There has been no small amount of justified hand-wringing about George Will’s latest column. I don’t want to spoil it (completely), so go read it.
Good. You’re back. Let’s talk about those last lines:
Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him — seems especially reluctant to give up on the first African American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation’s heart, if not its head.
That’s some incendiary stuff, no? It’s tempting to look at it for what it likely is: a desperate appeal to racism by a dead-ender unable to understand or appreciate the enormous advantage that white men have had historically. And still have. Count the number of minorities and women on the national tickets.
Rather, let’s take it on its face, as an analysis of voter preference. He’s positing that there are some voters out there who, in 2008, were inclined to vote for McCain or not vote who were inspired to vote for Obama. Very few of the former, probably a bunch of the latter. But, they were almost certainly outnumbered by those who might be inclined to vote for a Democrat, but had a tough time imagining themselves with a black president. Does he seriously believe that being black was an advantage in 2008?
The current case is even more preposterous. He’s suggesting that there’s a significantly large bloc of voters who would vote for Romney or stay home, but for their affirmative-acting hearts. That’s a hypothetical voter I can’t even get my mind around. And, there’s the completely inapposite comparison to Cleveland Indians management not firing Frank Robinson. (Begging the question that Robinson actually got a reprieve based on race.) Whatever may or may not have been in the hearts of the few white men who decided not to fire Robinson, if they were inclined but held off, it would have more likely been out of fear of being seen as not giving the first black manager a sufficient opportunity. No such fear with a secret ballot if you deep down don’t think Obama is doing a good job. More importantly, no fear of a charge of racism for those who didn’t like the idea of a black president in 2008 and still don’t in 2012.
I’d say Will’s got it all backward. If anything, race is a double-edged sword for Obama in 2012. There may be some voters who were reluctant to vote for the first term of the first black president, but have come to realize that, you know, it just isn’t the end of the world. Meanwhile, there are many liberals truly cheered by the election of the first black president who are disenchanted that he turns out to be a center-right friend to corporations. Call it a wash.
Fortunately, Will points a way out of the thicket of competing subconscious racial preferences. The Obama advantage he identifies stems from his being the first black president. Seems like the cure is to elect more black presidents.
And, maybe in 2016 we can elect a woman and/or other minority so that we can get past the problem of firing or not firing the first one of those, too.
We’ve already established that we don’t have to fire a privileged fratboy just because he’s a terrible President, so there’s no need to elect another privileged fratboy to find out. Then there’s the not-all-there old guy – we did that one, too.
I agree with both parts of your paragraph, but I don’t know how it translates to votes. Surely some people have realized “it just isn’t the end of the world.” Not all will vote for Obama. They may vote Romney because they don’t like the healthcare law, etc. Since Romney has been such a poor alternative, I’d guess Obama will pick up some votes from people – open to a Democrat – who had misgivings about a black President last time, but don’t now.
But I don’t know that Obama is losing many votes among disaffected liberals. I will confess that I myself have strongly considered not voting for him in 2012, particularly since I vote in Massachusetts and it’s not likely to matter. But at this point I plan to vote for him and I’d bet the vast majority of disaffected liberals will vote for him, if only because the Romney-Ryan ticket has made Obama seem like the much better option and memories of 2000 run deep with such people. After the election, should he win, I’ll be on guard against his next agreement to slash spending while we still have high unemployment, or cut Social Security because the villagers say so.
This suggests a net gain for Obama, but that’s not because of “affirmative action.” It’s just a welcome sign that Obama will lose fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008 because of his race. Which is as it should be – an election on the issues. Will’s suggestion that some people would vote Romney if Obama were white, but are voting Obama because they feel bad about firing the black guy, is just silly. Romney has only himself to blame for his troubles. He was looking pretty good in the polls until the Dem convention was better than the GOP’s, and of course his video came out. Maybe that – and not some racial sensitivity that suddenly surfaced in early September – is Romney’s real problem.
It is going to be an ugly month, isn’t it?
Everyone was too petrified of armageddon in October 2008, so the ugly stayed underground.
Not going to happen this time, I fear.
I don’t recall ugly being underground in 2008. I remember plenty of Youtube clips of blatantly racist displays at McCain/Palin rallies that the GOP candidates declined to disavow. Some local GOP committees (in California, some other places) had watermelon and welfare-themed flyers. And let’s not forget lovely stuff like this.
The GOP primaries were just a warmup. Sean Hannity and Fox News are doing their part (and no, I will NOT provide a link here) this week. The GOP strategy, from the get-go, has been to fire up the worst elements of the fringe right by blowing on all the dog-whistles Mr. Fehrnstrom can find.
must be very happy with George Will now.