Teach Your Children Well

While the vast majority of the country is looking forward with hope and anticipation to the start of Barack Obama’s presidency, a small minority of bigots are not only still licking their wounds, but refusing to accept the reality of America with a Black president.

While many bigots were concerned that Obama would win, many of them have apparently decided that his election was the end of the battle. For others, however, the concern that Obama will actually be successful is apparently more pressing. Some of the post-election hatred is coming from self-proclaimed Christians (something tells us Jesus might not approve) – and not just folks sitting around their homes. Here is the marquee from a church in Wichita, KS. Click to watch the video (below) of CNN’s Rick Sanchez’s story that includes the church’s pastor explaining (or trying to explain) the sign.

And, lest TWIR readers think the suggestions of Obama as anti-Christ were mere campaign ploys, see this Newsweek story about folks who seriously believe that he is.

The great wish that America’s racial tensions will lessen with subsequent generations is jeopardized by the resentment that some White Americans are passing down to their children. What was once implicit racial bias has, as we predicted, become explicit in the weeks since Obama was elected.

Among the most prominent in the news THIS WEEK is the incident in Rexburg, Idaho where children on a school bus chanted “assassinate Obama.” Mayor Shawn Larson issued an apology that is worthy of our analytical attention:

"I am extremely sorry that this incident occurred, and I do not believe that it reflects the values which make our community a great place to live and raise a family," Larsen wrote. "Parents must realize that things said in anger or even in jest can have lasting repercussions not only damaging young hearts and minds, but a city's reputation."

Whether purposeful or not, Larsen correctly uses language that differentiates between layers of consciousness. “Values” reside at the deepest layer under consideration here – the aspect of our thought process that is least likely to be effectively challenged. Most Americans share values and, indeed, most humans share a deep commitment to ideas of justice, equality, fairness, honesty, etc. Two layers toward (into) consciousness reside “attitudes.” These are the most likely to be challenged and changed. Adults who are open and honest about their distaste for an African American president have bigotry that resides at the attitudinal level. Most Americans do not. So when Larsen says that he does not believe that it reflects the “values which make [their] community a great place to live and raise a family,” he is technically correct.

What he misses, however, is what most of us fail to consider – the level of thought that exists between values and attitudes: beliefs. This is the place where stereotypes reside. If you have ever wondered how two Christians, for instance, can have such different political attitudes, this is the answer. While the values are identical, the degree to which and the ways in which values correspond to beliefs drive the degree to which and the ways in which beliefs are manifested in conscious attitudes. What Larsen does not identify (or perhaps even recognize) is that the collective beliefs in his community, like so many other American communities, are deeply racist. In other words, his note about the community’s values is beside the point; the values of which he is so proud have not been reconciled with resentful beliefs, which is difficult to detect under normal circumstances between at the attitudinal level, folks do not wish to be racist and know that they “should” not be (and even think that they are not), so we are skillful at hiding those beliefs – sometimes from ourselves.

But at times of high stress, fear, excitement, etc., our defenses come down, and our attitudes begin to more accurately reflect our beliefs. When this happens, we are surprised (remember how shocked Michael Richards was when he went on a racist tirade against Black hecklers at his comedy show?) because we are not used to seeing this side of ourselves. That doesn’t mean that the hatred is new; it means that the filters that we use to hide the uglier aspects of our nature fall, and we get a glimpse into who we really are.

We encourage readers to take a look at Idahoan Jeff Brady’s thoughtful op-ed regarding this incident.

In Maryland, at least one school official is working to battle the bigotry that is being reflected through children by designing a curriculum that targets racial hatred in the context of backlash against Obama’s election.

But in other places, the school officials, rather than serving as a calming force against parents’ racial hatred, are attacking minority students in the wake of Obama’s election.

In Allison Park, PA (Western PA – you know, the area that criticized Congressman John Murtha for calling them racist), a teacher’s aide went on a tirade after overhearing a Black student talking with enthusiasm about Obama’s win:

"He started laughing and went over to another student, in front of another teacher, and said that 'Oh, guess what they're going to change the flag to? The KFC flag. And they're going to change our national anthem to 'Moving On Up.’''

