If you’re a brown, black, diasporic, immigrant, mixed-race, or otherwise socially and culturally hybrid, globalization-era American, it looks like someone is seriously getting into the 2008 presidential race who has more in common with you, identity-wise, than any previous presidential candidate. This is going to be interesting!
Manju, you sully the name of a good man by casting politically motivated aspersions 😉
believe in the dream
One word – numbers Minorities form blocs because thats the only way their voices can be heard (not to say that the US fails to protect minority interests)! Minority groups voting together can’t elect someone to office (based solely on their vote), but majority groups can! It is still wrong to vote based on ethnicity (for a healthy democracy) but I don’t see it as a concern here.
F all the he said she said. Obama 08. Nuff said
LOL at Sisyphus. I knew most of these Hindu right wingers were just like their counterparts in America. Muslims are some of the poorest people in a poor ass country like India. Desis in America are some of the richest in a rich country. Very different comparisions. I don’t even think Whiteguy is even a right winger,hes just asking a logical question to which nobody has given him a straight answer.
The reason people say it’s normatively wrong is that when majorities form ethnic voting blocs, it usually leads to Really Bad Things happening to minorities. This country had 200 years of experience with that, which almost erupted into open violent resistance if not for the heroic efforts of Dr. King, and it would, like, really suck to go back to that.
Minorities don’t have the same social power. Even if all of us banded together to vote for a candidate (HIGHLY unlikely), there would be no way to get him or her into power without at least engaging with the majority group.
Santosh–
I wasn’t saying that the average American isn’t very smart it my post #31, I was quoting Glass Houses from her/his post upthread (#10). There were a lot of quotation marks floating around which made that unclear.
I don’t see any reason why Americans wouldn’t vote for a well-qualified woman and/or black person. Sure, some whites would vote for virtually any white candidate over virtually any black candidate, but a lot of whites champ at the bit to elect decent black leaders since it alleviates their white guilt to a degree. But Obama is way underqualified to be president (so was our current president, though, so that’s not really a data point in my favor!).
Harvard Law degree on merit, and he’s underqualified? Does he need an IQ of 170? He might have one anyway
He has just as much experience as RFK did when he was considering a run. JFK, a bit more. Lincoln didn’t have a strong resume coming into office, and he turned out to be a great president.
Also Grant, Ford, Johnson. Not great examples of strong presidents, maybe, but they also reached office with limited experience.
Aye, as my friend the melancholy Dane once said, there is the rub.
Much lies in what we don’t see.
He is under qualified politically not educationally! But past political experience/qualification doesn’t really say how good the president will be at the job.
Neal,
Then by your logic, when America becomes less than 50% white in a few decades, whites may then acceptably vote as an ethnic bloc?
Emiliano Zapata ’08
See my above reasons. That is exactly why they wont vote for such a person.
Underqualified in what sense? Does he know how to play the political game? He probably learned plenty in Illinois, there are few places where politics is not more bruising. The underqualified label is a red herring which has no substantive basis. Intelligence-wise, he is up there with few of the people running, and political acumen-wise, he has more than enough of a proving ground
I could be wrong, but I’m feeling some anti-Obama vibes from the black liberal civil rights establisment. Obviously, Sharpton’s not too happy and is looking to take away some black votes with his vanity campaign. Harry Belafonte and Jesse Jackson have said some negative stuff. I haven’t seen harry this annoyed since communism fell.
I think he’s looked upon as a bit of an outsider, maybe even “not black enough,” like cory booker. so some of the “grass roots” excitement we’re seeing on this thread does not extend to his natural base. I think, demeanor wise, he’s much more palpatable to white liberals and desi liberals…ie, he’s culturally a cappacino sipping ivy-leaguer. In this way, american desis have much more in common with white liberals than anyone else, no matter how much we protest otherwise. Its really the liberal press thats gone ga ga.
but maybe in this day and age Oprah’s endorsement means more. I recall JFK’s and RFK’s strategey was too host tea parties with their mom to win the womens vote…who then turn around and tell their husbands who to vote for. Oprah is the modern day rose kennedey tea party. Arnold and W know this.
Not if they are still the largest ethnic group.
Kobayashi, you clipped my post disingenuously. In the very next line I added the precise nuance you’re claiming I missed.
He has just as much experience as RFK did when he was considering a run.
RFK was the attorney general of US and then a US Senator before he considered Presidential run.
That too an attorney general during civil rights movement, and height of mafia crackdown. Also, a Cuban Crisis veteran. Both of them along with being a goodlooking Kennedey had already made him a household name.
