Can Democrats get the votes they need simply because they're not Republicans? You might think so in this presidential campaign. African-American and urban votes are critical to any Democratic victory. Bill Clinton won two terms without winning the most white votes. His margin was the overwhelming support of black voters. George Bush learned that lesson; that's why his campaigns spent so much effort suppressing the black vote in key states like Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. His victory margin was the tally of votes suppressed or uncounted.
Yet the Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign -- have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country. The catastrophic crisis that engulfs the African-American community goes without mention. No urban agenda is given priority. When thousands of African Americans marched in protest in Jena, La., not one candidate showed up.
Democratic candidates are talking about health care and raising the minimum wage, but they aren't talking about the separate and stark realities facing African Americans.
:
Now, I think it is pretty fair to say that if Obama did talk explicitly talk about race in a public way, even once, he would immediately face the same wrath Hillary Clinton faced for supposedly playing "the gender card." Obama would be instantly accused of playing the "race card." All of these attacks would also sound similar, if reversed, for when John Edwards is attacked as a rich guy talking about poverty. Women can't talk about gender without playing the "race card," blacks can't talk about race without playing the "race card," and anyone who talks about the plight of a demographic group to which they do not belong, such as rich people talking about poor people, then that person is a hypocrite. It really is a nearly perfect, conservative, media system to prevent anyone from talking about race, gender or poverty in America.
At the same time, if there is one thing that clearly backs up Jackson's argument, it is that while Clinton has been accused of playing the "gender card" by many people, and while John Edwards has been called a hypocrite by many others for being a rich guy talking about poverty, I can't really remember Barack Obama being accused of "playing the race card," in the national media. There was some of that during the McClurkin incident online, but not much in the national, establishment media. That Obama hasn't been accused of playing the race card certainly seems to be a sign that he isn't overtly talking about race all that much, because if he did talk about race, he would face that charge immediately. He hasn't faced the media smackdown that Clinton and Edwards have faced. Unsurprisingly, he is rising in Iowa and New Hampshire polls as a result.
FIRST RULE
The law grants litigants standing to come into court based on their having sufficient personal interest and involvement in the issue to justify judicial congnizance. Black people (while they may be able to get into court) are denied such standing legitimacy in the world generally when they discuss their negative experiences with racism or even when they attempt to give a positive evaluation of another black person or of his work. No matter what their experience or expertise, blacks' statements involving race are deemed 'special pleading' and thus not entitled to serious consideration.
SECOND RULE
Not only are blacks' complaints discounted, but black victims of racism are less effective witnesses than are whites, who are members of the oppressor class. This phenomenon reflects a widespread assumption that blacks, unlike whites, cannot be objective on racial issues and will favor their own no matter what. This deep seated belief fuels a continuing effort - despite all manner of Supreme Court decisions intended to curb the practice - to keep black people off juries in cases involving race. Black judges hearing racial cases are eyed suspiciously and sometimes asked to recuse themselves in favor of a white judge - without those making the request even being aware of the paradox in their motions.
THIRD RULE
Few blacks avoid diminishment of racial standing, most of their statements abot racial condidtions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The ususal exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted 'enhanced standing' even when the speaker has no special expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing.
FOURTH RULE
When a black person or group makes a statement or takes an action that the white community or vocal components thereof deem "outrageous," the latter will actively recruit blacks willing to refute the statement or condemn the action. Blacks who respond to the call to condemnation will receive superstanding status. The blacks who refuse to be recruited will be interpreted as endorsing the statements and action and may suffer political or economic reprisals.
FIFTH RULE
True awareness requires an understanding of the Rules of Racial Standing. As an individuals understanding of these rules increases, there will be more and more instances where one can discern their workings. Using this knowledge, one gains the gift of prophesy about racism, its essence, its goals, even its remedies. The price of this knowledge is the frustration that follows recognition that no amount of public prophesy, no matter its accuracy, can either repeal the Rules of Racial Standing nor prevent their or prevent their operation.
If Obama did bring up race more explicitly, he would immediately face a withering line of conservative African-American figures trotted out by the Republican Noise Machine to supposedly refute everything he said. Obama would then be pressured to retract or refute his words in some fashion, or at least tack on a call to African-Americans to behave themselves better (or something along those lines). Obama seems to be making a choice that he can instead indirectly allude to race through his bio and presence, and as such rise in the polls instead of facing direct media assault. This is certainly an interesting choice, resulting in an interesting dynamic where Rev. Jackson clearly wants Obama to talk about race more explicitly. It is at least on par with the inevitable media focus on Oprah versus Bill Clinton on the trail, which seems to be sucking up all the attention today.
© OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by 