![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fear. One syllable, four letters. Such an itty bitty word to have such great, big, nasty repercussions. Listening to a segment on NPR this morning about voter response to John McCain and Barack Obama, a comment was made by one man that left me shaking my head in disbelief and dismay. The gist of his comment, and one of the reasons that he opposes Barack Obama as president, is that if Barack gets into the White House the nation will be faced with a "Big Black" Agenda that will divide the nation and cause, essentially, a race war. None of the other interviewees agreed, I don't know if that's because they really *don't* agree or because they didn't want to appear ignorant or racially prejudiced.
What I find interesting about this way of thinking is, besides it's a racist, privileged perspective, is that it completely ignores the historical exclusion of other races who are then subject to a "white" agenda. Ignoring for a moment that the kind of racial divisiveness he is suggesting can't exist for a candidate who wishes to succeed at politics in a community as culturally diverse as the United States (please see Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's bids for public office), I find it curious that because the candidate doesn't fit his recognized default that automatically makes him an enemy, and let's face it that is exactly what this guy and people like him consider Barack Obama.
Apparently, it's not an isolated or even racially specific perspective. Cleatus, my baby brother, told me that he had heard the same thing about some Hispanic voters who were choosing McCain over Obama because Rodham-Clinton was no longer an option in the election. Looking at their political philosophies, I thought that Rodham-Clinton was closer to Obama than to McCain, but then again, I am not a pundit and haven't spent an exhaustive amount of time researching the candidates and the minutiae of their positions. As I was talking about the things that I was hearing and reading, I was shocked that there were people making, what I understood as, a huge political decision based on a case of sour grapes. But then Cleatus explained that there were some Hispanics, so fearful of a "Black" agenda that would exclude or actively pursue policies and legislation that would negatively affect them, that they would just vote for the other guy. That kind of reactionary, emotional decision making as it pertains to the political process boggles me. Same goes for decisions based upon perceived understandings of the candidate’s religion, in this country where church and state are, supposedly, separated.
But back to our NPR segment. The conversation segued into a discussion about the role of race in the coming general election, something that is difficult to measure for many reasons. As far as we *think* that we've come, the reality is that the Civil Rights movement was only some fifty years ago. Considering Man's inherent resistance to change, that really isn't very long and as much as the younger generations may consider race as increasingly less important as a way of constructing, defining, and understanding identity, it's still a big deal. I worry about the conservative, traditional "family value" people whose default is White and who are afraid of what it *might* mean to have an African-American president. Those people who can't and don't want to conceive of such a thing. Fear ... fear of change, fear of retribution, fear of whatever it is that prevents them from embracing a more inclusive world. Those people who can't and won't see beyond the cosmetics of race.
I'd like to hope that those unknown and unfamiliar people will vote according to whatever political and "moral" (a word that I use very hesitantly) concerns they have, but that they will do so logically and without consideration of race, gender, or religion. Will that happen? Not a chance. An election like this one with such historical implications and resonance is rife with tension and emotion. There are Black people who will vote for Obama because he is black, just as there were women who voted for and against Rodham-Clinton because she is a woman. In the general election, there will obviously be those who are going to vote along the same sort of cultural and racial lines regardless of policies and political philosophies.
That makes me very, very sad. And very, very concerned.
Race in this country is still a tremendous stumbling block, regardless of whether or not we choose to acknowledge it. For some, Obama is a "ranting", "Martin Luther King type Negro" and for others his race is the white elephant in the room. It'll be interesting to see how the November elections turn out. Regardless of the result, Obama or McCain, I have a feeling that I will be disappointed on some level because politics to me aren't quite as personal as they are to a lot of people. Voting in my house is an intellectual exercise. We research the propositions and the candidates, listen to the pros and cons, read supporting and opposing views, discuss and then go vote. I wonder how many people do that. I really, really wondered that when Arnold Schwarzenegger was voted into office with no political history or governing experience.
In the end, I wonder, can we vote in alternative ways? There are quite a few other countries that have had female prime ministers and presidents, and Peru's former president, Alberto Fujimori, is Nisei (second generation Japanese) born to immigrant parents.