It's disheartening on one level, but on another level, it is very important that we recognize that these beliefs exist (and have existed) despite all of the attempts to cover it up and despite Obama's election.

Bradley Effect: Dead or Dormant?

While it will still take some time to comb through all the entire exit polling data from the presidential election, one thing is clear: there was no net Bradley effect. Barack Obama won the states he was projected to win, within the margin of error that the last polls projected him to win. This does not mean, of course, that there was no Bradley effect. It is possible that Whites who indicated support for Obama in the polls chose McCain in the voting booth, but if so, they were offset by Whites who indicated support for McCain in the polls but voted for Obama.
This is especially possible in parts of the Deep South, where the “norm of racial equality” is weaker – where White folks might have actually been driven to conceal their support for Obama.

Further, it is inappropriate to declare the death of the Bradley effect as a result of one election. It is possible that the Bradley effect did not apply to Barack Obama's presidency, but the salience of the campaign, the fact that Obama is half White, the fact that McCain's campaign was so poorly run, or the fact Obama is a "first" might have mitigated the effect in this election (though it is also possible that this would have contriubuted to a Bradley effect). So we're not sure we can sign the death certificate for the Bradley effect just yet, but we are certainly happy to sing it a bedtime story (and slip it some Ambien) at the very least.

By the way, was John McCain advocating a Bradley effect vote the night before the election when he was interviewed on Monday Night Football? We wouldn't speculate on his intent, but we wonder if the fact that he knew that a Bradley effect was his only chance at that point didn't affect his answer to the question. Watch (below) and see what you think.



In any case, Obama did not simply win the election – he dominated. A six-point popular vote lead may not sound like a lot, but when one considers that there have been only five Black candidates who have won high-profile statewide office (U.S. Senate or governor) since Reconstruction, Obama’s victory was impressive. Further, in many states where he ultimately lost, he was competitive up until to the end. The Electoral College tends to exacerbate a popular vote victory (when it doesn’t reverse it), so that trouncing of McCain paints an exaggerated picture of Obama’s support. And it is true that winning a third term for the Republicans was a long shot in the current political climate, but it is wise for us to revisit – as we did after Obama secured the nomination – our prediction nearly two years ago that Obama would not win.
Before noting that Obama would not win the Democratic Party nomination, here is what we said about the general election in December 2006:

Let's begin with the general election, where Republicans and other conservative types will of course be part of the electorate. It seems an almost foregone conclusion at this point that Republicans, especially in the South, have mastered and continue to refine the art of race-baiting; they know such messages will always find fertile ground to influence voting decisions at the least, and develop into vociferous anti-black/minority opposition, even hysteria, at most (especially in a Presidential race). Of course there is always convenient cover for such insidious messages; for Republicans, it is ideology.

And you can already see it coming in this week's evangelical rancor over Rick Warren's invitation of Obama to speak at his megachurch AIDS summit. Should Obama win the nomination, he is certain to face vigorous opposition from Republicans who believe Obama's real sin is his skin. This sentiment will be denied of course, with claims that it is his stance on abortion, stem cell research, homosexuals, etc. - not race - that is the reason for opposition.

Unlike our incorrect prediction about Obama’s inability to secure the Party nomination, we were fairly accurate in our prediction of what Obama’s opponents would do.

Republicans absolutely used ideology as a cover for their racist rhetoric. Rather than attacking Obama for being “too Black,” they called him “radical,” “risky,” and labeled his policies “socialist” and “Marxist.” Rather than using Jeremiah Wright to suggest that Obama was too empathetic to the cause of Black liberation, McCain supporters suggested that their concern was Wright’s “anti-American” positions. Nothing about Jeremiah Wright’s sermons are anti-American per se; they were anti-White supremacy, and to the extent that White supremacy is an inherent part of America, the point could be made. We’re pretty sure that’s not what the McCain supporters meant, though.

Perhaps because of the primacy of the economic crisis, there was little substitution of progressive social policy positions for race. We were, for the most part, mistaken about that.

At the end of the day, we underestimated the American public with respect to the likelihood of using Obama’s race against him. Our final sentence in that blog reads as follows: “Obama certainly has the qualifications to be President, yet the barriers of race make us quite skeptical about the possibility of the nation electing the first black President.”

