“Default” racism

Robert – Your information gathering technique is invalid. I wonder how the people you talked to will react next time you approach them. If it were me, I’d walk away before you got to me. That said, I think you can have an opinion about electability without being labeled in negative terms. Also, I take the fact that you “haven’t seen the major political blogs, or Web sites, take on the issue of race and the 2008 candidacy” as a welcome sign of progress. Some contend it’s racist to bring it up at all.

To shorten down what a lot of people have said, your question is like asking someone “so, have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

It assumes a position on the behalf of the person you are speaking to. I’ll give you the simpler reason he won’t get elected – and it’s the same reason that I don’t think McCain or Clinton will, either.

He’s a Senator, and Senators generally don’t get elected President. In fact, there are only two cases in US history where anyone has gone straight from the Senate to the White House – and I’d bet good money that none of the people I mentioned will be the third.

If Obama wants to be President, the road runs through the Governor’s Mansion, not through the Senate.

Anyone who thinks that racism in America is fading away has not lived in a former slave state, is not a person of color, or has not spent enough time around people of color to see that is not the case. Let’s not forget that we just saw the burning of some predominantly black churches in North Carolina less than a week ago. Yes racism is a huge problem in America and I have no doubt that Obama’s race will be an obstacle for him on the road to getting elected. I do not, however, think that it will be as big an obstacle for him as it had been for people of color, women, and non-protestants who have run for office before him. If he runs, regardless of his success, he will make it that much easier for people of color who decide to run after him as well.

By stating that you think Obama’s race will hinder him moving toward the election and having people agree with you – I don’t think that’s any kind of default racism at all. As a person of color (biracial at that) I would’ve agreed with you too. However bleak that opinion may be, it is realistic.

While I would argue he doesn’t have the experience I think he will get a lot of votes based soley on the color of his skin.
First of all he will get the black caucus vote because he’s well black. Second, he’s a “feel good” candidate. People can “feel good” voting for a person of African American background because they are striking a blow for racism everywhere.
Like James Robertson posted, if he was a governor or had other experience besides being a freshman Senator then I would think he would have enough experience.

What follows my statement is what really pisses me off: I haven’t had many people disagree with me. Admittedly small sample size, but now more than 100 people.

Are you saying this in a personal opinion or making a statement of fact? Could be that people are agreeing with you in a general way (same as if you were saying ‘ a divorced man cannot get elected president’) or .. maybe they’re just being polite.

Or perhaps they’re going .. well DAMN I didn’t know Scoble was a racist but they’re not saying that to your face … (smile).

Scobble,

Their are several ways to understand your statement:

1. People tend to assume they view is the default one (what psychologist call the “ego-bias”, and it is significantly stronger in the USA then in other western society); saying “I’m no racist but he has no chance” could be interpreted as a revealing mechanism — and shows racism indeed.

2. People acknowledge that a share of voter are racists: you can blame them to face that without a urge to change it — and it’s a milder form of racism, that can be justified by a very broad definition of “Freedom of Speech”: “I disagree with you, but I will fight to death to allow you to say it” famously said Voltaire. Some countries have laws against that; it is illegal not only to suport, but also to consider Nazism acceptable as a political doctrine in France, and I think Germany, but not USA I believe.

3. You can reckon many people understand why such a statement “make somehow sense” (Black people historically were given less responsibility) — unlike: “American will never vote for a President with a name starting by vowel.” that would puzzle anyone. However void for anyone, this issue still stand: it’s a mechanism first described by Thomas C. Shelling (Nobel prize in Economics 2005). It explains very well financial bubbles: no one thinks such equity can be actually worth that much, but people agree that they can buy it anyway, as someone (with the same reasoning) will buy it at an even higher price.

A similar issue plays in current presidential race in France, but against historic prejudice: the socialist candidate might be elected, and, though few consider her being a woman is a relevant issue, they anticipate this to influence votes towards her. Why? No real reason, but as people prefer to support the winner, it will probably have a significant impact in her favor.

The odd part is that Obama wouldn’t be considered black, here — but that is another issue.

I’ll take it a step further.

I don’t think Hillary has a chance, because she’s a woman.

I don’t think the general US population is “ready” for a woman or minority president. Personally? I’d welcome the change with either.

The US has traditionally been very slow to adopt to the idea of change. People still can’t get over the idea that the speaker of the house is a woman. THAT was a headliner, and in a way controversial. Meanwhile, 98% of Americans couldn’t name the last 3 or 4 to hold that position (because we don’t care).

I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but I think we are still a while away.

Regardless, a serious run by them is still a giant step forward. You can’t win if your not even in the race. I think that’s the big thing to keep in mind here.