How long will it take the United States, world leaders that we are, to learn to look beyond race and gender? To be honest, I don't have confidence that this time we will.
What I find interesting about this way of thinking is, besides it's a racist, privileged perspective, is that it completely ignores the historical exclusion of other races who are then subject to a "white" agenda. Ignoring for a moment that the kind of racial divisiveness he is suggesting can't exist for a candidate who wishes to succeed at politics in a community as culturally diverse as the United States (please see Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's bids for public office), I find it curious that because the candidate doesn't fit his recognized default that automatically makes him an enemy, and let's face it that is exactly what this guy and people like him consider Barack Obama.
Apparently, it's not an isolated or even racially specific perspective. Cleatus, my baby brother, told me that he had heard the same thing about some Hispanic voters who were choosing McCain over Obama because Rodham-Clinton was no longer an option in the election. Looking at their political philosophies, I thought that Rodham-Clinton was closer to Obama than to McCain, but then again, I am not a pundit and haven't spent an exhaustive amount of time researching the candidates and the minutiae of their positions. As I was talking about the things that I was hearing and reading, I was shocked that there were people making, what I understood as, a huge political decision based on a case of sour grapes. But then Cleatus explained that there were some Hispanics, so fearful of a "Black" agenda that would exclude or actively pursue policies and legislation that would negatively affect them, that they would just vote for the other guy. That kind of reactionary, emotional decision making as it pertains to the political process boggles me. Same goes for decisions based upon perceived understandings of the candidate’s religion, in this country where church and state are, supposedly, separated.
But back to our NPR segment. The conversation segued into a discussion about the role of race in the coming general election, something that is difficult to measure for many reasons. As far as we *think* that we've come, the reality is that the Civil Rights movement was only some fifty years ago. Considering Man's inherent resistance to change, that really isn't very long and as much as the younger generations may consider race as increasingly less important as a way of constructing, defining, and understanding identity, it's still a big deal. I worry about the conservative, traditional "family value" people whose default is White and who are afraid of what it *might* mean to have an African-American president. Those people who can't and don't want to conceive of such a thing. Fear ... fear of change, fear of retribution, fear of whatever it is that prevents them from embracing a more inclusive world. Those people who can't and won't see beyond the cosmetics of race.
I'd like to hope that those unknown and unfamiliar people will vote according to whatever political and "moral" (a word that I use very hesitantly) concerns they have, but that they will do so logically and without consideration of race, gender, or religion. Will that happen? Not a chance. An election like this one with such historical implications and resonance is rife with tension and emotion. There are Black people who will vote for Obama because he is black, just as there were women who voted for and against Rodham-Clinton because she is a woman. In the general election, there will obviously be those who are going to vote along the same sort of cultural and racial lines regardless of policies and political philosophies.
That makes me very, very sad. And very, very concerned.
Race in this country is still a tremendous stumbling block, regardless of whether or not we choose to acknowledge it. For some, Obama is a "ranting", "Martin Luther King type Negro" and for others his race is the white elephant in the room. It'll be interesting to see how the November elections turn out. Regardless of the result, Obama or McCain, I have a feeling that I will be disappointed on some level because politics to me aren't quite as personal as they are to a lot of people. Voting in my house is an intellectual exercise. We research the propositions and the candidates, listen to the pros and cons, read supporting and opposing views, discuss and then go vote. I wonder how many people do that. I really, really wondered that when Arnold Schwarzenegger was voted into office with no political history or governing experience.
In the end, I wonder, can we vote in alternative ways? There are quite a few other countries that have had female prime ministers and presidents, and Peru's former president, Alberto Fujimori, is Nisei (second generation Japanese) born to immigrant parents.
How long will it take the United States, world leaders that we are, to learn to look beyond race and gender? To be honest, I don't have confidence that this time we will.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 08:53 pm (UTC)From:This makes me want to tear my hair out.
We've got a situation where some people refuse to vote for a female president, some people refuse to vote for a Black president ... for no other reasons ... and choose to vote for McCain because he's White and Male. Period.