But if there is any doubt about the role race played amongst McCain supporters, consider this map from The New York Times, which shows the handful of counties where McCain got more support than George W. Bush got in 2004. Progressive blogger Yglesias astutely notes that given the level of poverty in those areas, it is unlikely that McCain’s call for tax relief for the wealthiest Americans can account for this increase of support for the Republican candidate this year. As our good friend Rush Limbaugh might say, “It is totally about race!” (Thanks to loyal TWIR reader Matt Zanon for passing along this link.)
















“Wright” Up Until the End

While John McCain technically kept his promise to not invoke Jeremiah Wright during the campaign, the last two days (Sunday and Monday) saw a flurry of ads featuring the out-of-context statements by Obama’s former preacher. The Pennsylvania Republican Party (PAGOP) ran one, as did the National Republican Trust (NRT) political action committee, the friendly bigots at Freedom’s Defense Fund (FDF), and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). Click each of the four images below to enjoy the full video.









The National Republican Trust (NRT), Freedom’s Defense Fund (FDF) and the Pennsylvania Republican Party (PAGOP) released a flurry of ads that used implicit racist messages. For the PAGOP, there was an ad called “Bitter” that brought forth a flurry of White folks (and one Black man with his child) that were supposedly the target of Obama’s “elitist” comment about his inability to win over rural White Democrats during the primaries and one that altered photos of U.S. leaders meeting with leaders of rogue nations to suggest that Obama’s believe in diplomacy with enemies of the U.S. was naïve. The spot includes an image of Obama shaking hands with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



NRT ran an ad about Obama’s tolerance for terrorists, one criticizing Obama’s opposition to denying driver’s licenses to undocumented workers, and one linking his "redistributive" economic plan to illegals and terrorists.

TWIR readers will recall that FDF is the group who made the “Willie Horton 2008” spot linking Obama with former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. This group also ran an ad using Jeremiah Wright (above), and one linking Obama to a Kenyan leader (another scary Black man!).

While not a legitimate ad that ran in any states, it is interesting to note the attempted satire in this YouTube ad that targets voters who would only vote for Obama because of his race. Please be sure to note the last frame, where the person who made the ad declares that its not racist. Thanks for the heads-up, pal.

Racists for Obama


Of course, for Obama to win, he had to put together a coalition. Surprisingly, Salon reports that some of Obama’s supporters were espoused bigots. (Thanks to psychologists and loyal TWIR readers Dr. Jon Mueller and Dr. Steve Davis for passing this along.)


Strange bedfellows indeed!



Uncle Ralph

Ralph Nader, apparently not satisfied with the degree of offensiveness of his remark about Obama “talking White” this summer, had the following to say about Obama’s win: “[Obama’s] choice, basically, is whether he is going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.”

Fox News had Nader on to discuss the comment (see below), and Nader explained that Obama wasn’t Black enough in his policy preferences. What is so remarkable about Nader’s remarks here and back in the summer is that he feels so comfortable telling Obama how to be Black.

As a rule, when Fox News calls you out on your racism, you’re in bad shape. If Fox would have been as diligent in calling out conservatives on their racism as they were with lefty Nader, we would be more impressed.




Not Taking This Well

Our colleague, historian and loyal TWIR reader Dr. Alex Kindell, learned of some text messages that were going around Northwestern Indiana after Obama’s victory. Here’s some examples (spelling errors in the original):

1. Free bbq chicken, chitlins', watermelon, and 40's at the white house tomorrow be there & bring your own blunts. We runnin this shit now!
2. The Statue of Liberty is coming down today. Aunt Jemima is going up holdn a chicken leg!
3. ALL WHITE PEOPLE MUST REPORT 2 THE COTTON FIELDS TOMORROW MORNING AT 7 AM FOR ORIENTATION!!
4. Washington is on the dollar. Lincoln is on the 5. I heard Obama will be on food stamps. (Reminds us of the Republican women’s club email that came out of California a few weeks back).

