Race (Still) Matters

A couple of weeks ago, Christopher Hitchens penned a pair of broadsides - first for Slate, then for for the WSJ - attacking the notion that anyone ought to be even the slightest bit excited to see a competitive Presidential campaign being run by someone who fifty years ago could not have shared a water fountain with a white man, and a hundred and fifty years ago could have found himself bought and sold as chattel. "Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade?" Hitchens wrote, with the air of a supercilious Martian anthropologist unburdening himself about the idiot natives after spending about, oh, ten days or so on Planet Earth.

For those of us not quite so above our history as Hitchens, of course, Obama's race is a topic of great interest precisely because "shade" has mattered far more than it should for a very long time in this country, and the combination of Obama's skin color and his obvious potential as a national politician offered a chance to test the hypothesis that we're nearing a point where, mercifully, it doesn't matter all that much anymore. Tonight's results are encouraging on that count, but impressive as they are for Obama, they're still racially polarized enough to suggest that we're not quite so far along as might have been hoped. But there's no question, the future looks bright for a more color-blind politics (in Democratic primary campaigns, at least). And God willing, this election will be remembered as a milestone on the march to a time when Christopher Hitchens - or whoever succeeds him the role of our political media's house contrarian - can safely accuse his readers of being "pathetic and embarrassing" for taking an interest in a candidate's skin color without sounding spectacularly obtuse.

Photo by Flickr user Montauk Beach used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

What do you mean "more color-blind politics (in Democratic primary campaigns, at least)?" Have you been paying attention? Democrats, by and large, are the ones who think Americans are too racist to elect a non-white President. And, the Clintons have been fanning those doubts while trying to make Obama into the "black" candidate by discounting his likely win in South Carolina. By contrast, if, say, Bobby Jinda runs for the GOP nomination in 2012, I doubt you will see anything like this. He will rise or fall on his political skill and record.

Posted by VaGuy | January 27, 2008 12:09 AM

Well said. "Enlightened" figures like Hitchens certainly think they live without a history.

Posted by berger | January 27, 2008 12:09 AM

I can't remember the last time that Hitchens wrote something I agreed with. Always provocative, never persuasive. That's how he rolls.

And I'm not sure that tonight's results really tell us too much about racial polarization in America...South Carolina might be an edge case, I think.

Posted by Lev | January 27, 2008 12:19 AM

I wonder how'd it be if Condi was the GOP frontrunner.

Posted by Quietus | January 27, 2008 12:55 AM

Isn't the story of the South Carolina primary 179 degrees the opposite -- that it shows how much "race and inheritance" (to quote the subtitle of Obama's autobiography) means in 2008?

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 27, 2008 2:09 AM

If the voting statistics are accurate it's kind of disappointing. Although possibly not. Even if it's racially polarized in South Carolina it presumably was not so polarized in Iowa. Unless I'm mistaken Obama could not have won Iowa on the strength of the black vote alone as even among Iowa Democrats there's probably not enough black voters to do that.

And in some ways I agree with Hitchens. It's slightly pathetic that this would still matter. Although it's pathetic in a way that's probably unavoidable and somewhat understandable. I'm very skeptical the British would be much different in any event. If a Black British MP became head of say the Liberal Party, even though they haven't had a PM in decades, it'd be commented upon. Likewise if France had a major black candidate for President it'd be of note.

Posted by Thomas R | January 27, 2008 2:46 AM

What's striking is how much the black vote has rallied to the black candidate, after a year of polling in which Obama didn't do terribly well with blacks.

Blacks have a particularly cogent self-interested reason for not voting for Obama -- because a lot of whites want to see him elected in order to justify taking affirmative action away from blacks. "Hey, look, we elected one of you as President, so that means you don't need these special privileges anymore."

But when push comes to shove in 2008, blacks vote for the black candidate.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 27, 2008 2:56 AM

"For those of us not quite so above our history as Hitchens, of course, Obama's race is a topic of great interest precisely because "shade" has mattered far more than it should for a very long time in this country"

Were the last three words of that sentence necessary? Americans often look at our history of racism and slavery as uniquely American sins (and abolition and Civil Rights as uniquely American virtuous movements). This is a provincial attitude though. Slavery was widely practiced 150 years ago, and is still practiced in some benighted parts of Africa today. And every multiracial country has a history of racism, along with efforts to ameliorate it.

Posted by Fred | January 27, 2008 3:43 AM

Ross, I'd be more concerned with America's future than its history. Politics will become more, not less, racially polarised. Are you really so willfully blind that you can't see it?

