Healing The Divide
Posted on February 28th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Rod says:
Many white voters are drawn to Obama in part because they think he can do something about healing the racial divide in this country. That, to me, is one of the best reasons to vote for him.
This has always struck me as one of the more curious pro-Obama arguments. I understand why people make the argument (because they think and hope that it is true), and I suppose I can even see how you might conclude that Obama is capable of doing something along these lines, but then again I’m never quite sure what people mean when they say this. If this “divide” were “healed,” what form would that take? Institutional discrimination, except for “positive” discrimination, is officially no more and has largely ceased to exist, and the social stigma against racism (which is defined more and more expansively) is as strong as it has ever been, so where does the divide become narrower in practice? Patterns of residence, however, still tend to break down along racial lines, and it is in those particularly diverse urban areas where the “tortoise effect” takes hold. There are presumably many reasons for this, but one of them may be simply that this pattern is normal and will tend to recur. If that’s right, there may be some degree of ”division” that is unavoidable in an increasingly diverse country.
If the “healing” in question is more intangible and concerns a change in attitudes, I submit that Obama’s election could very easily have exactly the opposite effect. Race, like ethnicity, becomes especially divisive in a community when it is politicised (and it is as divisive as it is because it is frequently politicised), because the contestation for power takes on additional, charged connotations of the status of an entire group of people. The outcome of the election takes on added importance: one outcome represents a breakthrough and an elevation of status, and another represents repudiation. When that is combined with ideological baggage that draws in larger national debates on policy, either outcome can be even more explosive. To draw on a recent example, the charge of a stolen election in Kenya became an occasion for ethnic violence because the election was contested by members of the two major ethnic groups. To crudely oversimplify, the Luos perceived the (rigged) election loss as one more in a long line of injustices they had suffered, and the Kikuyus saw the possibility of a Luo coming to power as a threat to their status. Democracy is inherently identitarian, and elections are contestations over which groups will hold more power than others in practice, so particularly in countries with strong racial or ethnic group identities the notion that a country is going to promote reconciliation through the election of someone identified with a minority group is probably mistaken. So I think we underestimate the potential for this year’s election to be an unusually divisive contest, and its aftermath may be even more so regardless of the outcome.
Filed under: politics
The stranger part is that a non-trivial number of white Americans might come to the conclusion voting for Obama is in and of itself some sort of compensation for past wrongs, a political “get out of jail free card” that they can cash in as needed. “No, I’m not a racist, I voted for Obama!”
I think this notion of an Obama presidency exacerbating our rational divide would be plausible if he were running as a racial or ethnic candidate trying to secure his group’s claims to power. But he is running as exactly the opposite of that, and this is why people feel that he has the potential to heal these rifts. In some respects, he’s actually running against his own racial community’s interests. For example, he’s been openly critical of affirmative action along racial lines, saying his children shouldn’t receive preferences. Instead he advocates affirmative action along economic lines, which is far more rational, and benefits more poor whites than it does blacks (though a higher proportion of blacks). This is why even many conservatives see him as a positive, unifying figure, rather than a polarizing one.
Interesting Freudian slip. I meant to say “racial divide” rather than “rational divide”, but there may be some relevance there.
I take your points, and I agree that he is campaigning in such a way that he minimises the possibility of the election becoming a flashpoint for worsening race relations. But supposing that things don’t get worse, it’s not clear to me how things are going to change that much. Symbolically, it will be significant if he is elected, but beyond symbolism I’m not sure that I see what changes.
I often wonder this myself when its brought up and can only come to the conclusion that if he gets elected AND does a good job it will take a lot of the remianing racist arguments away. Most of these comments are not made in a public sphere and i dont see those types of people having a sudden change of heart. Would it make a racist business owner in the south hire a black man whereas in the past he would not? Maybe, maybe not…
He also says powerful things that i have never heard a black leader say. He directly attacks the idea of black victimhood. Something to the effect of “racism is not a burden we bear, its a challenge we need to overcome”
We all have challenges in life the difference is that not all of use it as an excuse not to succeed.
I think that as the older generation dies we lose a lot of what was left of the divide.
