I don’t want to get too partisan here, but most of you have probably figured out I lean toward Obama in the current presidential race. I realize that many will immediately think I support him because he’s black, and there might be some deep psychosocial truth to that. But, honestly, my main interest in him has more to do with the spirit of racial and cultural reconciliation that I detect in his message and manner—this was also a chief reason why I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. Nevertheless, I really don’t want to promote one candidate over another on this blog. When I talk about Obama here, it’s usually because of the social and religious questions that his candidacy highlights and stirs up.
We touched on this latest question in an earlier post, and I had no intention of pursuing it any further, but it’s been on my mind a lot the past couple days. So, here it is: In American politics and society, is it more acceptable to play the gender card (especially when the alleged victim of the sexism is white) than the race card? I ask this question sincerely and without guile. I really would like to know.
I could ramble on at length about how one side seems to be able to get away with crying “sexism” and “you’re playing the race card” whenever they want, while the other side seems scared to death to even mention the word race (even in the wake of cynical comments about “community organizers” and “uppity” behavior), but I’ll save that for later. However, I will excerpt from a reader comment on TheRoot.com that made me wonder about this question. The comment was in response to an article that contends Obama is playing too nice and needs to start getting as mean as his opponent. The reader cautioned against this, saying:
A snide remark from a Black mouth is not digested the same as a snide remark from a White mouth. Obama is not stupid. He is a Black man in America who understands how the game is played. And if he starts meeting barb for barb, we will all surely lose, hands-down! I have been tempted to question his tactics as well…it’s hard, but in the end, it will be worth it. Meanwhile, I’m praying.
What do you think? Is Obama constrained by his race—and perhaps, now, by his gender—from getting too down and dirty in this presidential contest?
Ed, I liked what Ariana Huffington wrote about this yesterday. Here’s the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/enough-why-obama-should-r_b_125519.html
She argued that black male anger has been normalized by some of our favorite actors, so Obama ought to go for it. I do think he has been thrown off his game by Palin’s gender and overt images of vulnerable motherhood, but I’d hate to see him go for the gutter.
It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Kudos for not blindly tying yourself to a party bandwagon! 🙂 Sometimes I think that’s all too rare in America.
Whether the reality is that Obama is constrained by his race, I don’t know, but I would hope that he doesn’t even take that into considerations. A little color blindness never hurt anyone.
I think that’s the big problem right now. People are devoting too much media time and fuss to things that do not, should not matter…whether they are hot media topics or not. Yeah, it would be historic if Obama became president, in the sense that a black man has never been the U.S. president before. But man, too many people are treating it like we have an obligation, a duty to vote him in or else we’d be turning our backs on Dr. King and the progress civil rights movement has made.
I think that’s all crock personally. Elect him if he’s the best guy, not because we need to take the first opportunity we can to put a black guy or a woman into the most powerful seat in the US government.
So to answer your question: I don’t think playing either card is appropriate. These are things that should be ignored, not confronted, because they don’t matter and people have got to start treating it that way.
It’s nice to see someone else whose criteria for president is nuanced enough to vote across parties.
Obama is definitely constrained by race; it’s a lose-lose situation for him. I’m with you; the wisest course seems to be to try to be above all that until after the election.
I hate the period right before the election. The candidates have to become so careful and guarded, and people will make up their minds based on the dumbest criteria. A lot of Americans will take whatever excuse they can to reinforce their stereotypes and I think Obama is well aware of that.
This article in the Washington post describes the myth of the ‘smart American voter.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666.html
I guess you could say he is, but more than that, he is constrained by his prior commitment to NOT getting down and dirty. And his surrogates are already causing him enough problems in that area.
As for Huffington, she is ignorant on the issue of black male anger being normalized. She obviously hasn’t been anywhere lately other than Southern Cal and New York. It would be political suicide for him to take her advice.
