The elephant in the room: Obama, the left and the race question

The elephant in the room: Obama, the left and the race question

By Malik Miah
Links
August 10, 2008

Much of the world is fascinated by the current US presidential election. The
main reason is because the Untied States is ready to do something that most
developed countries would never consider doing: electing a representative
from an oppressed minority as head of state.

Could Australia ever elect an Aborigine as prime minister? An Australian of
Asian descent? Could Germany ever elect a German-born Turk as chancellor?
What about a black as head of state in the United Kingdom or France? Yet we
in the United States are discussing the real possibility that a man with a
father from Africa, representing a community of descendants of former
slaves, could actually be elected president of the most powerful country in
human history.

So it is not a surprise that Barack Obama's skin colour and bi-racial
origins are a subtle and not-so-subtle issue in the presidential race.
During the Democratic Party primaries, for example, Hillary Clinton and the
former president Bill Clinton and their supporters made references to the
"fact" that Obama could not appeal to enough "blue-collar workers" - meaning
white working-class Americans in the main - to defeat the Republican nominee
(Bill Clinton is still very upset that some in the Black community thought
he was playing the "race card" to help get his wife nominated. He hasn't met
with Obama yet.)

Now the expected Republican nominee, John McCain, is playing the same dirty
race card to undermine support for Obama - the likely Democratic Party
nominee. The most infamous ad involved the two young white female
personalities (Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton) and Obama. There is a long
history of race-baiting politics using the fear of a Black man with white
women in US society.

Race matters

Can the United States overcome its history of racial prejudice to elect the
first Black president?

Race is the elephant in the room. But few will openly acknowledge its role
in this unprecedented presidential race. Code words are used by the media to
avoid the issue of racism and race prejudice.

Yet the fact is the Democratic Party expects to win big in the House of
Representatives and Senate races because of the very low approval rating of
the Republicans, especially President George W. Bush (some 20%) and his
diabolical vice-president, Dick Cheney (even less).

But the polls show the presidential race too close to call. McCain is in a
statistical dead heat with Obama.

There is only one reason for this: Obama's skin colour. The Republican
attack machine led by former Bush aides is running negative ads that tell
angry white voters upset by high gas prices, fewer jobs and a dark future
that Obama can't be trusted.

While it is true that the racism and racial prejudice of most whites is at
historic low levels, there is no doubt that the 23% of whites who openly
state they will never vote for a Black can turn the 2008 elections to the
Republican nominee. The Republicans know that several ``swing states'' are
in play and race can make the difference.

(The US presidential election is not won by a national popular vote. It is
based on who wins the most electoral votes, which are calculated state by
state. In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral collage
vote to Bush.)

What's striking is that the Republicans have been able to attack Obama by
playing the "race card" then blaming Obama for explaining how the race card
will be used by the Republicans. Obama has repeatedly explained that his
opponents will raise the fear of him to divert discussion of the issues of
war and the economy because he doesn't look like previous presidents on US
currency.

The media falls for the lie as it did four years earlier when the same
tactic was used to smear ("Swift boat") Democrat John Kerry over his
military record during the Vietnam War. Worse, the pundits have all accepted
the false concept of "blue-collar workers" being only white workers, leaving
out Black, Latino and Asian workers.

Obama's campaign has played its hand too carefully on the race-baiting
issue. The campaign has a strategic fear that any mention of race will
agitate the "fear factor" among whites and may lead them to vote for the
"safe" white candidate.

Race matters because racism is institutionalised throughout US society. The
fact that an African American (bi-racial but Black, because skin colour is
what defines you) could be elected to the most powerful office in the world
is not a concern to the ruling class. It knows Obama will defend its
interests.

But that truth is not enough to be elected. Political power has been in the
hands of white men so long that a change of power won't happen without a
fight.

Many mainstream, journalists are now beginning to openly discuss this
elephant in the campaign. EJ Dionne Jr., of the Washington Post, observed,
"There is no doubt that two keys to this election are: How many white and
Latino votes will Obama lose because of his race than a white Democrat would
have won? And how much will African American turnout grow, given the
opportunity to elect our nation's first Black president?"

(Dionne notes that in 1960, when John F. Kennedy ran and won as the "first
Catholic president", his religion was an issue and he won 80% of the
Catholic vote - about 30% greater than the Catholic share won four years
earlier.)

Obama is fully aware of this history. It's why he is shifting on issues like
affirmative action and talking more about "class" as the basis for
qualifications to enter higher education and other positions. The fact is
skin colour is always a factor even for wealthier, more educated Blacks.
Study after study shows - and proves - that equally qualified whites and
Blacks applying for jobs, nine times out of 10 whites will get the job
first. Affirmative action is necessary to level the playing field and to
ensure equal opportunity. (Obama has told white audiences his two daughters
won't need it to appeal to their false belief that there is such a thing as
"Black skin privilege.")

The problem for Obama and his supporters is the blatantly racist campaigns
of the past (Richard Nixon's infamous 1968 "Southern strategy" to get poor
whites to change parties) are no longer viable. Today the campaigns are more
subtle as the Spears-Hilton ad showed - and they tend to work.

The Republican attack machine uses "fear" of the Black man and Obama's
alleged "elitism" (he attended Columbia University in New York and Harvard
Law School) as wedge issues for white workers looking for an excuse to vote
against a Black candidate.

McCain's charge that Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief is a
red herring. So is the charge of elitism since Obama's upbringing by a
single white mother and a distant father is more in common to what most
working-class whites face.