What to do? It’s the only part of you available for clipping.
zapata vive vive, la lucha….
Well, first of all, while minority growth in the US is growing such that it is possible for white people to be reduced to a ‘mere’ plurality instead of a clear majority in a few decades, the numbers of registered voters who feel safe participating in the process will take far longer to reach that point. Especially with serious abuses of power like the 2000 Florida election depressing registration and turnout. And, of course, holding a plurality still makes you the largest single ethnic group, so the argument I made above still applies.
And it will take even longer for the great mass of non-white Americans to accumlate anything matching the economic or cultural representation of white America.
Given the history of this country (what with the slavery, concentration camps, lynchings, ghettoes, and the like), it is likely that anyone who proposes a political party or movement based on “white unity” will be denounced as a racist. That’s just how it is. Our history shows that the greatest threats to pluralism and equal rights have come from such movements. That may not be “fair” from a detached, idealistic perspective, but from a pragmatic perspective it makes perfect sense.
Santosh, I take it you mean reason #3 in post #50 because the first two reasons aren’t specifically race/gender related? If so, then I see your point but I don’t think it’s enough to keep out a well-qualified black or female candidate. I could be wrong, but we recently came within <1000 votes of electing a Jewish vice president, and my Jewish friends felt 110% sure antisemitism would kill the Gore/Lieberman ticket (they didn’t win, of course, but they came close enough to negate the idea that America wouldn’t elect a Jewish VP). So I guess there’s no way to know for sure.
I didn’t mean Obama was underqualified in terms of education or intelligence, I meant he doesn’t have enough political experience at a high enough level yet. Senators generally don’t get into the White House anyway, and a first-termer? Not gonna happen for Obama, at least in ’08.
No one’s mentioned the cocaine thing besides me, but that’s a big ugly political problem for him. And it’s right there in detail in his book, so he can’t backpedal.
The way you do politics seems to be to have people accept you in increments. People know about his faults, they have the next few weeks or months to decide if that disqualifies him
KarmaByte writes:
“Not if they are still the largest ethnic group.”
KB, then if a country is 40% ethnic group X, 35% ethnic group Y, and 25% smaller groups, Y may vote as an ethnic bloc but X may not?
At what level of experience is neccessary? Sitting on committees year after year where your views become calificied and you don’t have the chance to get up the verve to really change the direction of the country? Name me a long-term Senator who made a good president and I’ll buy you an Obama 08 bumper sticker
not sure it’s going to hurt him. b/f clinton an affair was political death. everyone knows W tooted and no one belives the denials. dems will pull an effective tu quoque if repubs bring it up. small issue at best.
but you’re right about inexperience. stature matters at this level. he knows it. he’s playing for the vp ticket. but he looks presidential, whatever that means.
Sahej, you’re preaching to the choir with me on this point. I’d love to term-limit Congress and fill it with a new round of schoolteachers and doctors and such every few years instead of the same corrupt career politicians. But the presidency is different — you do need to hold some high-level political jobs for a while. The only exception to that is a general in the military.
And my car sucks (do NOT buy a mid-90s Jetta, people), so don’t bother with the bumper sticker.
whiteguy…
in case you haven’t noticed, there’s a obvious racial power structure in our society. there’s a reason “all the black kids sit together in the cafeteria”. people of color want to support each other b/c most of us have been systemically marginalized. i don’t think siddhartha is saying we should vote for obama purely b/c he’s another poc. rather, he’s someone we should consider, because as a fellow minority, there’s a higher chance he’d be more empathatic and knowledgeable about our issues. on the other hand, minorities constantly find themselves having to “expain” themselves to white people. an obvious example would be you.
check this out: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html#daily
most notably #10 “I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.”
I know this one will cause some controversy, but I’d argue that Lyndon Johnson was at least a decent President.
YES, YES I KNOW, VIETNAM. Granted. But there are good things too (at least from my admittedly liberal perspective). Medicare is huge, and he also started major attempts to get a handle on issues like environmentalism and poverty. But the biggest positive things were the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. I think the legal end of segregation at least balances the idiocy of escalating Vietnam.
To win the Presidency in this climate, you must belong to the brotherhood of white, male and preferably, “born again,” Christians.
That effectively eliminates Barack, Hillary and Mitt Romney. (Mormonism is an American religion, but is still considered weird and/or cultish by a large body of Americans.)
Its up for grabs. Perhaps the right good old boy has yet to emerge.
