http://www.thenation.com/article/163544/black-president-double-standard-why-white-liberals-are-abandoning-obama?rel=emailNation
"President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.'
"The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism."
All,
Generally I have a lot of respect for Melissa Harris-Perry and have stated as much many times in the past but the glaringly feeble "argument" she makes here about President Obama is not merely wrong but pure bullshit. For example, the deceptively false comparisons to Bill Clinton--no matter what one may think of his administration's actual policies and programs (and I was never enthusiastic about Clinton any more than I am "enthusiastic" about Obama now)--obscures the fact that neither man ever got more than 43% of the national white vote (contrary to the rather misleading and odd assertion by Harris-Perry in this article that 61% "supported" Obama in 2009 and that this number has now "declined" to a 33% approval rate). It's also patently false that Clinton was, in the words of Harris-Perry, "enthusiastically re-elected" by the (white) American electorate. Clinton received a mere 43% of the overall national vote in 1992 but won because a conservative third party candidate (Ross Perot) won 20% of the national vote and thus successfully undermined and sabotaged George H.W. Bush's chances for re-election, and in the re-election year of 1996 Clinton received a mere 49% of the national vote overall and Ross Perot's conservative third party candidacy still received 8.4% of the national vote (and over 8 million popular votes!) to the 40% that Republican candidate Bob Dole received. Thus Clinton's re-election was hardly "enthusiastic" by any measure. Clinton barely squeaked by with a paper-thin 1% margin.
In fact without the great majority of the black and Latino vote in 1996 Clinton would have LOST his bid for re-election (just as Obama would have LOST his first time around in 2008 when he received only 43% of the white vote to McCain/Palin's whopping 55% of that same national vote demographic). Once again the HUGE black and Latino vote of 81% overall (and a stunning 95% of the national black vote!) SAVED Obama from certain defeat--and by an electoral landslide at that-- if McCain had somehow managed to get at least a mere 35% of the national black and Latino vote (he wound up with a feeble 19%!).
My purpose then in all this is to point out that neither of Harris-Perry's main premises in this article are fundamentally relevant or significant. The "electoral racism" that she refers to is still very much intact at ALL times in American politics generally despite Obama's win against another black candidate for Senate in 2004 and his Presidential victory in 2008 obscures and even distorts a very important and disturbing fact. Obama is in every sense of the word a complete anomaly and utter exception in the history of American politics and here's the obvious historical proof: Only three (3) African Americans have ever been elected Senators in the entire history of the United States and only (2) have ever been elected Governors; Obama is the ONLY black person ever to be NOMINATED by a major party for President in the United States-- let alone win. An even more revealing fact about contemporary American politics and race is the fact that the national white vote is and has been for over 60 years now overwhelmingly conservative and Republican no matter who's running
(OMINOUS FACTOID: Since 1952--a period of 15 national elections for the Presidency--white Americans have voted for the Republican candidate 14 times or a jawdropping 93% of the time!). This means that whatever color the Democratic Party candidate or any other "liberal" or "progressive" was or is white folks in general ain't voting for them. The fact that Obama received virtually the exact same percentage of white votes as Kerry in 2004, Gore, in 2000 or Clinton in '92 and '96 doesn't indicate that there is a significant decrease in electoral racism at all--quite the contrary. It just means that in real terms the white conservative/reactionary vote is as racist now as it was in 1952. In this case the lone exception in 150 years of a victorious black candidate (Obama) only winds up once again proving the rule since if not for the overwhelming black and Latino vote in 2008 Obama would have lost in a landslide because a rock solid 57% of the national white vote went to his Republican opponents or someone else on the ballot. This means that the great majority of white voters openly preferred that SARAH PALIN be only one heartbeat from the Presidency rather than elect "the black guy." THINK about that absolutely chilling prospect for a moment and tell me that "electoral racism" has significantly diminished or "changed" in this country! So ultimately whatever happens in 2012 it won't be because Obama is held to a "different racial double standard" than he was in 2008. Not at all. Rather, the 'racial standard' will be the exact same one as before--AND if the overall black, Latino, and Asian American vote for him is not at least 85% this time around--only a slight increase from 2008--Obama will most certainly lose in 2012 because we all know for damn sure that he is NOT gonna get MORE than the 43% of the national white vote he received in 2008. Very likely the chances are the national white vote for Obama will probably be even LESS than 43% in 2012. Freak anomaly or not...
Kofi
Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama
by Melissa Harris-Perry
September 21, 2011
The Nation
Electoral racism in its most naked, egregious and aggressive form is the unwillingness of white Americans to vote for a black candidate regardless of the candidate’s qualifications, ideology or party. This form of racism was a standard feature of American politics for much of the twentieth century. So far, Barack Obama has been involved in two elections that suggest that such racism is no longer operative. His re-election bid, however, may indicate that a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it.
The 2004 Illinois Senate race between Obama and Alan Keyes, two African-Americans, was a unique test of the persistence of old-fashioned electoral racism. For a truly committed electoral racist, neither Obama nor Keyes would have been acceptable—regardless of policy positions, biography or qualification—because both were black.
