Academic

Race and Palin

By Guy-Uriel Charles

My colleagues Professors Hutchinson and Butler have made two important observations about the Obama campaign.  First, Darren is absolutely right that the Obama campaign’s strategy on Palin has been misguided.  Moreover, liberals in their rush to discredit Palin have engaged in sexist and smear tactics.

I expect the campaign to regain its footing very soon; they’ve been down this road before and they always manage to find the right message.  Moreover, as dynamic as Governor Palin is, the fact of the matter is that she lacks foreign policy credibility, which should make swing voters nervous.

I’m still of the view that the Obama campaign could have made its life easier by picking Tim Kaine of Virginia as Obama’s running mate to make that state even more competitive for the Democrats or they should have gone with Clinton.  But the Democrats still have the advantage and the Obama campaign’s ground game should be the difference maker.  This is not the time to panic as there is a lifetime left to this election.

I’m more concerned with the observation that Paul made.  Not only did Obama not mention Dr. King in his historic acceptance speech, he did not mention any racial policy issues.  He sigaled his support for gay rights, abortion rights, even the 2nd Amendment but could not signal his support of the 14th.  Race was the public policy issue that could not be uttered.

There are two ways to address the racism that the Obama campaign knows exists and prevents those who may be inclined not to vote for Obama because he is black.  One strategy is to minimize race as much as possible, which is what the Obama campaign has done.  The other possibility is to be straightforward about racial inclusion and to use that frame to bring in working class whites.  For example, civil rights strategies have never simply just benefitted blacks and other people of color.  The Freedman’s Bureau after the Civil War helped thousands of whites (including former members of the confederacy and poor whites) as well as blacks.  The Voting Rights Act helped register thousands of whites, especially poor whites who were disenfranchised by southern states that were hell-bent on disenfranchising black voters wholesale.  Affirmative action was a big benefit to white women and could be expanded to include poor whites.  Title VII protects whites as well as blacks.  In short, whenever this country has worked on improving the lives of blacks and other citizens of color, those very same mechanisms have also directly improved the lives of whites.  To be in favor of racial inclusion is not at all to be anti-white.

The Obama campaign chose the first option as it is the least-risky choice.  I understand the choice.  The speech and the campaign have been remarkable.  But it is ironic that while everyone was invited to the historic party and entered through the front door, only one group is still being asked to enter through the back door.  It better be worth it.

ShareThis

Full post as published by BlackProf on September 11, 2008 (boomark / email).