Woes, Ho-Ho's and Foes

This week, Tim Russert sought to play Six-Degrees-of-Louis Farrakhan with Barack Obama, Kwame Kilpatrick’s troubles got much more serious, we got an update on the horrific statistical inequality in the American justice system, and Obama told black folks to cut down on junk food (not the delicious chocolately Ho-Ho, per se, but it rhymed for the title). In short, the substantive issues explicitly centering on race in politics this week were varied, but the potential effects on attitudes about black leadership were consistent.

We’ll start with Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate in Cleveland, where Tim Russert asked Obama if he would accept the endorsement of former Nation of Islam leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan that was announced last weekend. Obama stated that he rejected Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic remarks over the years and eventually said that he both rejected and (after complaints from Hillary Clinton that “reject” was not the same as “renounce”) renounced Farrakhan’s endorsement. Russert would not be discouraged by Obama’s distancing, though, and took another approach. He proceeded to note that Obama’s (Christian) minister had kind words to say about Farrakhan at one time. As Glenn Greenwald astutely notes in his column at Salon.com, there seems to be a double-standard as to how closely a candidate is associated with remarks of his or her supporters. Further, Senator Clinton refused to “reject” or “denounce” the comments of Dallas Hispanic organizer Adelfa Callejo after Callejo noted that Obama’s problem with Hispanic voters is that “he happens to be black,” and, from her perspective, black folks did not help Hispanics when the former gained power, but rather took their numbers for granted.

But there is a substantive issue at stake – foreign policy in the Middle East. Specifically, both Clinton and Russert suggested that association with anti-Semitic remarks from a supporter could signal a lack of support for Israel as an ally. Tension between the African- and Jewish-American communities is nothing new. There are a number of scholarly books on the subject, and we have documented elsewhere that the issue served as a basis for claims of authenticity in a race between two black candidates for Congress in Georgia a few years back. If Obama gets the nomination, we can be sure that John McCain’s supporters will continue to raise the question – not because of any espoused policy by Obama, but because of the stereotype that black Americans are less committed to the Israeli state and Israeli interests as white Americans.

And speaking of stereotypes about black Americans – Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is doing his part to perpetuate negative stereotypes about black men having uncontrollable libidos and a propensity to bend or break rules for personal gain. Kilpatrick has been embroiled in allegations of impropriety for some time, but this Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that his administration did not have the right to keep private papers relating to his attempts to cover up an extramarital affair he had with his chief-of-staff. A slew of explicit text messages between the two surfaced and revealed the affair (which Kilpatrick admitted Wednesday in a televised apology with his wife), and now the attention has turned toward his cover up, including allegations of perjury.

Such a story does not help black candidates or black leaders generally because it plays into racist predispositions about African Americans. Cognitive psychologists identify a phenomenon called “confirmation bias,” which refers to the fact that we process information that we find consistent with our preexisting beliefs in such a way as to verify and perpetuate those beliefs, but process information that runs contrary to those beliefs as anomalous – outliers that are exceptions to the belief, rather than proof to the contrary.

Assumptions about black criminality were at issue this week more broadly as a Pew Center report was released showing the racial disparity in America’s prisons. One in 109 white American men (over age 18) are behind bars; for black men, the ratio is 1 in 15; for Hispanic men, 1 in 36. For black men ages 20-34, the ratio is a staggering 1 in 9. These numbers beg the question: Why such a disparity? The answer to the question is beyond the scope of this blog, but there are only a couple of options: 1) it is biological (i.e., black folks are genetically predisposed to crime) 2) there are inequalities built into the system that result in people of color being more likely to commit crime; 3) there are inequalities built into the system that result in people of color being incarcerated at a higher rate than whites who commit crimes at the same rate and/or 4) there are cultural differences between whites and people of color where criminality is accepted in the latter and law and order is valued more in the former. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive options. They challenge us to be clear about how our public policy takes into consideration systemic factors (such as poverty) that relate to crime and incarceration.

For his part, Barack Obama referred to stereotypes this week, as well, as he did not shy away from criticisms of what he sees to be problematic in the black community. Speaking to a predominantly black group of supporters in Fort Worth, Texas, Obama lit into black adults for not being more attentive to their children. He criticized them for allowing too much television and video games, not paying enough attention to kids’ homework, and allowing them to eat too much junk food. Obama invoked the age-old “fried chicken” image by asking if they had the Southern-style fast food franchise Popeyes in Texas: "Y'all have Popeyes out in Beaumont? I know some of y'all you got that cold Popeyes out for breakfast. I know. That's why y'all laughing. ... You can't do that. Children have to have proper nutrition. That affects also how they study, how they learn in school."

The problem here is that such comments were appropriate for his immediate audience – an audience that is in a position to weigh the criticism and the invocation of the stereotype. The wider audience, though, is not in such a position. White folks’ confirmation bias will likely result in them processing the information in such a way as to reinforce what they already think about black folks. Priming schemata that contain black stereotypes results in other stereotypes surfacing. In a week when Obama can only stand to be hurt by negative stereotypes, such a message is dangerous.

If Obama wins decisively on Tuesday in Ohio, Vermont, Texas and Rhode Island, he will likely cruise on to victory as the Democratic presidential nominee. But Hillary Clinton has shown every indication that she will fight hard through Tuesday at least. As has been the case all along, the “blacker” Obama looks in the eyes of white (and, at least in Texas, according to Callejo, Hispanic) Americans, the more remote his chances to win.