One way to determine how many people felt this way is to measure the “roll-off.” In presidential election years, a small percentage vote for the president, but then “roll off” by not casting ballots for state and local offices. A substantial increase in roll-off—larger than usual numbers of voters who picked John Kerry or George Bush but declined to choose between Obama and Keyes—would have been a measure of the unwillingness of some to vote for any black candidate. I tested this in 2004 and found no increase, statistical or substantive, in roll-off in Illinois. Faced with two black candidates, white voters were willing to choose one of them.
The 2008 general election was another referendum on old-fashioned electoral racism—this time among Democratic voters. The long primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama had the important effect of registering hundreds of thousands of Democrats. By October 2008, it was clear that Obama could lose the general election only if a substantial portion of registered Democrats in key states failed to turn out or chose to cross party lines. For Democrats to abandon their nominee after eight years of Bush could be interpreted only as an act of electoral racism.
Not only did white Democratic voters prove willing to support a black candidate; they overperformed in their repudiation of naked electoral racism, electing Obama with a higher percentage of white votes than either Kerry or Gore earned. No amount of birther backlash can diminish the importance of these two election results. We have not landed on the shores of postracial utopia, but we have solid empirical evidence of a profound and important shift in America’s electoral politics.
Still, electoral racism cannot be reduced solely to its most egregious, explicit form. It has proved more enduring and baffling than these results can capture. The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.
The relevant comparison here is with the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal. Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.
Today, America’s continuing entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan provoke anger, but while Clinton reduced defense spending, covert military operations were standard practice during his administration. In terms of criminal justice, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased judicial disparities in punishment; by contrast, federal incarceration grew exponentially under Clinton. Many argue that Obama is an ineffective leader, but the legislative record for his first two years outpaces Clinton’s first two years. Both men came into power with a Democratically controlled Congress, but both saw a sharp decline in their ability to pass their own legislative agendas once GOP majorities took over one or both chambers.
These comparisons are neither an attack on the Clinton administration nor an apologia for the Obama administration. They are comparisons of two centrist Democratic presidents who faced hostile Republican majorities in the second half of their first terms, forcing a number of political compromises. One president is white. The other is black.
In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.
President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.
"President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.'
"The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism."
--Melissa Harris-Perry
All,
Generally I have a lot of respect for Melissa Harris-Perry and have stated as much many times in the past but the glaringly feeble "argument" she makes here about President Obama is not merely wrong but pure bullshit. For example, the deceptively false comparisons to Bill Clinton--no matter what one may think of his administration's actual policies and programs (and I was never enthusiastic about Clinton any more than I am "enthusiastic" about Obama now)--obscures the fact that neither man ever got more than 43% of the national white vote (contrary to the rather misleading and odd assertion by Harris-Perry in this article that 61% "supported" Obama in 2009 and that this number has now "declined" to a 33% approval rate). It's also patently false that Clinton was, in the words of Harris-Perry, "enthusiastically re-elected" by the (white) American electorate. Clinton received a mere 43% of the overall national vote in 1992 but won because a conservative third party candidate (Ross Perot) won 20% of the national vote and thus successfully undermined and sabotaged George H.W. Bush's chances for re-election, and in the re-election year of 1996 Clinton received a mere 49% of the national vote overall and Ross Perot's conservative third party candidacy still received 8.4% of the national vote (and over 8 million popular votes!) to the 40% that Republican candidate Bob Dole received. Thus Clinton's re-election was hardly "enthusiastic" by any measure. Clinton barely squeaked by with a paper-thin 1% margin.
In fact without the great majority of the black and Latino vote in 1996 Clinton would have LOST his bid for re-election (just as Obama would have LOST his first time around in 2008 when he received only 43% of the white vote to McCain/Palin's whopping 55% of that same national vote demographic). Once again the HUGE black and Latino vote of 81% overall (and a stunning 95% of the national black vote!) SAVED Obama from certain defeat--and by an electoral landslide at that-- if McCain had somehow managed to get at least a mere 35% of the national black and Latino vote (he wound up with a feeble 19%!).