The only racist particle of your statement is in the inherent assumption that white people won’t vote for him because he’s black. This is meta-racism; as Bertil mentions, people acknowledge that a share of voters are racist – and that assumed racism is ironically placed along racial lines.

It’s more racist to mention that Obama has a better chance of winning swing states with large black populations – you’re presuming black people will blindly vote for him because he’s black.

The problem with calling any of these observations racism, is that they are likely to be testable political hypotheses. It’s not racism to state a fact like “64 percent of polled black voters said they were more likely to vote for a black candidate for president.*”
(* I made that up)

I believe it’s widely understood in the American political system that the race of a candidate is a factor in many elections, and someone disagreeing or agreeing with your proposition is merely expressing their opinion on the weight of this factor in the electorate.

Now if you had said “Obama shouldn’t be President because” …

Yeah Robert, but a great number of voters are just plain idiots.

In the past, I’ve had numerous people tell me that they really wanted to vote for [candidate name] but that they didn’t want to “waste” their vote. Meaning, they didn’t want to vote for some underdog, because they wouldn’t win, and they wanted to vote for the winning candidate (Makes no sense to me).

I usually just tell them to stay home during the next election process.

Or also, some people have told me that they vote purely on how the candidate “looks” without paying ANY attention to what the policies of the candidate are. My own mother voted for Bill Clinton because of looks (what she see’s, I haven’t a clue, but I’ve heard that same thing frmo many women. Maybe they like cigars?)

So, yeah, it’s not a perfect system because it involves humans, and our less-than-perfect decision making process(es).

Regardless of skin color, Obama doesn’t have enough experience – maybe that is what this country needs? I don’t know.

I’ll certainly be leaning towards voting for whoever DOESN’T try to put it as the Democrats against the Republicans, or the rich against the poor.

Those are NOT issues, those are simply political tactics.

Robert: “I think he isn’t going to get elected because of the color of his skin.”

Herschel: Well, to tell you the truth Robert, you might be right. Although the Civil Rights Act passed more than 25 years ago and slaves were freed in the US over 140 years ago, racism continues to exist in the United States against all people of color.

Although our generation was the first integrated generation, many in our parents and grand parents generations hold on to the old ways and old ideas.

Robert: “If someone says something racist to you, and you don’t disagree, aren’t you also racist by default?

Herschel: I would hope not. In this case Robert, you have stated something that might be true. Obama may not be able to get elected because he is half African American. But in general if I choose not to debate every racist I come by that doesn’t make me a racist by default.

Robert: “It’s also interesting that I haven’t seen the major political blogs, or Web sites, take on the issue of race and the 2008 candidacy.”

Herschel: Robert, have you really let go of the old ways? Do you overly look for the “default” in people? Yes, the default is sick and it is out there. But maybe we have actually made more progress on this issue than you really think. Maybe the reason you haven’t seen “race” as an issue so far is because it might not be an issue. Maybe enough people realize that the color of a person’s skin has no bearing on the ability of that person. In the span of mtr life we now have seen a woman become Speaker of the House, a BLACK WOMAN become Secretary of State and a WOMAN in serious contention for the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2006? This is real progress.

We’re all racists. This isn’t changing any time soon.

This has probably men mentioned in the comments, but i don’t think it automatically implies racism to agree with that comment, or even to suggest it yourself. Making that statement implies nothing about your own personal racist (or non-racist) feelings, but simply that you think him being black/half-black/part-black/anything-other-than-white makes him less electable over the whole country. By stating how you think the country as a whole will vote (or agreeing with someone who states something like that), for whatever reason, doesn’t make you a racist.

On another note – I’d like to see an Edwards/Obama ticket. Whichever one of them makes it through the primaries should ask the other to be a running mate. I think maybe Edwards would be more prepared to go for President (is it racist to say Edwards is “more electable”?) in 2008 with Obama as VP, then that would set up Obama for a strong run for Pres in 2016 (long term planning!!)

another day, another couple of political posts. technology not good enough any more? its sure as hell more INTERESTING.

Maybe this is off topic, but why is he considered an African-American? One parent was African-American, one was white anglo….

In which way are we being racist? Because he’s “sorta African-American” or “sorta white”?

You are right that many people are guilty of projecting their own prejudices on “those red state people.” However, Obama has a better chance of winning than those people might think. He doesn’t have to win over Republicans to get the Democratic nomination, and he may not have to win over too many of them even to win the whole thing. He is the most charismatic Democrat since Bill Clinton, and maybe that will be enough to win the nomination of his party. Plus he’s not tainted by Iraq like both Edwards and Hilly Clinton are. If wins the nomination, he may be able to swing some formerly red states with increased minority turnout, not by appealing to anybody that votes Republican.

Us “hicks” in Tennessee were accused of racism because we didn’t elect Harold Ford, Jr. I didn’t vote for Ford, and I won’t vote for Obama. I don’t care if they’re white, purple, or polka dotted.