The truth is, however, that many McCain supporters will be supportive of Obama's presidency at the beginning (during his "honeymoon" period). Many of these folks shed tears with the rest of us on election night as the historical importance of the moment became apparent. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will continue to have their coalition of the under-educated and the ultra wealthy, but there is little question that as a nation, we move forward together to try to address the most pressing issues of our day.


This GUEST

Be sure to check out Dr. David Worth's GUEST blog this week, where he discusses the work yet to be done with respect to race relations in America.





These ANALYSTS

Stephen and Charlton were busy this week providing analysis of the election. In addition to the spots embedded below, Stephen did an interview for TVN of Poland and had a live appearance on Al Jazeera English. If those clips become available, Stephen will post them on his YouTube page.










Re: Comments

We had to turn on the "moderator" function of the comments section because of the ridiculous amount of spam TWIR has been receiving. Please know that, as always, we will not filter or edit any germane comments. If, however, you are selling gold or erectile dysfunction remedies, you will have to look elsewhere for a host.

Here Comes the Scum

It is about to get nasty. With John McCain slipping quickly in the polls (both nationally and in key states – McCain’s campaign announced THIS WEEK that they were conceding Michigan), we are bracing for the most racially-charged rhetoric and advertisements to surface in the coming days and weeks.

Here is what to look for:

1. We certainly haven’t seen the end of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Since the high-profile release of snippets of selected sermons by Rev. Wright this spring, there has been almost no mention of him in the mainstream press. But conservative radio hosts bring him up all the time, so it is virtually certain that ads will surface that attempt to link Barack Obama to the incendiary remarks by Obama's former pastor. The plausible deniability of racism here is that it is Wright’s radical position, not his race, that makes him (and Obama’s association with him) scary. Wright’s radical positions, though, are based on theories of racial oppression and black liberation theology. Since that is not understood or endorsed by most of white America, and because it will highlight Obama’s “blackness,” the result is an effective prime of white fears and resentment about the potential policies of a black president. These concerns are reinforced by the fact that even though Obama does not espouse similar beliefs, a stereotype of African Americans is that they are shifty and untrustworthy, so it will be easy for white Americans to believe that Obama is simply being deceitful.
2. Look for associations of Barack Obama with former member of the Weathermen Underground William Ayers. Even though Ayers is white, there are racial undercurrents to Obama’s relationship with him because portraying a black candidate as “a radical,” “out of the mainstream,” or “extremely liberal” has been an effective mechanism for priming racial resentment in biracial campaigns over the past twenty years. Add to this ostensibly race-neutral (but very racially-infused) terms such as “street agitator” and “thug” (both used by Rush Limbaugh), Obama will be portrayed as “dangerous,” which plays into the stereotype of the dangerous black man that has been cultivated over the past 400 years in America.
3. While it is possible that the first two items might come primarily or exclusively from 527 groups and the Republican Party, expect the McCain campaign to hammer home a broader theme about Obama that “he’s just not like us.” Part of that will focus on policy differences (which are largely non-racial), but a large part of the strategy will also be suggestions that he is at once too black (he is liberal, he cannot be trusted, he associates himself with shady people) and elitist (he has contempt for fundamentalist Christians, he is not in touch with common people because of his Hollywood connections and Ivy League education, he has shown a disregard for American troops in battle, he is getting a pass from the “liberal elite” media while McCain and Palin are continually grilled over irrelevant issues like having seven homes or being unable to name one Supreme Court case).

The real question will be the degree to which these racist attacks will be effective. Remember that the most powerful defense against “stealth,” "implicit" or “dog whistle” racist appeals is pointing out the inherent racism in the appeals. When moderate and progressive whites realize that their deep-seated racism is being activated, the result is usually the reverse of what would be the case if consciousness is not heightened, with folks pushing against the discomfort of the realization. In this case, though, Republicans have learned from the Clintons’ strategy from the nominating contests and will accuse Obama and his surrogates of “playing the race card” when they point out the racism. Because the most dangerous thing for Obama in the remaining weeks is being seen as “the black candidate,” he can hardly afford the risk. We expect that Obama himself will avoid mentioning race at all in the coming weeks (unless there is a direct question asked of him in an interview or a debate), leaving the spotlight shining to surrogates and media analysts. Because of Republican efforts to equate the media with the Obama campaign proper, though, there will still be plenty of fodder for accusations of Obama playing the race card, which, as noted above, will be a consistent element in McCain’s attacks.