My purpose then in all this is to point out that neither of Harris-Perry's main premises in this article are fundamentally relevant or significant. The "electoral racism" that she refers to is still very much intact at ALL times in American politics generally despite Obama's win against another black candidate for Senate in 2004 and his Presidential victory in 2008 obscures and even distorts a very important and disturbing fact. Obama is in every sense of the word a complete anomaly and utter exception in the history of American politics and here's the obvious historical proof: Only three (3) African Americans have ever been elected Senators in the entire history of the United States and only (2) have ever been elected Governors; Obama is the ONLY black person ever to be NOMINATED by a major party for President in the United States-- let alone win. An even more revealing fact about contemporary American politics and race is the fact that the national white vote is and has been for over 60 years now overwhelmingly conservative and Republican no matter who's running
(OMINOUS FACTOID: Since 1952--a period of 15 national elections for the Presidency--white Americans have voted for the Republican candidate 14 times or a jawdropping 93% of the time!). This means that whatever color the Democratic Party candidate or any other "liberal" or "progressive" was or is white folks in general ain't voting for them. The fact that Obama received virtually the exact same percentage of white votes as Kerry in 2004, Gore, in 2000 or Clinton in '92 and '96 doesn't indicate that there is a significant decrease in electoral racism at all--quite the contrary. It just means that in real terms the white conservative/reactionary vote is as racist now as it was in 1952. In this case the lone exception in 150 years of a victorious black candidate (Obama) only winds up once again proving the rule since if not for the overwhelming black and Latino vote in 2008 Obama would have lost in a landslide because a rock solid 57% of the national white vote went to his Republican opponents or someone else on the ballot. This means that the great majority of white voters openly preferred that SARAH PALIN be only one heartbeat from the Presidency rather than elect "the black guy." THINK about that absolutely chilling prospect for a moment and tell me that "electoral racism" has significantly diminished or "changed" in this country! So ultimately whatever happens in 2012 it won't be because Obama is held to a "different racial double standard" than he was in 2008. Not at all. Rather, the 'racial standard' will be the exact same one as before--AND if the overall black, Latino, and Asian American vote for him is not at least 85% this time around--only a slight increase from 2008--Obama will most certainly lose in 2012 because we all know for damn sure that he is NOT gonna get MORE than the 43% of the national white vote he received in 2008. Very likely the chances are the national white vote for Obama will probably be even LESS than 43% in 2012. Freak anomaly or not...
Kofi
Black President, Double Standard: Why White Liberals Are Abandoning Obama
by Melissa Harris-Perry
September 21, 2011
The Nation
Electoral racism in its most naked, egregious and aggressive form is the unwillingness of white Americans to vote for a black candidate regardless of the candidate’s qualifications, ideology or party. This form of racism was a standard feature of American politics for much of the twentieth century. So far, Barack Obama has been involved in two elections that suggest that such racism is no longer operative. His re-election bid, however, may indicate that a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it.
The 2004 Illinois Senate race between Obama and Alan Keyes, two African-Americans, was a unique test of the persistence of old-fashioned electoral racism. For a truly committed electoral racist, neither Obama nor Keyes would have been acceptable—regardless of policy positions, biography or qualification—because both were black.
One way to determine how many people felt this way is to measure the “roll-off.” In presidential election years, a small percentage vote for the president, but then “roll off” by not casting ballots for state and local offices. A substantial increase in roll-off—larger than usual numbers of voters who picked John Kerry or George Bush but declined to choose between Obama and Keyes—would have been a measure of the unwillingness of some to vote for any black candidate. I tested this in 2004 and found no increase, statistical or substantive, in roll-off in Illinois. Faced with two black candidates, white voters were willing to choose one of them.
The 2008 general election was another referendum on old-fashioned electoral racism—this time among Democratic voters. The long primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama had the important effect of registering hundreds of thousands of Democrats. By October 2008, it was clear that Obama could lose the general election only if a substantial portion of registered Democrats in key states failed to turn out or chose to cross party lines. For Democrats to abandon their nominee after eight years of Bush could be interpreted only as an act of electoral racism.
Not only did white Democratic voters prove willing to support a black candidate; they overperformed in their repudiation of naked electoral racism, electing Obama with a higher percentage of white votes than either Kerry or Gore earned. No amount of birther backlash can diminish the importance of these two election results. We have not landed on the shores of postracial utopia, but we have solid empirical evidence of a profound and important shift in America’s electoral politics.
Still, electoral racism cannot be reduced solely to its most egregious, explicit form. It has proved more enduring and baffling than these results can capture. The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.
The relevant comparison here is with the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Today many progressives complain that Obama’s healthcare reform was inadequate because it did not include a public option; but Clinton failed to pass any kind of meaningful healthcare reform whatsoever. Others argue that Obama has been slow to push for equal rights for gay Americans; but it was Clinton who established the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy Obama helped repeal. Still others are angry about appalling unemployment rates for black Americans; but while overall unemployment was lower under Clinton, black unemployment was double that of whites during his term, as it is now. And, of course, Clinton supported and signed welfare “reform,” cutting off America’s neediest despite the nation’s economic growth.
Today, America’s continuing entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan provoke anger, but while Clinton reduced defense spending, covert military operations were standard practice during his administration. In terms of criminal justice, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased judicial disparities in punishment; by contrast, federal incarceration grew exponentially under Clinton. Many argue that Obama is an ineffective leader, but the legislative record for his first two years outpaces Clinton’s first two years. Both men came into power with a Democratically controlled Congress, but both saw a sharp decline in their ability to pass their own legislative agendas once GOP majorities took over one or both chambers.
These comparisons are neither an attack on the Clinton administration nor an apologia for the Obama administration. They are comparisons of two centrist Democratic presidents who faced hostile Republican majorities in the second half of their first terms, forcing a number of political compromises. One president is white. The other is black.
In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.
President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.