To me, the phrase “default” racism denotes the automatic response of “I didn’t get what I want, so it must be because of the color of my skin.” How can we ever “judge a person by the content of his character” when that person can’t get past using the color of his own skin as an excuse for his failures?

If I were to say: I’m more likely to win a basketball game against short people than tall people, does that make me “heightist”?

Nope, just a statement of what is a likely outcome based on my internal model of the world. Like it or not, race will play a role in how many people vote, and to acknowledge that is to acknowledge your understanding of the world, not necessarily whether it is right or wrong.

You know, I’ve mostly grown up and lived in the South, so I’ve dealt with my share of racist folks.

But honestly, I don’t know that your statement screams racism. It screams sadness, because it may well be a reality for a decent sized chunk of the population.

If I were sitting in front of you, and presumably knew you and respected you, and you said something like that to me, I’d probably shake my head and say something like, “You may be right, but I sure as hell hope not.”

Not sure where these folks you’ve been talking to are from, but if I didn’t know you well, I might choose to gloss over your statement not because I believed it to be racist or because I’m racist, but because I would feel embarrassed for you and I wouldn’t want to pursue it unless you did. If you did, I’d admit that while I know plenty of people who wouldn’t give his race a thought, I, sadly, know more who would.

I live in Tennessee, and the otherwise mostly decent folks of my state overwhelmingly voted to “protect” marriage by ammending the constitution to make it illegal for gay folks to marry here, even though there was already a law against it. I’ve had conversations with people I love and respect who are just plain wrong on that issue, but they don’t see it. Somehow we’re at a point where older folks in the South can look back and see and admit we’ve been wrong on race but they don’t draw a parallel between that and sexual orientation. That actually makes me more sad, but maybe that’s because I’ve seen those folks “grow up” on race and am disappointed they haven’t yet on this issue.

Rambling, sorry.

You know, Robert, it takes real courage to confront a racist. Most people aren’t racists but they don’t necessarily want to get into a public confrontation with a racist either.

What really pisses me off are people like you that throw out inflammatory statements that they don’t believe in the interest of furthering their own selfish desires (in this case a flawed sociology experiment).

If I say “I think the majority of American voters are racist.” Is that racist? Because that is essentially equivalent to “I don’t think Obama will be elected due to the color of his skin.”

I think Gideon summed it up pretty well:

“Because a huge part of this country is still staggaringly backward and has all sorts of ‘passive racism.’ I don’t know much about you or where you come from, Robert, but I’ve spent the vast majority of my life in the midwest – and it’s still pretty bad here in ‘red state land.’”

Robert, most “liberal enclaves” – whether you’re thinking of SF, LA, NYC, or DC – are echo chambers where they assume that the rest of the country is backwards and racist. Luckily, make out decisions about people based on their values and actions as opposed to their geography.

~ Born and raised outside Chicago, college in Indiana, living and working in DC.

Mr. Scoble, sorry your blog’s taking a turn off of technology for a while Good for conversation though.

If we were all blind and could only hear, smell and touch one another (let’s leave out taste for now, ok?)… we’d still find characteristics that distinguished or seperated one another. It’s just gonna happen. Does that make us profilers or racists? By in large, no. Could it come across that way? Absolutely.

Now, how many people will identify or find affinity with an Obama, McCain, Clinton, Giuliani… is anyone’s guess. It really is “popular” appeal not largely based enough on ability and more on salesmanship. And whoever can transcend the objections (be they physical attributes or position statemens or consistency)… well, only time will tell. Wouldn’t it be nice if everything political was a meritocracy? Where the most able to lead… DID!

Is it racist of me to admit I won’t eat black-skinned chicken?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/dining/17blac.html

I think it really depends on what people think of the question. Saying “I think he isn’t going to get elected because of the color of his skin.” can be taken several ways, depending on how the question is perceived. Some people might have interpreted that statement in and of itself as a racist comment, and declined to say anything because they were surprised to hear someone say something like that.

Personally, I think people are in love with the idea of Obama. They have no idea what he stands for, he hasn’t sited any of the things he’s “bridged” in his relatively short career (even thought he’s found of using that word), and the media really haven’t dug into his overall story yet.

As far as the other candidates, they need to demonstrate how what they’re saying really matches what they’re living. That’s what bugs me about Edwards right now. He keeps talking about “two Americas”… He’s never lived that in his life as a lawyer. I haven’t seen him sponsor anything since his run with Kerry, at least nothing that would help heal the “two Americas”. No, it’s in his best interest to make sure there continue to be “two Americas”. Frankly, that’s what I consider quiet racism.

And is Scoble shilling for Edwards by reminding us Obama is the non-default candidate?