But, happily, your picture finally resolved who Obama, with his prominent nose, big ears and sloping forehead reminds me of: Easter island statue.

Posted by Kipper | January 27, 2008 5:22 AM

If Condi Rice were the GOP frontrunner, race certainly wouldn't be a negative or identity politics issue in the GOP contest. Of course, the general election would be another story with Democrats sliming her as an "Aunt Jemima" and who knows what else. For example, she's now the only actual person cited in the Wikipedia entry on "Race traitor." It would obviously be a big issue in the UK, France, etc. if a non-white were in a position to be PM, or, frankly, holding a high level ministry.

Posted by VaGuy | January 27, 2008 8:26 AM

Why is Obama 'black' if his mother is 'white' and father 'black'? And what's the scientific basis for such divisions? If you are reading this, I urge you to stop using such labels as black, white, brown, etc. Despite their historical pedigree, they've become shortcuts to the scientific illiteracy of their user.

Posted by Karl Rahner | January 27, 2008 8:35 AM

In the middle of Obama's speech, the crowd began chanting "race doesn't matter." Clearly, that was more aspirational than descriptive at this point, but what a great thing to hear in a crowd full of politically active Democrats.

By the way, I don't think the polarization shows up in the Obama results nearly as much as the Edwards results. Edwards won something like 39% of the white vote but only 1% of the black vote. I'm not sure what that means, but it's a little troubling. White males in SC appeared to be a lot less likely to vote for Obama or Clinton than their counterparts in other states.

Posted by Led | January 27, 2008 8:37 AM

For example, she's now the only actual person cited in the Wikipedia entry on "Race traitor."

I'll soon fix that, mate. Who else did you have in mind?

Posted by Clem Hill | January 27, 2008 9:00 AM

Given that Bill Clinton took South Carolina twice and John Edwards is a native son of the state: if he took a quarter of the vote than they each with their greater name recoginition took about 10 percentage points more than he did.

That's a great accomplishment and given Obama's substantial wins in Iowa and his two point loss in New Hampshire and his outperforming HRC across Nevada while she locked down Vegas to win suggests he doesn't necessarily have a race problem per se, obviously gender and race will be novel in this campaign. But I think its fair to say his race won't be a barrier to his nomination.

He's got more of problem in that he's running against two media giants in Hillary and Bill Clinton, that's a huge message he has to push beyond.

Posted by Rhoda | January 27, 2008 9:02 AM

Well, I think So Carol was Obama's finale. Clinton is on top in Fl and in most of the remaining states. It's over for Obama.

It was nice while it lasted. This is one Democrat who will NOT vote for Hillary, I am just disgusted with her. I won't vote for McCain either. I'm out.

I think Obama has said this is his last Presidential run. I hope that isn't true, even if I'm not a true believer. I just liked his style. But I can't stomach the Clinton style.

Posted by torgo | January 27, 2008 9:18 AM

-------

THE TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

(1) He was accepted into Columbia and Harvard because of affirmative action (not academic merit)

(2) His black nationalist church in Chicago has called for the execution of all white people.

Need I say more? I'm not even going to mention his proclivity for raping white women.

--------

Posted by Liz Matheson | January 27, 2008 9:22 AM

Liz -

Knock it off. You've been posting this crap at Ross, Yglesias, Ezra and other sites for the past several days. It's filth. You're just trolling and everyone sees through it.

Posted by torgo | January 27, 2008 9:38 AM

RE those bringing up Rice, Jinda, etc --

When they, or any other person of colors, becomes a serious presidential contenders for the GOP nomination, that will be a happy day for the GOP and the country.

Until that day comes, though, you really have no leg to stand on re Republicans and race.

I hope that day comes soon, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by Peter Bautista | January 27, 2008 10:06 AM

Shorter Ross Douthat: Doesn't Christopher Hitchens understand how historic it is that I'll finally have a credible black candidate to vote against?

Posted by Bad | January 27, 2008 11:12 AM

Steve,

That whole "blacks support the black candidate" line must explain why blacks so overwhelmingly supported Al Sharpton last time out. Oh, wait...

Posted by TC | January 27, 2008 11:58 AM

Thanks, Ross, for reminding us what a scumbag Hitch is.

I'm a Hillary-fan, but I'll support Obama against Hitch anyday.

Posted by Kuros | January 27, 2008 12:30 PM

This seems a little off, historically: 150 years ago, the child of a free black man (say, an African seaman) and a white woman wouldn't have been a slave, and, although he obviously wouldn't have been a viable presidential candidate, there would have been communities where he could have lived as a farmer or artisan, like most of our ancestors, in peace and dignity.