Bias Against the Young?
Tuesday is the next presidential debate, moderated by Tom Brokaw in a town-hall format. We expect that the folks who believed that Gwen Ifill could not be objective in her role as the vice-presidential debate moderator because she’s finishing a book on African American politicians will be equally vigilant about arguing that Brokaw, who wrote a best seller about “the greatest generation” will not be able to be fair toward the 40-something Obama in a debate with the 70-something McCain. Unless the attacks were more about African Americans not being able to resist helping each other at the expense of whites (or otherwise being cheaters) instead of the issue of the book. Hmmmm.

Stephen on the Move
Stephen will be making several appearances next in October. All are open to the public (with the exception of the October 24 event), so if one or more is in your area, please stop by and say hello. All times are local.

• Monday October 6: “Race in the 2008 Elections,” Perkins Auditorium, Penn State University—Berks, 6:00 p.m.
• Wednesday October 8: “Race and Politics” (panel), ATC Auditorium, Elgin Community College (Elgin, IL), 12:15 p.m. Lunch provided, though reservations required by 10/4/08. RSVP to Joyce Fountain, 847-214-7534 or jfountain@elgin.edu
• Friday October 24: “The 2008 Presidential Elections,” St. Mary’s Cathedral third grade classes (Lafayette, IN)
• Tuesday October 28: “Fairytales, Radicals and Crooks: The Role of Race in the 2008 Presidential Election,” Hart Chapel, Clarion University of Pennsylvania (time TBA)

Breaking News: Republicans Support Affirmative Action (Sorta)

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin might be an excellent choice for vice-president of the United States. While it might seem a stretch to consider that Palin could be president if the Republican ticket is elected and something happens to McCain, our attention THIS WEEK is centered on the choice itself.

Palin was clearly chosen because she is a woman. She’s not just any woman, of course, but neither is she the most qualified conservative available. Still, she is a good choice to energize the far right, who have been less-than-enthusiastic about John McCain. Palin is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and a creationist. Folks on the far right who may very well have stayed home on November 4 are likely to come out now. They may be more inclined to organize and volunteer for McCain in a way they might not have if he would have chosen Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman or even Mitt Romney. For all of these reasons, McCain has raised his raw number of votes for the general election. The question now is how many independents will revert to Obama since the Republican ticket looks more conservative than it did three days ago.

From the Republican perspective, independents will be attracted to the ticket because Palin is a proven reformer. She fought against her own party (thank goodness that Ted Stevens is now a punching bag for Republicans!), and she and her husband have ties to unions. It is clear that Americans want change, and the Republicans have put together a ticket that is designed to offer that change: a “maverick” Republican senator and a little-known woman (and that’s important) who has not always toed the party line all.

The choice of a woman for vice-president is not, as many have argued, designed to woo Hillary Clinton supporters. It was clear in Denver last week – at least for the first two days – that Clinton supporters were still angry over Obama’s nomination. But Karl Rove and McCain strategists are not stupid enough to think that Clinton supporters would vote for McCain simply because he chose a woman as a vice-presidential candidate. Most of those supporters have no policy congruence with Palin (or McCain), and they are no more likely to stay home on election day now than they were before Palin was chosen.

What Palin offers (besides appealing to the far right) is an opportunity for white voters to feel good about their ability to help make history without voting for Obama. The “history” motif is now not exclusively the domain of the Democrats. Palin will be the second woman nominated for vice-president by a major party (and the first Republican), and she would be the first female vice-president. But many of those who wish to see the political glass ceiling shattered are not willing to see it happen by someone whose policies are not in line with their interests – especially because Palin has virtually no experience, and she is not on the top of the ticket.

The tradeoff for the Republicans is that they no longer will be able to argue that Obama’s experience is an issue in the campaign. Or will they? On ABC News’s This Week, Senator Lindsey Graham argued that Palin is more prepared to be president than Barack Obama. That argument is going to be difficult to make.

