudices that people don't realize they have.

Studies show that due to longstanding negative stereotypes about African-Americans - which give such false impressions as most black people are dangerous, unintelligent or prefer welfare to work - many people harbor anti-black biases yet don't even know it. Such unconscious biases, the studies show, are present in people of all backgrounds, not just whites.

"Our history has created this unconscious bias," said Gail Christopher, vice president of program strategy for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, which has funded research on the subject. "Now we need to create safe places to discuss and educate people about unconscious bias, where we are not blaming and shaming them."

Those safe places generally do not include the political arena.

"Every time they say, `We want our country back,' I know what that means," Susan Bankston, a white Democratic National Convention delegate from Richmond, Texas, said at the gathering last week.

"You recognize it when every time the Republicans with their own convention refer to him by his first name, Barack Obama. He's President Barack Obama," said Patt Sanders, a delegate from Englewood, Calif., who is black.

Such logic inspired James Taranto, a conservative Wall Street Journal columnist, to write: "Every comment from a Republican can be translated, through a process of free association, to: `We don't like black people.'"

At their convention, Republicans made sure to show that the GOP does like black people, showcasing speeches by black and Latino conservatives. Two attendees who threw peanuts at a black camerawoman while commenting "this is what we feed animals" were swiftly ejected and denounced by GOP organizers.

On television, MSNBC host Chris Matthews unleashed an emotional rant at Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, accusing Romney of appealing to anti-black bias with welfare ads and a joke about claims that Obama is not an American citizen.

The actor Alec Baldwin simply tweeted: "If Obama was white, he'd be up by 17 points."

Said former President Bill Clinton in his speech to the Democratic convention: "Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats."

All of this is maddening to people like Dan Joseph, a 33-year-old white conservative from northern Virginia.

Joseph is too young to remember past GOP appeals to racial bias, such as Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy," Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens" rhetoric and George H.W. Bush's infamous Willie Horton ad. He believes Obama should have done more to promote economic growth.

Yet Joseph is often called a racist when he discusses politics. This inspired him to film a satirical video, "Bob is a Racist" ( http://bit.ly/SrvPAW ), which lays bare the frustration of many conservatives.

"Things have changed a lot since the 1980s," Joseph, a video journalist for a conservative media group, said in an interview. "I don't think food stamps equals blacks. We don't want people to be on food stamps, black or white."

So how many conservatives are truly biased against black people? "I don't know," Joseph said. "But it's hard to figure out when one side is assuming that it's everywhere."

It's not everywhere, acknowledges Courtland Milloy, a black columnist for The Washington Post. In a recent dispatch, Milloy described a widespread belief among some black Washingtonians that Republicans are using race against Obama.

"But there unquestionably is racism in some of the opposition," Milloy said in an interview. "And it should not just be up to black people to identify it and have to deal with it. This is an American problem. It's not just a black problem."

That can be difficult for folks who don't see a problem. Joseph, for one, doesn't buy the foundational idea of unconscious bias, that America remains afflicted by a racist past. "You get in the real world, and I just don't see it," he said.

For him, the bottom line is simple: "I know I'm not a racist, and the conservatives I know aren't racist."

The perils of potential offense can be everywhere. Glisson, director of the racial reconciliation institute, recalls a recent meeting with an unfamiliar group of people, including some African-Americans, and telling them about a good location for a professional retreat.

Then Glisson, who is white, mentioned that the location had excellent fried chicken.

She immediately sensed a change in the atmosphere: "They didn't know that I love fried chicken." It's a common occurrence: a statement that can be interpreted either way.

Evan Woodson, a black student at Oklahoma State University, often hears other black people call something racist that he sees as benign: "People seriously act as if whitey is still out to get them in 2012 in Stillwater, Okla. I don't think that's the case anymore."

Woodson does believe that the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow still create disadvantages for African-Americans. But when it comes to politics, he sees racial transgressions from both parties, such as Vice President Joe Biden telling black people that Republicans "want to put y'all back in chains."

"No matter how you cut it, politicians constantly seem to be accusing the other party of racism," Woodson said, and that prevents people from having honest conversations about actual racism. "People can't identify real racism anymore. They're lost in all the race-baiting."

Even when racism was a raw fact of American life, it wasn't always easy to identify. "Something is holding me back / I wonder, is it because I'm black?" Syl Johnson sang in the haunting 1970 soul classic, "Is It Because I'm Black?" ( http://bit.ly/QpEmx7 .)

In an interview, Johnson, now 76, said his song was inspired by a twisted saga of land stolen from his family in 1930s Mississippi. He said the song remains relevant today because, he believes, Obama's blackness is indeed holding him back.

And yet: "Everyone that's white ain't no bigot," Johnson said. "Otherwise Obama never woulda become president."

