In a March 20, 2008, interview with a Philadelphia radio station, Barack Obama described his own grandmother as “a typical white person” (listen). He suggested that, “like most white people”, she approaches people she does not know by falling back on racial attitudes that were “bred” into her. Opponents criticized Obama’s cynicism for throwing his own grandmother under the campaign bus. Reporting of this comment was predictably limited. NBC News (all but officially on the Obama campaign payroll), ABC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post all joined in a deafening chorus of silence on the matter. Naturally, this vacuum left coverage of the comment to less sympathetic treatment by Fox News, the Washington Times and National Review. While Obama supporters can take comfort in their candidate’s evasion of mainstream scrutiny, the country lost an opportunity to examine how Americans engage in discussions of race in our society.
None can say whether Mr. Obama’s personal assessment of his grandmother is fair or accurate. More important is her role as the Obama archetype of typical white people. One can hardly doubt the fate of a white candidate for any office commenting on the behaviors of the typical black person. The recent fate of Geraldine Ferraro removes doubt on this point. Speaking late in the primary season on the reasons for Obama’s successful opposition to her candidate, Hillary Clinton, Ferraro remarked on the fact that Obama receives strong support among some voter groups because he is a black man (listen). As predictable as it was, the ensuing firestorm of criticism was nonetheless breathtaking in its breadth and decibel level. The Obama campaign launched hysterical accusations of racism. Unlike Obama’s earlier “typical white person” slur, the New York Times deemed Ferraro’s comments news that was indeed fit to print. After an all out media attack fueled by the Times and other Obama allies in the press (the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN…sound familiar?), Ferraro eventually stepped down from her post as Clinton campaign fundraising chair. Despite leaving the campaign to prevent Clinton opponents from using her as a red herring, Ferraro refused to apologize for her comments, warning that Obama was making a mistake by so casually employing race as a campaign tool.
Ferraro never implied that Obama was unqualified to be president, either on the basis of race or on any other basis. What she did suggest was that his personal story and the feelings of ethnic affinity his campaign generated had some bearing on his selection over similarly qualified candidates. Furthermore, while expressing confidence in her own qualifications to serve as Vice President in 1984, Ferraro conceded that being the first woman on a national ticket had much to do with her selection. It is a logical corollary to presume that Senator Obama is benefiting from similar appeal. According to Gallup, Inc., results from all Democratic primary balloting indicate that Barack Obama received 93% of black votes. Step back and take another look at that number: 93%. Can anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity assert that this statistic resulted from each individual voter conducting an exhaustive, unbiased assessment of policy positions among all the candidates in the Democratic field? Reasonable people would concede the probability that, all other things being equal, “most black people” would prefer to see someone in the White House who, for the first time in history, looks like them. Yes, this is a sweeping, race-based generalization, but given the immediately available statistics supporting it, is this assertion nearly as offensive as Senator Obama’s racist remark, based solely on observations of his own family?
For all the progress on race relations America has made in the past half century, further progress is hamstrung by an inability to communicate honestly across racial lines. Racism still exists in America, but so long as people like Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Charlie Rangel continue to see racism as the exclusive domain of “most white people”, honest communication will remain impossible. As comfortable as these people feel playing the role of blameless victim, the reality they refuse to accept is that no one is blameless. In line with the consistently messianic tone of Senator Obama’s campaign, perhaps a relevant gospel passage is appropriate: “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam that is in your own eye?…You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” — Matthew 7:3 (audio unavailable).
As of this writing, the outcome of the general election is still very much in doubt. If Obama does not prevail in November, many of his supporters will rant that America is still too racist a country to elect a black president. In spite of this accusation, and leaving aside his attempts to portray himself as a post-racial candidate, if Obama loses this election, most Americans would simply be saying that they are not ready for a black president as racially divisive as Mr. Obama has chosen to be. Like it or not, responsibility for that outcome would be entirely his own.
Good post.