What has yet to be discussed is the fact that the choice of Palin cuts against conservative ideology. For conservatives, meritocracy is the call of the day. Ignoring elements of a racist and patriarchal culture that makes it difficult for women and persons of color to compete with white males, conservatives argue that hard work trumps disadvantage, and that the person with the best qualifications should get the job. It would be very difficult to argue that Palin was the most qualified individual for this position. In short, she is an affirmative action pick. One of the reasons that her resume is thinner than that of other possible choices is that she is a woman and a mother. In a culture that places disproportionate childcare responsibilities on women, men are able to rise in their professions much more quickly. Woman are paid less, promoted less often, and perceived as less competent than men. Her gender has been a hindrance to her advancement. But will the Republicans call out Obama supporters on their inherent sexism when they question Palin’s qualifications?

It’s not likely. They’ve got no credibility on the issue since such an argument is contrary to their philosophy. But we will see them accuse Obama supporters of being sexist. Count on it.
Similar to the way Geraldine Ferraro accused the Obama camp of “playing the race card” when they called out Ferraro’s racism, the McCain folks will certainly accuse Obama supporters of being sexist when they point out that Palin was primarily chosen because she is a woman.

So here we go. Let’s keep an eye on the doublespeak that will be coming out of the Republican Convention this week. They will seek to have it both ways: they are against affirmative action when it is convenient, and they are for it when it is convenient. From where we sit, they should be for it all the time. Having a female vice-president would, indeed, be an important step toward equality between the sexes. Her lack of experience is certainly related to her gender. She will be treated unfairly as a result of her gender (watch for comments about her attractiveness, her attire, her voice, investigations into her sex life, etc.). The Republicans will use this reality to criticize Obama supporters’ attacks of Palin, even though they have dismissed similar criticisms in the past.

The result will be a muddying of the water with respect to who is standing for the ordinary American, who is on the side of history, and who is the candidate of change. The game for Obama, then, will be sorting it all out in a way that the American public can digest it. The game for McCain will be continuing to keep things confusing so that the choice for change is not so clear. McCain needs to convince voters in key states that he and Palin are simultaneously dedicated to the right and willing to fight the right when the situation arises. If they are able to pull it off, they will win in November. At this point, though, it’s still a long shot.

It's Time

Stephen will be blogging for the next four weeks from Princeton University, where he is teaching Campaigns and Elections for the Junior State of America summer school program.

Six attempts. There were six previous attempts to post this blog. The number of relevant stories as the week continued to unfold made it impossible to feel satisfied that we’d addressed what we needed to. At the bottom of this entry are links to a number of other stories that deserve our time and attention. There’s simply too much to cover.

Sunday’s Washington Post, however, provided the material that forced us to stop and think about what a truly unique time in our nation’s history we find ourselves. The time to have the most meaningful discussion of race relations in America is not only opportune, but is, we argue below, imperative. At the risk of sounding alarmist, we are at a juncture at which continual navel-gazing, avoidance, and shifting the burden will result in dire consequences for our democratic system. Here’s why.

There were two prominent stories in yesterday’s Post. The first reported the results of a new poll that shows three in ten Americans admit feelings of racial prejudice. There are always many ways to look at numbers, but this finding is nothing short of shocking. It is not shocking that 30% of Americans have racial bias – far more than that do. The number is alarming for two reasons.

First, it surprising that three in ten Americans recognize that they have racial prejudice. We certainly do not see numbers anywhere close to that in informal polling of our own students. Do three of every ten folks you talk to admit to racial prejudice? Given the culture of acceptance and tolerance that has characterized American conscious political culture over the past four decades, it is quite surprising that this many respondents were aware of their own biases.

Secondly, it is surprising that even if folks realize their own biases that they are willing to admit it to survey administrators, even anonymously. It has been very difficult to gain an accurate measure of “racism” (defined numerous ways), and social scientists have consistently assumed that the numbers generated by surveys were low. It is similar to the difficulty of ascertaining the persistence of sexually transmitted diseases without access to medical records. Folks just are reluctant to admit to that which they understand to be socially unacceptable.