---


Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • Racism exists and is in both political parties but I will say that one has the lock on it more so than the other. One party is inclusive of all races and sexual orientations and one is very limited and at best tolerant of such groups. One party has been dictated to by the former John Birch Society founders and current leaders. I just spent seven weeks driving around the swing states and I will say that on several occasions I was told that the reason the person I was talking with was going to vote for one guy over another was that they just did not like the idea that the _igger was in office. So what policies is so abhorent to the right? Will the right take credit for the part of the debt that they created? Will the right take credit for being an obstructionist party for two years? Will the right admit that they have not offered anything new in the way of leadership in the current election? I keep hearing that the reason for me to vote for Romney is that Obama has not fixed the mess that the Republicans created. So I am to put the same people back in power that created this mess because they are going to do what again? Leaders? Leadership? Show me where it is? What policies are they going to implement? Repeal the AFC act and replace it with what? Lower taxes and raise spending at the Pentagon because why? Imigration reform? Reduce the military presence in where? I don't want my 90 year old mother having to decide where to get health care, I don't want to give Wall Street more of our money to steal by letting them have Medicare and Social Security,I don't want another war fought against a perceived enemy just because it makes good business sense and it is to help an old business friend(Netanyahou) with a lower and lower moral volunteer army. What is the Republican plan for education? More profit schools that graduate less and less for more and more? So returning to the orriginal question of is their racism in this race? You bet there is and one side is using it more and more as it needs to because it is becoming more and more a unilateral party of one race. I think it is sad to be honest and hopefully they awake to their perilous path.
    barney290 09/11/2012 05:05 PM
  • Well, obviously I meant a significant openly gay candidate. I imagine there have been some no-name openly gay Dems to run, too. Now that Barney Frank has retired, I'm not sure there are any openly gay male politicians out there who fit the bill. It will happen someday, but there aren't enough openly gay men in high elected office at this time. That would need to happen first, unless some big name were to "come out," or a celebrity were to run.
    BearinFW 09/11/2012 12:19 PM
  • i agree with you erly, i do need to be around more tolerant people. with that object in mind, i've decided to interact with far fewer republicans. and re: republicans being inured to the racist label because they hear it so often...my old mother had a saying "there isn't smoke unless there's a fire". you obviously didn't read or understand the definition of racism if you think that blacks voting for obama constitutes racism.

    and bearinfw, i think i understand now what you meant about obama benefiting from race. i interpreted your comment to mean tp mean that he won the nomination because of his race and then the election because of his race, not because of his platforms. it's a minefield to discuss positive or negative motivations where race is concerned. if you mean that his race, IN ADDITION TO, his platforms was to his benefit i may agree. but i think it had a bigger negative impact than positive, even though he won.
    rae121452 09/10/2012 05:40 PM
  • But back to the topic in the original blog, YES, it seems to me that racism plays a major part in the red-hot rage against the President. I'm old enough to remember many presidential campaigns. NEVER before have I heard so many personally denigrating comments about a sitting president . . . . not about his policies, just about his person. To discredit President Obama, the birthers found it convenient to deny his personhood; if they could convince the easily fooled that he wasn't even born in the U.S. but in some African place, they were half-way to denying he is one of us. He is OTHER than us. They also found it easy to deny his Christian faith and painted him a Muslim becaue it is obvious (in another race-hate way) that being OTHER than Christian could harm his reputation. ALL of these racial methods hark back to what was done to slaves in our American past. Deny their identity so they can be controlled, and so they can be bought and sold and treated like animals. It's amazing to me that so many who buy into this type of thinking don't recognize the racial overtones involved. The defense mechanism in use here is DENIAL. It's an old story - and has a brutal legacy that needs to be overcome.
    rjzip 09/10/2012 03:43 PM
  • I agree with Rae that black people supporting Obama does not constitute a racist act. It would only be racist in the pockets of his support that would under no circumstances support a candidate who was NOT black. I imagine he has some support like that, but I'd venture that it's a relatively small number.

    I think a lot of us would be thrilled to support an openly gay male candidate if one were a major party nominee. It's natural and there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.

    As for my earlier comment, I don't think there's any doubt that Obama also does get some benefits because of the extra enthusiasm, pride and history that come with being the first black president. Those advantages will be greatly reduced if and when major African-American candidates become more commonplace.
    BearinFW 09/10/2012 03:40 PM
  • On everysooften's topic of Alec Baldwin being, ". . . a member of the Hollywood elite" and questioning, ". . . what are his credentials and where does he get his expertise?" It's really just a matter of whether we believe in free speech or not. However, there is a more pernicious side to the "free speech topic which has been brought about by the Citizens United decision (should be called Anti-Citizens Corporate Giveaway)

    In a cynical way, I would say that this is how modern capitalism works, especially under the current right-leaning Supreme Court. People and non-people (corporations) with tons of money have the advantage in getting their message across and NONE of them have any more expertise than Alec Baldwin. As a matter of fact, their sole motivation would seem to be gaining more money and favors from the government. The annual cost of corporate welfare far outweighs human welfare funding. If our government hasn't already turned into plutrocracy, it is not far from it. Rich people rule the society through paid lobbyists and bought politicians.