Given the history of this country (what with the slavery, concentration camps, lynchings, ghettoes, and the like), it is likely that anyone who proposes a political party or movement based on “white unity” will be denounced as a racist.
I agree.
White guy,
You know very well that white numbers are declining in such a manner that before long, they will represent a “mere” plurality of the peoples of the republic. As such, wouldn’t it be more prudent for you to be at work articulating common values of citizenship for the Babel that America has become, rather than retreating into ethnic resentment, which you know has precious little support among most whites anyway? Or are you counting on an increase in resentment in the future?
You could say LBJ was a senator while being president; putting into practice the ideas generated from the Kennedy years. Although maybe he was the impetus behing the Great Society idea, not sure
Jesse actually has said good things about Senator Obama. And I’ll add that it is innaccurate to look at Sharpton and Jesse and other so called black leaders as representative voices of black america. I commented on this somewhere else:
I think my biggest issue with Senator Obama is that he has been completely mum about issues on race. And understandibly so. If I were white, IÂ’d probably be enamoured with him too. But I wonder if he really has ANY thoughts at all on race in this country. That said I understand the double edged sword: Identify with the culture of victimization that has taken hold in the black community and he will undoubtedly lose the support of white votersÂ… but start saying anything that sounds remotely conservative (and IÂ’m willing to bet he leans right on these issues) and he may as well be Justice Thomas to black folks. HeÂ’s being safe, but thatÂ’s leaving me unsold as well.
That aside, the conversations I’ve had among black people are that 1. they think its too early and white liberal america is setting our boy up for failure and 2. they fear for his life if he actually gets elected.
I am hoping for an Obama-Edwards ticket– although I would love to see a good liberal woman (more liberal than hillary although i like her) become president, too. The public will fault both candidates for being political ‘neophytes’, but I believe we can benefit from their idealism and move forward as a nation.
The key is for the Democratic party to present a unified platform in 2008 and demonstrate full support of the candidate that wins the primaries. We should be fearless in embracing true liberalism and unyielding in our quest for economic and social equality for all.
I’m not saying his inexperience is on the same level as Obama’s. But RFK served as a senator for as long as Obama will have in ’08. Also among Obama’s accomplishments was a stay in the state senate of Illinois.
The legacy of LBJ is almost comparable to FDR. A small synopsis from PBS
Oh, sorry Manju, I slightly misread your comment. I’m still annoyed at this article.
Risible wrote:
You know very well that white numbers are declining in such a manner that before long, they will represent a “mere” plurality of the peoples of the republic. As such, wouldn’t it be more prudent for you to be at work articulating common values of citizenship for the Babel that America has become, rather than retreating into ethnic resentment, which you know has precious little support among most whites anyway? Or are you counting on an increase in resentment in the future?
Risible, are “common values of citizenship” enough to hold a country together? I don’t know, which is why I favor ending illegal immigration to the U.S., reducing legal immigration, and returning to an assimilationist model instead of the multicultural model that’s been in place since the 1960s.
I don’t think “retreating into ethnic resentment” is a fair characterization of my posts on this thread. I am pointing out what I view as a double standard in our political discourse and engaging in civil discourse with people who are attempting to show me that I am wrong. I am not big on white nationalism, but I do wonder about the correctness of the assumption that a multiethnic society can exist peacefully without an assimilationist model of immigration.
As someone pointed out on the thread yesterday, Steve Sailer has a thought-provoking cover story in the current American Conservative about this called “Fragmented Future: Diversity Without Community”.
yeah, that’s it oneup. but beyond the issue of appealing to whites while not wanting to lose blacks, i think he needs to be careful not to demote himself down to the level of jackson and sharpton or buchanan…vanity campaigns that were meant to further a particular interest group. he’s being taken very seriously now, like colin powell a few years back.
He’s been very good at appearing presidential…talking about war, peace, and prosperity.
Barack:
like Oprah, only BETTER 🙂
I am such a fan.
I just hope the media don’t build him up to be the saviour of all of America’s ills and then tear him down (a la Blair). He looks a lot more sensitive than Bill Clinton and I hope he’s treated well by the press.
So, so, so time for a CHANGE 🙂
no prob…i can see why you’d be annoyed.
I think you’re right, any minority candidate that wants any political future has to diffuse race to an issue of the past, and tow the “We’re all red, white, and blue!” line anything less would completely alienate the white voter block.. which surely exists.
WhiteGuy,
You are getting into a hypothetical situation! Whats the point in discussing that? It’s not like X or Y votes based on your or my perception of whats right. My only observation to your original comment on an “unacceptable” argument is that minority blocs and majority blocs can’t be compared like you tried to.