More generally, haven't people gotten tired yet of thinking that a Colin Powell, or a Douglas Wilder, or an Edward Brooke, or a Joe Louis, or whatever, is going to resolve America's racial problems? The stories of these black exceptions don't seem interesting (i.e., relevant to any important social or political issue) to me.

Posted by y81 | January 27, 2008 12:32 PM

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, how well will he play in the South? For example, he got 15% in South Carolina while in his contest, Barack Obama got 55%. 15% of the vote despite Romney outspending all candidates, Republican or Democrat.

Would Barack Obama beat Romney in a place like South Carolina? And the South is supposed to be the GOP's safe haven. Obama would put it in play.

Posted by Thomas | January 27, 2008 2:06 PM

The Clintons say the race is about "shade", not the Obama camp. They say it's a generational confict, as Andrew Sullivan wrote in his brilliant, and now prophetic article in The Atlantic: "Why Obama matters".
Why does he matter? Look at South Carolina.
Haven't we had enough of this Boomer arrogance, this idea that the universe was created in The Sixties?
The actual title of the Sullivan article is "Goodbye to All That". Another marvelous bumper sticker.
I've got three I like now: NO THIRD TERM, NO MORE PRIVILEGE, and now, GOODBYE TO ALL THAT.

Posted by fougasseu | January 27, 2008 2:45 PM

The Clintons say the race is about "shade", not the Obama camp. They say it's a generational confict, as Andrew Sullivan wrote in his brilliant, and now prophetic article in The Atlantic: "Why Obama matters".
Why does he matter? Look at South Carolina.
Haven't we had enough of this Boomer arrogance, this idea that the universe was created in The Sixties?
The actual title of the Sullivan article is "Goodbye to All That". Another marvelous bumper sticker.
I've got three I like now: NO THIRD TERM, NO MORE PRIVILEGE, and now, GOODBYE TO ALL THAT.

Posted by fougasseu | January 27, 2008 2:45 PM

I just find this "race doesn't matter" bit so disingenuous coming from the Obama people-- if he was 100% (instead of 50%) white, he'd either be coming in third behing Hillary and Edwards, or he'd be sitting in the Senate, working his way up the ranks. And that's where he ought to be, frankly-- if we truly weren't taking race into consideration, we'd say that he is WAY too inexperienced, and that it's downright arrogant and egotisitical of him to mount a campaign for president.

Likewise, we have something like this phenomenon going on in Massachusetts, and Gov. Deval Patrick's travails open a window onto what a President Obama can expect.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/27/the_battle_for_beacon_hill/

Patrick thought that by sheer force of rhetoric and who he is, he could bulldoze the state legislature into adopting all of his very expensive and ill-conceived proposals. As the linked article notes, the House Speaker very quickly put him in his place, in what was an embarrassing and largely ineffective first year for the new governor.

I predict a similar outcome for a President Obama-- first off, the GOP will take back Congress by the mid-terms, and Obama will get nothing passed, including his main talking point, troop withdrawal. Congress will be condemned by the media as racist, but they'll keep winning re-election. Obama will eventually have to work with Congress, just as Bubba did, and his constituents won't mind, of course, just as they didn't mind in '96-- but our first Black president will essentially become Congress's chattel. Not the ideal way to break down the race barrier in this country.

Breaking down the race barrier is a laudable goal, but to truly make headway, we need to start with a candidate who has built up a record of accomplishment, who has made the deals required for longevity in Congress or as governor, who knows what s/he is up against and is therefore unlikely to become a powerless president. Maybe that will be Obama in eight years, but that's certainly not what he is now.

And for what it's worth, I have the same criticism of Mitt Romney as I do of Obama-- neither has the political experience to be an effective president right now.

Posted by MD | January 27, 2008 4:00 PM

"Why is Obama 'black' if his mother is 'white' and father 'black'?"

If we're to use a term logically he should be seen as something like "bi-racial." However this is not historically how things work in the *US. The cases I've seen of people with one black parent they are usually expected to refer to themselves as simply black. When they don't they may face derision as Tiger Woods occasionally did. Granted there are exceptions to this. Lenny Kravitz I believe has generally been referred to as both black and Jewish. Also there are several people who are referred to as Black/American-Indian without much difficulty. Generally though that's not the deal, hence Halle Berry is the first Black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar not the first "Black/White Biracial" winner.

