The Race Perplex

Obama, the white vote and a venerable American argument.

 
Sponsored by
 
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

I'll never forget a frigid morning in Springfield: Sen. Barack Obama, elegantly Lincolnesque in a long wool coat, launching his presidential candidacy in the shadow of the old Illinois State Capitol. The echoes of history were almost deafening—not just of Abraham Lincoln, who, like Obama, had been a legislator there, but of the argument over slavery and race that Lincoln had joined there.

On that sunny February day in 2007, Obama seemed to radiate uplift and glorious possibility. He was making a statement: that his candidacy would be the exclamation point at the end of our four-century-long argument over the role of African-Americans in our society. By electing a mixed-race man of evident brilliance, moderate mien and welcoming smile, we would finally cease seeing each other through color-coded eyes.

Well, that argument did not end. He and we were naive to think it would. In our country, uniquely based on and blessed by the idea of individual freedom, the most profound argument always this: who is fully a person in the eyes of our society and law? The Constitution enshrines and protects "persons." But who is one and, just as important, who isn't?

In some ways, as the 2008 presidential campaign shows—and the racially lopsided West Virginia results from Tuesday night remind us—we have yet to fully answer the questions.

A century and a half ago, the American Argument over personhood sparked one of the bloodiest disputes any nation has ever had with itself: our Civil War. But the enduring debate also spawned tremendous social progress and constitutional changes, not just for blacks but for women, gays, lesbians and others. The phrase "We the People" has a far broader meaning than our white male Christian Founders imagined.

But now, in the presidential campaign of 2008, the old argument engenders fresh ones. Is Obama's campaign erasing racial consciousness, or raising it? Are voters willing to see a black man not only as an equal, but as commander in chief? If Obama wins, will we finally and forever reach the sunny uplands of tolerance? If he loses, does that mean we are hopelessly mired in kind of racist thinking that still denies full personhood to individuals for no other reason than skin color?

Let me offer some tentative answers to at least the first question.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: roncraw @ 05/28/2008 3:26:55 PM

    I've subcribed to Newsweek for years. I will not renew. I buy a news Mag. for objective reporting,Fineman,Alter and Wolffes love affair with Obama on print and MSNBC has soured me on all of them.They all belong on Fox,come to think of it maybe Fox is more fair and balanced than them

  • Posted By: gwhitt @ 05/26/2008 2:43:19 AM

    I don't think Obama supporters are considing Clinton supporters racist just because they won't go Obama. Problem is, it is easy to point or visualize a lot of Obama's faults. Also, these faults are faults of other people; not the candidate himself. Then, did you do the same for the candidate you did choose? Interrogate their background? Search for their faults? I guess what we are looking at is, if you did then you know the dirt trial that leads up to the Clintons door... Unlike Obama that may have some questionable friends, Bill and Hillary Clinton has a lot of dead friends! Not only that but, they have dirt trails of their own (and this goes beyond shadey associates). Hillary is being accused of campaign fraud for her senate run. She's been accused of stealing posessions from the White House. These are not crimes of friends; these are deeds done by the candidate herself! That makes it a little different than Obama. In fact, he can look like a saint in many instances against the dirt of some others. Of course, this would bring question as to why anyone would support a criminal type candidate?

    Has nothing to do with color or gender... We can fantasize that Obama may have dirt but, to date, it isn't true. There IS no fantasizing about Hillary; there is dirt there and it's hard dirt so there IS a bit of a difference. However, people choose who they choose... To me, it's like marrying a criminal while they are still in prison. Some people can do that without a problem; my morals just seem to make me snare at the idea.... Its just difference.. and there is no problem with people being different or having a difference of opinion; that is what makes America beautiful and what it is..

  • Posted By: gwhitt @ 05/26/2008 2:24:58 AM

    I wouldn't consider it a "racist" remark; probably more of an exaggeration. And you are right; there are more accomplished minorities than Barack Obama. However, he is the "new kid on the block" sort of speak that happens to be multi-racial and, the candidate for "change."

    To my understanding, historically minority voters tend to favor "change" candidates. It didn't matter what color they were (i.e., Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, etc), they seem to put their buck on the new guy. Fortunately or Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the new guy happens to be a multi-racial candidate in this campaign..!! The turnout numbers for the primaries may be larger than past records but, does that change the overall view that there would be a good chance that Democratic minority voters would favor a new, for change candidate?

    From this particular view point, I don't see anything happening out side of tradition... The difference is in the concept of "change." The "change" candidate in this campaign just happens to be Barack Obama. I am no political whiz but, being around since the Kennedy era, I could even see this trend.. Kennedy was the Democratic candidate for hope and change as well as Carter and Clinton. All of which carried the majority of minority votes! That is, for the majority of minorities that DID vote... Based on trends alone would have laid out the possibility that Barack, being the current day voice for "hope and change" would get the majority of minority voters; no matter what color he is.. I am black but, I would have voted for him even if he was white, mexican, asian, spanish or whatever race because, he is the "hope and change" candidate. His message is to challenge political and economical change....

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse