As we head into the final week before the Iowa caucuses that may determine the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, I have been continuing to wonder about the impact of race on the 2008 Presidential campaign. Specifically is it racist or is it wrong (for any other reason) for Democrats to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, or for Democrats to oppose Barack Obama because they think his race will make him a weaker general election candidate. I guess I might as well pose the third question in this group, is it racist to think about this topic. I believe the answer to all three questions is no.
Please follow me below the fold if you are willing to consider this topic.
The dictionary definitions of racism are 1) the belief or doctrine that one’s own race is inherently superior to and has a right to rule over others and 2) discriminatory or abusive behavior towards others because of their race.
It seems hard to deny that some black Americans are excited about the possibility of electing a black President and are supporting Barack Obama because of his race. In fact, there are also many white Americans who feel the same way, that with everything else being near equal in their mind they would like to break this barrier and have the country elect it’s first black President. I don’t consider those positions to be racist by either of the two definitions I posted above even if it may be somewhat unfair to equally qualified candidates who don’t happen to be black.
It is unfortunately still true in this country that racism does exist and that there will be some citizens who will vote against a qualified candidate just because of their race. Obviously that is racist and it is wrong. I have not quite figured out the distinction between people who vote for someone because of their race (which I think is not racist) compared to people who vote against someone because of their race but I thik the distinction is there. To deny that there are people who will vote against Barack Obama in the general election just because of his race and because of his background is simply to attempt to deny the reality of the world we live in. The question that might be worth arguing is exactly how many of those people exist, what regions of the country they live in, and how many of them might otherwise have voted for a different Democratic Presidential candidate.
Democrats have an obligation to select their best candidate and considerations of electoral strength is certainly a legitimate issue. In a closely devided country the selection of a black candidate may very well be the difference between winning and losing the general election. I believe it is totally appropriate for primary voters to take that issue into consideration in selecting a candidate and not racist either to consider this factor or to talk about it publicly.
It is a difficult issue to poll, because the number of people who will admit that the reason they might no vote for Obama for President is racist is fortunately a relatively small number of them are likely to vote for any Democratic candidate. I am convinced however, that there are some voters (enough to swing a close election) and specifically in swing states that a Democrat might win (like Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa) who might vote Democratic for economic reasons who will find a reason (other then acknowledging race) to choose not to vote for Obama when push comes to shove.
Senator Obama (if nominated)might ultimately win a narrow general election victory but in my opinion it would be a(much)closer election then if John Edwards were the nominee and in the end he might lose.
When the caucuses are over and if Obama does not win (as I expect)it will be legitimate to question why the critical first election was held in a state with such a small non-white population. It will also be legitimate to discuss the impact of Obama's race on the results.