The situation becomes dire as we examine the gap in perceptions of race relations between whites and blacks:

Overall, 51 percent call the current state of race relations "excellent" or "good," about the same as said so five years ago. That is a relative thaw from more negative ratings in the 1990s, but the gap between whites and blacks on the issue is now the widest it has been in polls dating to early 1992.

More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as "not so good" or "poor," while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination. There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

John Edwards has been often criticized for being divisive by noting that there are “two Americas,” but the more we acknowledge that perceptions of common circumstances between men and women, middle-class and poor, black and white, etc., the more we must admit that we are not living in one common America, no matter how much we wish to be.

What is not surprising are the results of a Post poll last month that found that nine in ten whites would be comfortable with the idea of a black president. (We should be surprised that one in ten admitted discomfort.) Yesterday’s Post story goes on to report, however, that more than half of whites called Obama a “risky” choice for president, while 2/3 saw McCain as a safe pick. While it would be foolish to dismiss the public’s familiarity with McCain, particularly when compared to Obama, it is also hard to imagine that there is not some “substitution” going on. That is, folks tend to evaluate consciously on criteria that are ostensibly unrelated to race, even though historically such characteristics are very much connected to racial stereotypes. A similar scenario exists with gender bias: women are not promoted as often as men to top corporate jobs because they lack characteristics of strong leadership – characteristics that are often associated with males. In other words: Obama is risky because he’s shifty and hates America, not because he’s black, but we “know” that blacks are untrustworthy and are angry at America because they haven’t “made it” at the same rate as whites.

Adding yet another twist to our concern is a corollary article that appeared in Sunday’s Post. Eli Saslow reports on the increased interest and membership in white supremacist groups in recent weeks (since Obama secured the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination).

"I haven't seen this much anger in a long, long time," said Billy Roper, a 36-year-old who runs a group called White Revolution in Russellville, Ark. "Nothing has awakened normally complacent white Americans more than the prospect of America having an overtly nonwhite president."

Another supremacist activist said,

"I get nonstop e-mails and private message from new people who are mad as hell about the possibility of Obama being elected," said [Don] Black, a white power activist since the 1970s. "White people, for a long time, have thought of our government as being for us, and Obama is the best possible evidence that we've lost that. This is scaring a lot of people who maybe never considered themselves racists, and it's bringing them over to our side."

And yet another admitted the following:

"Our side does better when the public is being pressured, when gas prices are high, when housing is bad, when a black man might be president," said Ron Doggett, who runs a white power group called EURO in Richmond. "People start looking for solutions and changes, and we offer radical changes to what's going on."

And what good is an article on white supremacy and politics without a quote from David Duke?

"One person put it this way: Obama for president paves the way for David Duke as president," said Duke, who ran for president in 1988, received less than 1 percent of the vote and has since spent much of his time in Europe. "This is finally going to make whites begin to realize it's a necessity to stick up for their own heritage, and that's going to make them turn to people like me. We're the next logical step."

So here is how we see it:

• Americans who consciously subscribe to racial equality have long ignored their subconscious racial bias because they are overtly egalitarian (e.g., have black friends, don’t use the n-word, etc.).

• Barack Obama’s candidacy has capitalized on this “norm of racial equality” (see Tali Mendelberg’s work) to form a coalition of progressive whites and African Americans at a time when most Americans are ready for “change.”

• Obama’s nomination will signal to whites who have resisted arguments about continuing systemic oppression against blacks that they were right all along. If black folks just worked harder, such folks will reason, they could achieve anything whites could achieve; and Obama’s nomination is proof of it. (They tried to point this out in the 1980s when the Huxtables from Bill Cosby’s popular television show had “made it!” And Colin Powell? Condoleeza Rice? Clarence Thomas? Hello?! Pay attention, people!!).

• This realization of achieved racial equality will serve to attract more whites to the idea that racial minorities are unfairly advantaged in America by a government that ignores the needs of whites. Under such circumstances (i.e., perceived equal political footing amongst whites and blacks), more whites will feel justified in fighting for “their” rights like black leaders have been doing.