I don’t think Whoopi Goldberg had any problem playing the anger card on “The View” this morning, when she asked McCain if she needed to worry about becoming a slave again. If Obama won’t get down and dirty, there are plenty who will do it for him.
Plantainman,
I think your “easy” dismissal of the race issue is unfortuante. When you said that…
“A little color blindness never hurt anyone”
I think it exlains why it is so easy for you dismiss. Being color blind is one of the most tragic idealogies of this age (originated by the baby boomers) and lead to further indirect racism and exclusion.
I believe God see’s color because He made it that way and He loves it. So to say “I don’t see color” is unfortunate.
Contrary to popular belief we will not all be “glowing white” figures in heaven but rather will keep our ethnic distinctions and it is in this that God gets the glory! (Revelations 5)
All this to say to think that race “shouldn’t” matter in a racialized society is the direct result of the “color blindness” that has caused a false since of morality.
Color blindness says no one should ever even think about one’s race because “race” doesn’t matter. What? That’s just crazy to me and not biblical at all.
So to all those folks who are saying “race” doesn’t matter, I think we need to really think about that statement. We live in a racialized society and there is no way to get around that.
With this in mind I will be voting for O’bama not solely on his race but it does mean something to me a man of color. Race isn’t even in the top 5 of why I am voting for O’bama but it is in the equation and I think that is ok.
Just my opinion though. Take it with a grain of salt 🙂
Forgive me aaron, there are distinctions to be made here.
We are “the same”, but yet we are “different.” And so in that same sense, race both matters, and it doesn’t.
By color blindness, I do not mean at all that that people should not think about one’s race, or that one’s race should not define who they are. Diversity is great, and I am not advocating conformity.
What I do mean is, very simply, that race is a neutral quality. Being of a different race is neither a good or bad thing. I say ‘color blindness’ because the race card is sometimes played suggesting that, in this specific instance, we need to elect Obama *because* he is black. No, we don’t. It’s not a detractor from the guy, and it’s not a selling point either.
It’s like Affirmative Action, kind of. Obama’s ethnicity certainly is an important part of who he is. But to weild his ethnicity as a political power play is, in my opinion, wrong.
I can certainly respect that his ethnicity will mean something to you, as a man of color. There is nothing wrong with that.
Thanks for the clarification Plantainman.
Who is suggesting that one should vote for Obama because He is black? Just wondering.
[…] barracuda song at the RNC. LL Barkat reflects on how to avoid senility. Does sexism trump racism? (Asks Ed Gilbreath.) And Shawna, a Friend, on working at MacDonald’s (HT: […]
Obama and Palin are constrained by both gender and race. I don’t think the two can be separated without asking either to ignore a part of their identity. Both are walking a fine line: if Obama gets too aggressive, doesn’t he run up against the stereotype of the angry Black man? and if Palin crosses the line she goes from barracuda to b–ch?
The dynamics of the race have become complex. It’s hard to answer the question. The gender issues around Clinton are different than those around Palin, and vary with any given audience, and interact differently with race issues. I don’t know if one can even generalize in an answer to this. And sometimes the “gender” issues are limited to those of motherhood, which not all women identify with.
Aaron, I may be incorrect but I am getting the sense that many people do feel that way. To be fair, I only have one source at hand for you: a Jacob Weisberg column from the Sept. 1st issue of Newsweek called “The Big Idea” and titled “What will the neighbors think?”
Excerpts below:
—
“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.”
—
Mind, I do support Obama in this election over McCain, but I think the viewpoint represented by Mr. Weisberg misses the point by a few miles.
I’m starting to wonder lately if the “trash” card trumps anything:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/columnists-labeling-palin-backers-white-trash-spurs-review-at-canadian-tv/
http://bittenandbound.com/2008/09/01/sarah-palin-trailer-trash-for-wearing-hoop-earrings/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/the-mary-poppins-syndrome_b_123584.html
Another better take on the anger issue:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/18/angry_obama/