I just hope there are still enough thoughtful, reasoned voters to balance out the knee-jerk bigots.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 09:18 pm (UTC)From:You are very correct in that Rodham-Clinton's platform is almost exactly the same as Obama's and that McCain's is quite a bit different than Rodham-Clinton's.
I wish people voted like you (and like I do) and read the issues instead of focusing on things like race, gender, religion, etc.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-26 09:58 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2008-06-27 01:58 am (UTC)From:Jaded and cynical as I am, I severely doubt it. Our country seems to focus on the cosmetic in many, many regards. It started with celebrities and it's extended to our understanding of politics and politicians. Comments about hair and teeth and accents, speech patterns all as it relates to the electability of a candidate, but with no mention of platform or philosophies, voting history, nada! It drives me bonkers. As much as I'd like to *believe* that we've changed, I'm not sure that we've changed enough.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-27 01:59 am (UTC)From:I would feel much more confident of my country if I thought that could happen. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2008-06-27 02:14 am (UTC)From:Race and gender ARE issues in our society, so I can see how they are considerations, but because it doesn't have anything to do with the qualifications for a persons ability to be in public office, I can't count it.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-27 02:46 am (UTC)From:Insofar as "needs to", though, a "consideration" shouldn't decide the vote. That is, I'm a little more likely to vote for her than I would be if she wasn't a woman, but wouldn't vote for her just because she's a woman.
Lastly, for the life of me I can't figure out whether it's spelled Hilary or Hillary.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-27 03:42 am (UTC)From:I totally agree, if it didn't come across that I did. Her gender should be irrelevant, but it's not. My idealism is in that I hope that it wouldn't be even though I knew that it would. Same applies for Obama. His race is going to be a deciding factor for some people. His ethnic name and his father's country of origin are all reason that I've heard for why people aren't going to vote for him. Not that, I suppose, these sort of considerations are unique.
Insofar as "needs to", though, a "consideration" shouldn't decide the vote. That is, I'm a little more likely to vote for her than I would be if she wasn't a woman, but wouldn't vote for her just because she's a woman.
That's something that I can deal with. It's those people who are focused almost exclusively on voting for or against almost exclusively based upon race and gender are a problem.
:) It's Hilary. I've been going back and forth between calling her Clinton or Rodham-Clinton, but I think that she campaigned as Rodham-Clinton.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-28 01:08 am (UTC)From:I've only ever voted in one election, back when I voted (uselessly, I guess) for John Kerry. Yes, I'm only twenty-four and preisdential elections only come around so often, but I've actually questioned whether or not I'll be voting in this election at all. I'm so utterly dismayed by the electoral college system that I often wonder if my vote even does anything, especially when I live in a state (Missouri) where my representatives that'll actually make the decision probably won't vote for the candidate I want.
That said, I don't consider race to be an issue at all in my preference for Obama. I like his platforms, and I've had many discussions with friends on what kind of president he'd be. The conclusion is generally that we all think he'd be a very good president.
On a random side note about Obama's race, however, why isn't it worth noting for anyone (to those people who consider this oh-so-important, the bigots) that his mother is white? Everyone I've ever met of multiple ethnicity did not identify more with one parent's race than the other's.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 06:11 pm (UTC)From:I heard that segment too, and my husband and I stared at each other in disbelief. I don't even know where thinking like that comes from, except I do--I imagine most of it is "handed down." I'm so naive, in a way, that I can't even comprehend how anyone can really believe such a thing, but clearly the evidence is against me.
True, things aren't anywhere near where they need to be. But I'm still heartened that things are getting better, even if this election is not the test. I've been thinking about this in relation to gay marriage, too, and despite the setbacks I think we can see a steady improvement. Which is not to say we should invite complacence, which I think we have.
What did you think of the post-Rev. Wright "race" speech Obama made?
As to voting on principle (racial or gender), I think a lot of people did and are doing that. And it's frustrating. But in another sense, I'm almost okay with it. With the understanding that it's a step. Part of me really did want to vote for Clinton just because she's a woman. I didn't want to vote that way, and I didn't. But with race and gender still such issues, I almost think it's unavoidable and not the worst reason in the world. But even here I am a hypocrite, because I think it's almost acceptable to vote for a woman or a black man and not at all to vote against the same.