At the end of last week, Barack Obama predicted in a speech that Republicans would use his race against him in the campaign:

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me: 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"'

Several news organizations questioned whether he had “crossed the line” by mentioning this (CNN’s Anderson Cooper, for instance). In truth, it has already been shown that Obama’s opponents (of both parties) are willing to draw upon racial prejudices to try to defeat him. His attempt to inoculate against it was predicted by our research findings of congressional communication involving black candidates. (See Obama’s latest ad where he emphasizes being raised on values such as self-reliance and making no excuses, as well as other values that white Americans tend to not associate with African Americans.) He wants to head it off and call attention to it because doing so has been shown to minimize (or reverse) the effects of implicitly racist messages.

As scholars dedicated to educating about power inequalities and the way our use of language can contribute to or challenge those differences, we see a moment in time that we cannot let pass. We are at a very crucial crossroads – not the first and probably not the last, but crucial nonetheless.

In addition to our scholarly work together, we are each embarking on more accessible projects separately to seize this moment and engage as many people as possible in honest and meaningful dialogue about race. We will be available throughout the fall to speak at colleges and universities (as we have for several years), civic group meetings and wherever else we are invited. We will continue to contribute to the broader discussion in this space, and we will continue to make ourselves available to media to facilitate discussions as events unfold.

If you agree (and we recognize that all of our readers do not – we are grateful for your attention, as well), we encourage you to share this blog and others that address similar topics, read as much as you can by the folks who comprise our scholarly base (Dyson, West, hooks, Patricia Williams, etc.), and talk to as many folks as you can.

This is not about electing Barack Obama. That’s a political decision that revolves around more than race. Our immediate concern is to take advantage of this crucial time in our national discourse to be clear about what we are really dealing with in America. When we launched The Project on Race in Political Communication in the summer of 2001, we did not expect to be faced with such a scenario so quickly. Win or lose, Obama’s run has provided us with this opportunity. The time is right to do our part.



Here are the other stories that deserve our attention. We are sorry that we are unavailable to discuss them all, but we encourage you to post your comments about any of them below.

Obama volunteers ban Muslim women from behind-the-podium position

In a testament to the reality that Obama’s campaign has to deal with in terms of people either believing he is a Muslim publicly or secretly, staffers engaged in the inexcusable last week in Detroit, keeping two women wearing the traditional hijab head scarf from sitting behind the podium, since folks in those positions often appear in media clips of the candidate’s speech. This is certainly not behavior befitting of a campaign that expects to be representative of all Americans, including minority groups.

In a related story, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg told a Jewish group in Florida to disregard rumors that Obama is Muslim.

New York Mets baseball team manager Willie Randolph fired in the middle of the night

Besides the fact that Randolph is black, this firing wouldn’t warrant attention in our blog. However, last month, Randolph gave an interview where he wondered aloud whether he was being treated differently by the Mets organization because he is black. See interesting discussion on this issue by William Rhoden, JonGee and “The East Coast Bias.”

Obama eschews public financing

Most Americans probably didn’t even realize that general election campaigns for president have been fully funded by tax money since the 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance reform laws were enacted. Obama will be the first major party candidate to elect to raise his own money (and therefore not be subject to spending limits for the period between the Democratic National Convention and the general election in November). Those who have pushed for more equality in elections have long advocated public funding as a remedy to the interest-group-soaked fundraising that takes place in other campaigns and in presidential nominating contests. For them, Obama’s decision will be of great disappointment. For his part, Obama claimed that the public financing system put him at a disadvantage because Republicans were better poised to take advantage of loopholes in the existing law (that John McCain famously co-wrote and pushed through Congress).

Sock Obama monkey doll gets sacked

Stephen’s colleague, psychologist Heather Coon, alerted us to a short-lived controversy by a Utah-based company that planned to manufacture sock monkey dolls in support of Obama’s candidacy. After a day or so of vociferous complaints, the company scrapped the plans and offered a curious apology, claiming that they were too naïve to know that there was any history of linking Africans and African Americans to monkeys as a source of dehumanization. Though the original page is down, you can read Andrew Sullivan’s pre-apology blog on the subject (which includes a picture of the doll), as well as an interesting article by Kyle E. Moore on racial iconography generally.