The "fear the Black man" machine is not just aimed at working-class whites,
but at Latinos and Asians too. It is noteworthy that two-thirds of Latinos
are polling for Obama, who they see as closer to their concerns especially
on the issue of immigration. The Asian community is more divided but a
majority still favour the Democrats and Obama.

Some 40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., now a
national hero, and the fall of legal segregation it is amazing that a Black
man may be elected president.

If the Republican attack machine succeeds in turning the election into the
"white guy versus the Black man" the outcome of the election could change
with many anti-racists voting for Obama to express opposition to the race
baiting of the Republican campaign.

There is no way today to predict what will happen in November. In the late
1960s after the victories of the civil rights movement that led to some
important legal changes in law, the first Black candidates for higher office
(big city mayors) faced vicious racial attacks. Whenever those elections
were nominally labeled "non-partisan" many on the socialist left backed
those candidacies as a rejection of racism and support to the right of the
Black community to have elected political representation. They knew that
these candidates still identified themselves as Democrats.

The 2008 presidential election has some similarities. The difference of
course is that Obama doesn't pretend to be independent. He isn't running
against the old guard of his party. He is campaigning as a "centrist" new
Democrat, as seen in his positions on major issues - from energy, the
economy, health care and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

World tour in this context

Obama's quickly organised and highly publicised international trip in July,
in this context, was to show the world and the United States (his main
audience) that he is "presidential". What he said was mainstream and in line
with the shift in US imperial policy that began under former president Bill
Clinton and accelerated under Bush.

Obama's trip to the Middle East was not a repudiation of Bush-Cheney
policies but an argument that the Democrats have a better strategic plan to
protect Israel and defend US interests. Obama supports US domination of the
Arab world. He advocates a more aggressive war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(He even told his staff and reporters not to wear "green" while in Israel
and Jordan because it symbolises Hamas!)

Obama also told the media that he sees generals as tacticians carrying out
the president's orders. Obama, like Bush, will pick generals who support or
accept his polices.

When Obama spoke to hundreds of thousands of Germans in Berlin, he focused
on the responsibility of the world ("I'm a citizen of the world", he said)
to defend the "free world" from terrorism.

While much of the left sees Obama shifting positions on Iraq by proposing a
long-term withdrawal, he strongly advocates a new "surge" into Afghanistan.
He is also for a more aggressive policy toward Pakistan.

Obama simply believes he's smarter than the Bush team and thus more capable
of defending US interests while he rebuilds alliances with ``Old Europe" and
rising Asian powers.

Obama's domestic programs are centre right too. The "yes you" rhetoric taps
the real desire for a change of leadership. While he will support some
liberal positions on women's rights and civil rights, his healthcare program
is modest and does not guarantee healthcare as a right.

On energy policy he first opposed any new off-shore drilling. But as the
Republican attack machine pushed back hard, he shifted his stance to allow
it if "part of a comprehensive energy plan".

The differences with McCain are sharper on social issues like affirmative
action and abortion rights. But even on these issues he is fudging more and
more to appeal to religious conservatives and white blue-collar workers. In
the fine traditions of Bill Clinton, Obama is saying what his audiences of
white gun carrying Americans want to hear.

The shift to the "centre" assumes that minorities, particularly African
Americans, will turn out in big numbers and vote for him anyway. It is
likely that Blacks will do so because of the historic nature of electing a
Black president. But for other groups, it's not so clear. Obama will need a
big turnout to overcome the white fear factor backlash.

Two contradictory realities

While socialists who recognize that lesser-evil politics can never free
workers, including white workers, from capitalist exploitation and
domination, the issue of race could be decisive if the Republicans are
successful in turning the election into a referendum vote for or against the
candidate best able to protect whites. Under those circumstances, it may be
justifiable to cast a vote against McCain's race baiting. I say this knowing
that most socialists and those in favour of an independent working-class
party will vote for the independent Ralph Nader or the Green Party
presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney.

The contradiction of the Obama phenomenon is that it reflects two realties.
One is the possibility that the world's sole superpower is okay with having
a Black man as its president.

Second, is the polarization and legacy of racism in the United States. The
reality is the ruling class may be okay but the politicians seeking the job
are not ready to give up their privileges and power.

For socialists the issue of Obama (the unique figure and capitalist
politician) is conflicted. On the one hand, there is no doubt that backing a
candidate of the most powerful military industrial complex in the world is
impossible.

On the other hand, the issue of race and racism poses the question: Is the
election of Obama as the first Black president a way to push back racist
ideology as it was in the1960s-70s when the first "independent" Black
candidates for big city mayors were elected did?

I'm of two mind sets. As a socialist I will either vote for Nader or
McKinney to advance the need for class independance.

But as a supporter of nationalism of the oppressed, I'm inclined to vote
against the de facto race-bating campaign of McCain and elect the first
Black president.

During the great American Civil War in the 1860s, Marx and Engels
wholeheartedly supported the North against the South. They urged their
followers to join the Union Army and help bring about the defeat of the
slave owners. Marx and Engels had no illusions of what that meant for
capitalist development and consolidation. But the smashing of the slave
labour system and development of a modern-day US capitalism was in their
view in the long-term interests of the working class.

A new body blow to racist ideology by electing a Black man as president
isn't on that order of significance for many reasons. But it would send a
message that citizenship and rights should not be based on the false
construct called "race" or the shade of your skin.

[Malik Miah is a San Francisco trade union activist at United Airlines, an
editor of the US socialist magazine Against the Current and a supporter of
the US socialist group Solidarity. A shorter version of this article first
appeared in Green Left Weekly.]