Read Senior Editor Susan J. Douglas's 8 reasons to make a tax-deductible donation to In These Times.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > May 9, 2008 > Web Only

Acknowledging the Race Chasm

By David Sirota

When it comes to race, American politics is as polarized as a red and blue election map. On one side are those who try to distract from the issue; on the other side are those who work to sensationalize it. As this campaign season shows, what unifies both is bigotry.

Take the reaction to my recent In These Times article about Barack Obama winning states with either very small or very large black populations, but losing most states in the middle.

Those results, while troubling, aren’t surprising. In very white states, racial themes are simply not part of the political dialogue, and a black candidate therefore faces fewer inherent disadvantages. In states with large black populations, race is a major political force, but the African-American vote is big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote. It is in the Race Chasm — the states whose populations are more than 6 percent and less than 17 percent black — where race is a political issue but the black vote is too small to counter a racially motivated white vote.

The trend continued in the last few weeks, with Obama losing two states in the Race Chasm (Pennsylvania and Indiana) and winning one outside the Chasm (North Carolina). Nonetheless, the response to this phenomenon by some in the intelligentsia has been willful ignorance.

The Atlantic Monthly’s Reihan Salam said the data are not driven by race, but by Hillary Clinton’s “waitress-mom sensibility sell[ing] well in these regions.” The New America Foundation’s Michael Lind said the evidence does not reflect America’s historic black-white divide, but instead Germanic and Scandinavian migration patterns (I’m not kidding). This is typical behavior from the Establishment’s “serious” thinkers. When confronted with race, they become ostriches and shove their heads in the sand.

The news industry and politicians, on the other hand, are happy to discuss and exploit race, whether by manufacturing controversy (think Jeremiah Wright) or by promoting racists (think MSNBC hiring Pat Buchanan, or Republican senators re-electing Trent Lott to a leadership position). The media and political elites aren’t ostriches — they behave like minstrel show producers, portraying African-Americans as subhuman, alien and unimportant, except for their entertainment value.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, for example, differentiated between “regular people” and black people. Pundits refer separately to the “working class” and to African-Americans — as if they are mutually exclusive. Hillary Clinton this week claimed, “Obama’s support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening” — the implication being that non-white Americans are lazy. These terms — “regular,” “working class,” “hardworking” — have become euphemisms for “whites,” who are subsequently billed as the only ones who matter.

Think I’m imagining that last part? Then you weren’t watching ABC’s “Nightline” last week. The Jeremiah Wright brouhaha may be roiling the black community, correspondent David Wright said, “but the real question now is what do white voters think.” That’s right — according to “Nightline,” painful questions in the black community aren’t “real.”

Such denigration happens all the time, and you can tell it is rooted in bigotry because the black vote is — by any mathematical measure — crucial. Political scientist Tom Schaller notes that if Clinton had won slightly more African-American votes, she might be winning. And black turnout for Democrats could decide general elections in many key swing states. Yet, we are still told “the real question” is only what white voters think.

Some will read this and go on pretending the Race Chasm doesn’t exist, while others will keep insisting that the black vote is irrelevant. Both sides will claim they aren’t prejudiced. But racism, whether from ostriches or minstrel show producers, is racism — and it will persist until we recognize it and reject it.

David Sirota is a senior editor at In These Times and a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was released in May 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

More information about David Sirota

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Perhaps the “Race Chasm” will persist as long as individuals on each side continue to exploit and benefit from it.

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act supposedly prohibited the use of race (along with gender and religion) to discriminate. Before the word discriminate became only used negatively it meant to distinguish between by some trait.

    Rev. Wright uses black profusely on his church’s website as he also uses white in his sermons and political criticisms. (I notice you gave him an inferred pass in this article.)

    When I was in the army in Alabama in 1963, I was appalled and sickened by the labeling of all the every day places and things with White Only and Colored Only — drinking fountains, benches, public transportation.  Being from the north I had only heard and read of such and never really thought much about it.

    I had hopes the 1964 law would make things different.

    Well, it at least removed those shocking signs.  But different isn’t always better. Since that time we’ve seen color added to things like Black Entertainment Channel, The Black Pages, Black Pride, and in plain clothes as Affirmative Action.

    While I think I can understand these as attempts to compensate and encourage the black side of the chasm, I also see it as widening the divide in its exclusion of the those of us on the white side.

    Whether used to label a whole category of the voting spectrum, as an adjective in a list of crimes and social slights, or a method to unite those who have so long faced the negative-only definition of the word, such distinctions will not help to bridge any chasm — real or perceived.

    Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2008 at 6:54 AM

    “In states with large black populations, race is a major political force, but the African-American vote is big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote.”

    Why is it just assumed that blacks that vote for blacks are NOT racially motivated (or females voting for females), whereas whites voting for whites IS racially motivated (or males voting for males)?

    “The news industry and politicians, on the other hand, are happy to discuss and exploit race, whether by manufacturing controversy (think Jeremiah Wright)”

    Wright has done this himself, surely one cannot think him un-newsworthy?

    So what is the fraction of blacks who vote for Obama anyway? If whites were as massively racially selective as blacks have been in this primary season, Obama would be long gone (thankfully, the “race chasm” is almost entirely a black phenomenon, especially for people like me who are Obama supporters, regardless of his race).

    Posted by wolf on May 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM

    Wolf,

    Good observations.

    Posted by whattheheck on May 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM

    I feel certain the racial tinged remarks made by Sen. Clinton, many in the media and those who would like to make race an issue have raised the percentage of blacks who prefer Sen. Obama.  Consider the effect if those remarks were directed at the Jews, Hispanics or American Indians.  These are all groups that have suffered and continue to suffer prejudices.  These people, over time, have been sensitized to the most subtle of remarks directed against them or designed to sway public opinion against them.  You can bet these minorities would swing their votes to candidates who are least likely to be biased against them.  In this case blacks know that the remarks of Sen. Clinton are designed to activate biases against Sen. Obama and will, predictably, react defensively.  I would.

    Humbug

    Posted by humbug on May 9, 2008 at 12:37 PM

    When you wish upon a star,
    makes no difference who you are,
    anything your heart desires
    will come to you.

    Red and Yellow,
    Black and White
    and any colour
    in between.

    (my thanks and props and kudos to Louis Armstrong and C. Herbert Woolston and free use laws)
    (and in case the Disney{.tm} police are after me; my thanks and such to Uncle Walt too.)

    Posted by Jiminy Cricket on May 9, 2008 at 9:36 PM

  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 51 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?


Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America!

Popular Discussions