What do you do with WV, then? (4.00 / 2)

What do you do with West Virginia - a state that's only 3 percent black but likely to go for Hillary by a very, very large margin?

I think it suggests that the race chasm theory may need a refinement - Appalachian whites vote differently than other whites, and have been much less receptive to Obama's candidacy.

If you break down the state totals, you find that he's done poorly in Appalachian counties in every state, something that the boundary lines of the states can obscure.  He got slaughtered in southern Ohio and parts of Western Pennsylvania, which largely explained his poor showing in the state.  He was very competitive among whites in Northern Indiana (which, paradoxically, is closer to the counties where Af-Ams live) but very poorly in the rural south.

I suppose my point is - in those states the percentage black in the state seems to omit a lot of important information about what's going on, and maybe to be an incomplete guide to the causes of voting.  The problem was in large pockets of nearly all-white counties that were very, very hostile to his candidacy.

Was the problem that a percentage of blacks in the state racializes white voting?  It's hard to see how that works for WV - where there can't be any significant concern about Af-Ams taking over state government (or really, any significant locality.)  I wonder whether voters in OH or PA or KY will be responding to anything similar - fears about losing state government.  I'm not an expert, but I doubt it.  I also think these voters were very, very safe in their expectation that whites would remain in control of local government - including crucial functions (for those concerned about race) like law enforcement and the schools.

Maybe the pattern has less to do with politics than whether a group's culture includes a deep hostility to cities - and particularly to what they take to be stereotypically black urban culture.  I remember one summer when I was living in Cleveland, OH, I went to visit Columbus and met a few people who lived in the rural areas surrounding the city.  They were shocked to hear I was in Cleveland - there wasn't anything subtle about it.  They asked - wasn't I scared?  They joked - hope I was carrying a gun.  

Some white people no doubt have these concerns about "letting the cities go to hell", and about liberalism, even if they aren't likely to live near blacks or be governed by black officials.  It's not necessarily about proximity - the culture may include hostility even if there's no realistic threat.

---

by: TL @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:49:23 AM CDT

You might be onto something with you Appalachia theory... (0.00 / 0)

I wonder if it might have something to do with them being so far disconnected from black culture (in a way other small white states are not) that they don't even know anything about it and therefore wouldn't wanna vote for anything that even made them thing about it.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:11:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Talking Points Memo today just posted your theory on their front page! (0.00 / 0)

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

way to be ahead of the curve!

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 17:25:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I shuddered throughout the entire Kristol op-ed.... (0.00 / 0)

I'm a total believer in the race chasm, but I'm not surprised that many whites want to believe it can't possibly exist. For if it did exist, that would mean vast swaths of white America are, at the least unconsciously racist. Including Democrats.

I'm not sure how to rectify this problem and convince these people that it is OKAY to have this conversation and address this issue. But I do wonder how much support Barrack would have if this chasm had never existed.  

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM CDT

It feels like this is a exhortation to action. (0.00 / 0)

And it feels like its a charge against racism. I am supportive of the drive, the commitment to equality. Im not sure about the game plan, Im not sure about the steps to reduce racialization as a tactic to divide and distract us.

Slavery was a conundrum for "good" people, or people that thought themselves good. Being believers in democracy, being for example Christian, and supporting slavery meant that "good people" had to create a reason why the Sermon on the Mount, or the Constitution didn't apply to 'that particular set of (slave)workers' racism is an invention to achieve the calming of that shameful cognitive dissonance.

There is a book that is centered on this concept of creating an otherness to seperate and justify bad treatment. One argument on this creation of otherness describes acient slaves as the losers in battle, who were not therefore inferior, but merely fated by actions to serve as a slave. Roman favored slaves were often treated to freedom and even land and farms. Becoming Roman citizens.

Good people don't do these things to good people so, ergo, the slaves deserved their oppression because they are not "good people."

But no matter the detail, it becomes obvious that race is a fabrication, a construct.

So, you might ask, why make this distinction. Because racism isnt a disease or a crime, it is a tool of oppression that spreads its falseness to cover and explain away the separation of all of us from each other. Almost none of us benefit from this. We are all falling in wages, we are all losing control of our democracy, we are all subservient to the same huge corporations who "have a stranglehold on democracy," in the amazing words of John Edwards.

We all have ways we have more privileges than others, we all suffer from the "Disaster Capitalism" the planned remaking of the world as described by Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine. As a damning warning its clarity is empowering, none of us is a beneficiary of the remaking of America and the world.

So in terms of fighting this mutual disenfranchisement, as Obama so wisely described in his speech on Race, the struggle for all of us, all of us, to describe the ways we are all on the same side of the barricade, we are all better off when we see our commonalities, we are all better off when we see that racialization is a trick to keep us from working together.

I think a drive to counter racism has to be based in that context. Racism hurts the racialized as they are directly excluded, and hurts the people that hold these beliefs because it prevents the real understanding of our crisis, their crisis. Racism is "lets you and him fight" while WalMArt drives down wages, while health care is denied us, while we are lied into war.

They will attempt to divide us again now, most importantly because Obama promises to transform the country toward democracy and equality and progressive policies, the best thing to do has to be describing in great detail how racism is used to drive us apart, how it prevent ssolutiuons, how it is a construct of control for both the racist and the racialized.

I make a distinction of those who drive racism, who will benefit from the division, who know its a tool of oppression they use. They must be identified and denounced. But voters and citizens, must be reminded, inspired and given examples: our separation is artificial.

I think of the rich Armani suited tobacco company executives promoting "freedom to smoke" - in the same way: you die, they get rich. I think of oil company executives creating "science" that "proves" global warming is a fraud: while you die and they get rich.

We are all on the same side of this barricade, lets build democracy, lets build a universal healthcare system, lets make our cities livable.

This is the way to fight racism, this is the path to power for a centre left coaltion. This is, I think, an action plan.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM CDT

Too many exceptions to the rule (4.00 / 1)

It would be absurd to say that that race is not a factor at all in these elections. No doubt about it. But the "race chasm" seems like a somewhat oversimplified way to frame it. The sample size - only 50 states - is small, and there are a number of exceptions to the rule. It doesn't seem to apply to New England at all; New Jersey voted for Clinton, but a recent poll showed Obama preferred - Clinton's win may just have been a home region effect; Virginia fits the model because of its large black population, but Obama nonetheless won whites in the state; Missouri doesn't fit; Obama clearly would have won Indiana, a race chasm state, if not for a few thousand Rush Limbaugh voters (and this after Rev. Wright and all that!); Obama would have won Texas and California, both race chasm states, if not for the Hispanic vote; West Virginia will clearly go for Clinton; Michigan, I am convinced, would have gone for Obama in a real election, though it is a race chasm state. Other states, though they fit the race chasm pattern, don't exemplify the principle of: greater AA population, lower white % of vote: 43% of whites in Georgia voted for Obama; 20% of whites in Tennessee voted for him, though Georgia has a much higher black population.

So that's more than a dozen states that, on the face of it, don't fit the race chasm pattern. That means you'd need an awful lot of ad hoc hypotheses to make this theory work.

Again, there is no question that race has been an important factor in these primaries, in all sorts of different ways. But I question the usefulness of the race chasm theory to explain these factors.

---

by: Chachy @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM CDT