*And I say "US" alone because in this case the US is somewhat unique, possibly exempting a few Caribbean islands. In general though the other Western Hemisphere nations with slavery were more likely to treat mixed-race people as a separate group neither white nor black. In addition South Africa had the "coloureds" who were descendants of blacks and whites, although probably not direct mixes. Granted something like this occasionally occurred in the US, but I think Louisiana was the only state where this was the norm and that's likely because of a strong French cultural influence.

Posted by Thomas R | January 28, 2008 2:37 AM

Mr. Hitchens is such a wonderful writer on so many subjects, that it's hard not to pause and read him closely when he weighs in. And it's his prose style to "weigh in", never just comment.
He could write about biodiverstiy and I'm sure there are many who would listen - except those who know something about biodiversity.
About about how race matters? I think I'd think twice about the opinions of a Brit like Chris. They do have a habit of not embracing, too put it mildly, anyone without the right breeding. And that word is not being used metaphorically. I mean breeding as in...breeding.
To better understand folks like Hitchens I suggest reading V.S. Naipaul's "The Mimic Men", a brilliant, sad novel about identity, about what it's like to try to be accepted in England if you're not English enough.
Obama is American enough. He's not a "mimic man" or a "mimic American". He's an American.

Posted by fougasseu | January 28, 2008 8:49 AM

Hitchens's style is to take a decent idea - race shouldn't matter, Kissinger is a douchebag, dictators are evil, we shouldn't let the poor starve to death, bin Laden is bad, people who use religion as a tool to wield political power are bad, birth control is good, democracy is good, atheists can be just as moral as religious people - and then spin it a few times crazy until you're embarrassed to agree with any of it. He just seems like a bitter drunk always looking for a fight. Think how he went ballistic at Fukuyama when he used the term "Trotskyite" instead of the apparently more respectful "Trotskyist." The guy has emotional issues. Think of him practically declaring Mother Teresa the Antichrist. He's an embarrassment to non-religious thought today. Of course race is still a fact of American life and exists. The difference is between acknowledging it and moving on or zeroing in on it to show one isn't a racist (but some of my best friends are black! Now let's watch "Chappelle's Show" while I laugh at all of the parts I don't know aren't supposed to be funny.) / not being able to get over the fact someone is a certain color.

Posted by Reality Man | January 28, 2008 11:30 AM

On the Obama bi-racial issue, I just noticed this line from Toni Morrison's endorsement over at his site:

"Nor do I care very much for your race[s]. I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me "proud.""

Notice the [s] at the end of race. I'm guessing the use of brackets instead of parenthesis means someone from the campaign or site edited it and is being frank about it, thus acknowledging his mother and father.

Posted by Reality Man | January 28, 2008 11:37 AM

Thomas R.,

I think more people today, especially younger people and people in East Coast cities, are starting to refer to themselves as biracial. It's a healthy thing in my opinion- I think the old 'one-drop' rule is a bit sick.

You're right, the tradition in Latin America was to use separate terminology for mixed race people...they drew some pretty fine distinctions based on complexion, I think. That may be because they had many more mixed race people to begin with. For whatever reason, the Catholic countries of Latin America and the Caribbean always had much more intermarriage than the English and Dutch colonies.

Posted by Hector | January 28, 2008 12:02 PM

To build on the post by Hector: For quite a few years quite a few Americans and quite a few Englishmen acted as if America was an English colony - if not by law, then in some "spiritual" sense.
There's that great scene in "The Good Shepherd" when Matt Damon's character, a Skull and Bones insider now with a top job at the CIA, tells the mafioso that his Anglo-Saxon cronies own America and always will.
Obama is not only challenging the idea of who is entitled to run for the Presidency, but who owns America.

Posted by fougasseu | January 28, 2008 4:47 PM

It might be overstating it, but it is true that to a somewhat greater extant the English wanted to recreate England in America. Or idealized versions of certain elements of England. In the South this meant trying to recreate idealized versions of Tudor/Stuart type era England. Some went very literal with it and had their slaves dress as English butlers or serfs. Others didn't go that far, but trying to blend and mix as the Spanish did was not desired. Also England was an island and so somewhat less proned to intermingling to start. (Although the English certainly were a mix themselves containing Celtic, Germanic, Norse, and French descent)

The Spanish took areas that had much more densely populated civilizations. A "blending" was somewhat more unavoidable. This is less true in the case of the Portuguese, but I think they were more about trade and land than trying to recreate Portugal wherever they went.

On South Carolina Obama apparently won with whites under 30 and did well with college educated whites. He did quite poorly with Southern whites over 60, which is perhaps to be expected, and poorer whites.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/708/south-carolina-primary-black-vote

Posted by Thomas R | January 28, 2008 7:23 PM