    Proof that the wealthy seek only to gain more wealth and not to make the country more democratic, can be found it you take the Koch brothers, for example. One of them is actually a social liberal, yet, they support right-wing pacs with untold millions of dollars and air thousands of commercials for conservative politicians and policies. It would seem only fair to lament the access that fame or money buys to get some people access to media and that would HAVE to include the Koch Bros. as well as Alec Baldwin and literally hundreds and perhaps thousands of others. Modern capitalism - and the United States of Monied Interests!!
    rjzip 09/10/2012 03:30 PM
  • of course racism exists - always has - racism is totally irrational - yet it is palpable and very real (nothing new in recognizing that it is present in modern-day society!) -

    but we must also acknowledge that there are many other "isms" in life - sexism, classism, culturalism, and so forth... they are equally pernicious and viral

    for me, I am totally indifferent to anything said by a member of the Hollywood elite - Alec Baldwin, included... reminds me of Whoope Goldberg (great actress but a lousy talk show hostess!)...

    talk about a "talking head!" - just because Alec Baldwin has money and access to a camera does not make his opinion more meritorious or worth listening to than any other person... frankly, I think just about any other person would have less prejudice in his/her bones than Alec Bladwin has... he is blatantly up front about his agenda and holds back on little ... it is when he opens his mouth that I cringe - better he act and remain on stage in his latest movie than voice an opinion about some political issue such as racism in the campaign... what are his credentials and where does he get his expertise? ANSWER: he doesn't - no more so than as a private citizen!

    give me a break!

    FWIIW
    everysooften 09/10/2012 03:06 PM
  • I firmly believe it IS because of his race. My aunt, who is very liberal and very much a democrat HATES Obama because he is black. Has nothing to do with his policies. And worse, she hates Michelle even more. In fact, most of my family have made some pretty choice comments about his race. I don't get it because I was not rased to be racist yet I don't dare mention the president in conversation unless I want to get an ear full about the "explitive in office".
    kelleysiland 09/10/2012 12:05 PM
  • rac·ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

    saying that voting for someone with whom they share a cultural affinity is racism just doesn't wash. are "millionaires for mitt" racist? or "mormons fot mitt" racist? by baybubba's definition, they would be. racism invilves NOT voting for someone based on their race, by definition. from personal experiience i know that racism is playing a big part in viewing obama. saying that race "works in his favor" also denigrates his achievement and skills...racost thinking, in other words. people who i never would have suspected of racist tendencies feel free to tell me their views of havien "one of them" in the white house. it's the dirty little not-so-secret behind current politics. the republicans would never have tapped a whiter than white super waspy looking candidate unless they were trying for the racist vote. denial runs deep and if you can't admit what your own motivations are, you need to spend some time examining your motivations.
    rae121452 09/10/2012 06:39 AM
  • Suffice it to say that the group"AfricanAmericans for Barrack Obama" has not been labeled as racist in the liberal press.

    It is often good to be seen as the wronged individual/party
    baybubba 09/10/2012 01:47 AM
  • I don't know guys. With the economy the way it is, I think any incumbent president would be in a close race. Presidential elections usually turn on the economy, and although it's mostly better now than 4 years ago, it's still a long way from good.

    Now, of course there is a racist element in the opposition to Obama. But I don't think that's anything new. It was present in 2008 also.

    If anything, I think Obama *benefits* because of race more than it hurts him. It prevented him from having any Democratic opposition, at least somewhat mutes the most noxious criticism (people don't want to be labeled racist) and helps drive black and youth turnout. And he may very well not have won the Dem nomination in 2008 had he not been African-American.

    So I'd say it cuts both ways for Obama, but probably more to the good.
    BearinFW 09/10/2012 01:25 AM
  • If you think the race card does not exists, you're walking around with your head up your ass. I think Alec Baldwin is 100% right. The only logical explanation for Romney even being in this race, is that Obama is black.
    fenwaydav 09/09/2012 11:06 PM
  • prejudice and discrimination exist... it is the nature of humanity... until we arrive at a state of nirvana we always will have it...

    discrimination is not always bad - that is simply making a choice based on some criteria - prejudice, on the other hand, is a philosophy, at attitude or an action that discriminates based on an undesirable criteria (such as race, sex, or culture)...

    this election is full of enough crap - despite the writings referred to in this post I do not believe that race is anything much more than a reflection of the struggles that pervade the mood in the country, the interminable wars, the economic woes and general direction of life in a complex world... in other words, using the race card is merely an effort to divert, once again, talk about issues that have nothing to do with solving issues and actually making "change" a reality...

    what we need is true leadership... this country suffers from an abundance of charlatans masquerading as leaders... no wonder people are turn off, tuned out and disgusted with the state of affairs - including me... but it has nothing to do with race...

    raising race as a trump card is like flatulence in church - sure to get everyone's attention, but little more than a passing issue of human proportions... that, too, will pass...

    FWIIW
    everysooften 09/09/2012 09:51 PM