The sheer bloody-mindedness of Andrew Sullivan
...and other pundits, of course.
Apparently, every white West Virginian Clinton voter is racist. But the 9 out of 10 black voters who go for Obama? Clearly a deliberate and thoughtful reaction, every last person, to the overall historical trajectory of the former President, and to policy issues.
And yeah, I know I'm with (the) NRO in crying foul on this one. And no, that doesn't bother me. I generally identify with the Left. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that they've got blind spots bigger than West Virginia.
Apparently, every white West Virginian Clinton voter is racist. But the 9 out of 10 black voters who go for Obama? Clearly a deliberate and thoughtful reaction, every last person, to the overall historical trajectory of the former President, and to policy issues.
And yeah, I know I'm with (the) NRO in crying foul on this one. And no, that doesn't bother me. I generally identify with the Left. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that they've got blind spots bigger than West Virginia.
3 Comments:
-
David Schraub said...
-
- 8:22 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 11:56 PM
-
David Schraub said...
-
- 2:18 AM
Post a CommentBlack voters have proven, time and again, that they're willing to vote for White candidates (cf. America, 1875 - 2006) -- including against Black candidates (Maryland, 2006). White voters have not proven likewise.
Folks discuss racism in West Virginia (and, in a few days, Kentucky) both because a) there's plenty of documentation of it from reporters, in ways there wasn't in, say, New Hampshire and b) Obama does fine amongst White voters -- including poorer and rural White voters -- everywhere but Appalachia (cf., Minnesota, Iowa, Vermont, Utah, Idaho, Alaska .... etc. Not places where the Black vote is putting him over the top), which historically has been one of the hotbeds for racism in America (as one person put it, WV seceded from Virginia in part because it was anti-slavery, in part because it was anti-slave. It hated the idea of Black people in the state just as much as it hated the idea of slavery). The question is legitimate.
David, no one's saying no West Virginians are racist. I'm just saying that to ascribe it to all who went for Clinton is insulting to them and insulting to her. Reporters find what they look for. I've been in that world, and know that, under time pressure, the story one expects tends to write itself. Why aren't reporters even attempting to discuss sexism in the black community? There's plenty of it.
Obama is getting an absolute free pass on the motives of his black support, even as the far, far less cohesive female Clinton base gets dismissed as the group of stupid women voting for the candidate that, duh, looks like them. To say that black voters have proven willing to vote for white candidates is irrelevant to the question of the degree to which identity politics play into Obama's support. I could just as easily charge that women have proven willing to vote for male candidates (cf. America, er, 1928-2008) while men have not proven likewise. This doesn't seem to have motivated the topics of sexism and misogyny to be brought front and center, or even perceived as legitimate questions.
But now I'm confused:
1) So what distinguishes Obama trouncing in the (lily-White) plains and upper midwest), but getting trounced in the (lily-White) Appalachian region? My hypothesis is that racism historically has been a much stronger force there. Yours is....? By contrast, there's no indication that the areas in which Obama has done extra-specially well are areas where sexism is historically dominant (indeed, the prairie states were usually at the fore in terms of voting women into office -- Wyoming elected a female Rep. before women even had the right to vote nationally).
2) I'm also confused as to what the practical import of Blacks voting on "identity politics" grounds is (or what that statement even means). I think one can reasonably consider the tremendous historical breakthrough in terms of our history on race as a reason for voting Obama (and same for Clinton re: gender). So long as it doesn't swallow everything else (and given that we have two excellent candidates, it isn't), that's a legit consideration (and you agreed back when you wrote about how you'd need to take a breath before voting against Phyllis Schlafly).
<< Home