IMO is more alarming than,
And I don’t think anyone made that out to be noble! That’s just a convenient word for your argument. But that sentiment is seen as practical, though I myself don’t think it is sensible.
Whiteguy, Nice agenda. Listen in on the chatter of the poor, unwashed masses. Provoke them just so much. Just enough so the majority can cry – “Now look who is the victim?”
I am a self-proclaimed Obamamaniac.
If Hillary gets in the race too, though, it becomes a which “first” is more important — the first woman president or the first non-white president? I’ve been annoyed by this debate with friends, particularly those in the Hillary camp. Some argue that a white woman has a better shot at this point than a black man to be elected president in America.
I say that if America was ready for Colin Powell (who decided not to run in 2000 because his family thought he would be assasinated), it’s ready for Obama.
As for whether Obama has enough of the traditional civil rights support, that’s an esoteric issue for the punditry to debate. I think it’s hard to imagine that he loses significant numbers of black voters to a Hillary or a John Edwards. His bigger problem will be in generating support among diehard Dem partisans (who worship the Clintons), because his talk so far is very “post partisan,” along the lines of rising above partisanship and finding common ground. That makes it tough for him in the primaries.
Ok, I tried to stay out of it but have a hard time when it comes to posts about my man, Barack Obama. 🙂
I feel you! This is the same debate we’ve been having among our group of friends. I think what makes it more frustrating is that most of us are not particularly fond of Hilary, and so even rejecting a candidate based on their platform or voting record, etc., is going to be taken down into “it’s because s/he is X.”
I say Barack would make a great running-mate, whether for Pres or VP. Let him pull in the “purple” great lake states. What do John Edwards or Hilary bring in terms of electoral votes? Not much. I am still rooting for running a Dem governor instead of a (ex)Senator 🙂
It’s not a double standard. What shared experiences do whites have that could justify a unified platform that’s distinct from other ethnic groups? In fact, what common experiences do whites have period that aren’t definied as a negative. i.e. whites as a group are not profiled at airports, whites as a group are not jailed disproportionately to their population, whites as a group are not denied jobs because of the names on their resumes… please do not bring up AA.
The only true “stereotypes” levied against whites is they can’t rap or shoot the jam. Hardly issues to warrant a distinct voting block.
obama would be a great candidate in ’12, but i don’t think he’s that qualified now, especially on matters of foreign policy and national security. if gore runs, a gore-obama ticket would be strong (but i’d still prefer gore-clark).
WhiteGuy, You remind me of guys in blue shirts who form support groups against Indian programmers who take their jobs. Welcome to a changing world. Try to tell us what your gut feeling is about immigrants and “others” and we will listen. Don’t use reflection/deflection/refraction to prove your points.
Sid, a question: I can understand why someone of mixed race would identify with Obama, or someone who is black (although Obama has no ancestors who were US slaves), but why would someone who is desi identify with him? His mom is white and his dad is black — what’s the connection to South Asia? – White Guy
It’s a shame that a very valid question has been dismissed as trollish, Well this blog is a master at double standards. Its charter says it’s strictly South Asian but the bloggers frequently depart in their posts to accommodate Persian Muslims, Blacks, Palestinians and other such supposedly disadvantaged people. It’s all about the us ( people of color ) vs them ( White Man ) parochial mentality. The insecurity that the White Man will play us against one another. The very assertion that I, a desi feels culturally much closer to a White person than a Black person is anathema to many here. You’ll be made fun of for saying that. Just glance at a few recent posts – no opportunity is wasted here to somehow revise anthropology and make us believe that we are actually Black.
This is the second post on Obama in as many days. It’s not the first! What charm and political skills does this man have that many other in public life don’t? Actually it’s the color of his skin that is his single biggest plus point. And who are the people cheering him the most – Whites. Still on this site you’ll hear to no end about the rampant racism that’s devouring America.
What about Obama’s… um… gorgeous factor? Seems like studies have shown that people pick the best-looking person unless the other candidate has some overwhelming qualification. I’m thinking of Kennedy v. Nixon, where the people who heard the presidential debates on the radio thought Nixon was smarter but the people who saw them on TV… well, they fell in love with JFK.
Seems like his gorgeousness (both physically and personally) will trump Hillary. Is there any way to guarantee that the Republicans run a really fugly guy?
Lest I am accused of being shallow, remember, we’re the country of American Idol now, where looks are everything. Once he’s in, he can start changing the world. Until then, let’s make sure he gets the best photo ops possible.