Its possible that the real progress with having Barak as President would be changing the face of the USA internationaly. I may be a dreamer but i think it would make it easier to deal with any country/culture where the majoirty is a color other then white and a religion other then christian.
Also in a PR sense we wouldnt here the classic USSR attacks of “look how they treat the blacks in thier own country”…
If he can make serious inroads agaisnt the victomhood mentality at home and change the opioin of different races/cultures overseas then that is significant change.
I see your point, in that I’m not sure an Obama presidency is actually going to produce some kind of earth-shaking legislation that cures our racial problems. There’s a host of small things he can do, but really, the major effect would be inspirational. I know it’s all the rage right now to put down inspiration as a meaningless factor, but I think this is deeply short-sighted, and weighted towards the idea that the only thing that matters in governance is legislative action and other exercises of government power. The effect of an Obama presidency on the black community in America is almost impossible to measure, but I think it will be huge. The effect on the white community is perhaps less, but I do see a very signficant shift in racial attitudes, and let’s be frank, personal attitudes towards race are far more significant than government policies.
If a majority of Americans decided to elect a black man as their leader and break the current uninterrupted series of white men, it would show that many non-blacks have become willing to vote outside their race. To that extent, the election of Obama would take some of the steam out of the claims that racism is strong today.
masterleep, I’m sorry, but your statment is ludicrous.
A few things:
Say, didn’t the GOP run quite a few black candidates in 2006!?! D’ya think that this take any “steam” out of claims that the Republican party is racist?
Or is it only authentic if the black candidate is left-wing?
Furthermore, when would this end? Would electing Obama be enough to “take the steam” out of racism…I don’t think so…No I”m afraid that the goal would be moved, and that it would not be enough to get Obama elected for race betterment purposed…but that soon after it would become a necessity for him to have a “successful” presidency.
Ie, I can imagine you or someone like you saying “Well, its well and good he got elected, but if we are really going to racially unify this country and ‘take the steam’ out of racism, why Obama must be successful. I know you have objections to his left wing policies, but for the good of racial harmony, he MUST succeed!”
Then it will become that America must not elect a GOP opposition in the midterms, that Obama MUST be re-elected etc etc etc.
Once you begin to use his race as a trump card (one that opponents can’t possibly use) for electing him (and were this to work!?!?!) then why should we ever believe that you would relinquish this potent weapon?
Which is why I believe, ultimately, Obama will lose…I think that without admitting it, a vast number of Americans realize that if Obama became president it would be unbearable in terms of the racial policing that would go on.
A lot of white people are going to vote for Obama because they are desperate for a Role-Model-in-Chief for blacks. They want to send a message to blacks: “Don’t be so black. Be more Barack!”
Yes, it’s a really concept, but that’s what you get when you aren’t supposed to think about race.
I doubt anyone can do much about the deeply entrenched racial divide in people’s minds in America, but for every minute that he occupies the White House, Obama will be a living reminder to the racists that they are wrong.
[...] Back in February, I said: If the “healing†in question is more intangible and concerns a change in attitudes, I submit that Obama’s election could very easily have exactly the opposite effect. Race, like ethnicity, becomes especially divisive in a community when it is politicised (and it is as divisive as it is because it is frequently politicised), because the contestation for power takes on additional, charged connotations of the status of an entire group of people. The outcome of the election takes on added importance: one outcome represents a breakthrough and an elevation of status, and another represents repudiation. When that is combined with ideological baggage that draws in larger national debates on policy, either outcome can be even more explosive. To draw on a recent example, the charge of a stolen election in Kenya became an occasion for ethnic violence because the election was contested by members of the two major ethnic groups. To crudely oversimplify, the Luos perceived the (rigged) election loss as one more in a long line of injustices they had suffered, and the Kikuyus saw the possibility of a Luo coming to power as a threat to their status. Democracy is inherently identitarian, and elections are contestations over which groups will hold more power than others in practice, so particularly in countries with strong racial or ethnic group identities the notion that a country is going to promote reconciliation through the election of someone identified with a minority group is probably mistaken. So I think we underestimate the potential for this year’s election to be an unusually divisive contest, and its aftermath may be even more so regardless of the outcome. [...]