Posted on 03/21/2008 4:32:04 AM PDT by Renfield
The racial dimension of Barack Obama's electability problem is now apparent, but no prominent Democrat dares discuss it openly. Similarly expect no discussion of the subject in the major media.
The white working class vote
I am not referring to the ongoing and intense discussion of The Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright is a separate problem for Obama. Whether Obama has been, or will be, permanently weakened by his long and close association with Wright, or has soared above it with his Philadelphia speech, is not the subject of these thoughts. Something much simpler than the answer to that question has been starkly apparent for some time, certainly since well before the Wright eruption: Consistently, and by large margins, Obama has lost the white working class vote to Clinton in all states critical to the Democratic ticket this November. The lurking suspicion -- impossible to verify or refute -- is that much of Clinton's handsome portion of this demographic will not go to Obama in the November election.
This has grave implications for a Obama, at least in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Working class whites have voted heavily for Clinton in these states (or, in the case of Pennsylvania, will soon do so). The return of the Reagan Democrats, not the odious fulminations of Reverend Wright and their consequences, is what is now driving Democratic Big Wigs to the bourbon cabinet. Predictably, the media either refuses to acknowledge this now established voting pattern or, in some cases, actually denies its existence.
The latest example of denial is by Dan Balz, staff writer for the Washington Post, who remarked in his March 17, 2008 article purporting to analyze the white male vote, that Wisconsin (where Obama did relatively well among white males overall) and Ohio (where Clinton crushed him, 66-33%, among white working class males) are "states with striking similarities." It appears Mr. Balz has not looked at the two states closely and thoughtfully. In the crucial details of racial demographics, Ohio and Wisconsin are worlds apart; and it is through these details that Obama's white working class problem can be understood.
A tale of two states
Here are some pertinent facts about Wisconsin and Ohio: Wisconsin has about 5.5 million residents, Ohio about 11.3 million. Wisconsin is about 89% white and 5.7% black, while Ohio is 85% white and about 11.5% black. The small (but statistically significant) difference in percentage of blacks living in the two states was the least part of Obama's problem in Ohio. Obama's real difficulty in Ohio - and it has been a consistent one for him in similar states -- is the widely dispersed and interwoven location of the two racial groups in that state, versus their relative isolation from each other in Wisconsin. Here, I warn the reader, we are entering emotionally rough terrain for those schooled only in the mandatory American racial catechism of the last forty years.
For at least the last two generations America's racial policies have been predicated on a near religious belief that increased contact between the races will produce harmony, good feelings and positive relationships. Our experience during this period has been uniformly the opposite. Urban white liberals have fled the public schools by the hundreds of thousands, self-segregation by blacks on university campuses is widespread, resentment in the workplace (by both races) ubiquitous etc. In his Philadelphia speech Obama himself referred -- perhaps the first such reference by a black politician without open contempt -- to the concerns that many white Americans have about blacks.
The salient fact is this: in settings where the two races deal more directly with each other, and get to know each other better, through shared public schools, workplaces, public conveyances, universities, etc., they seem to like each other less, not more.
This fact is laid bare, at least for anyone willing to see it, by the Democratic primary results thus far.
Consider the following additional facts about Wisconsin and Ohio, those states with "striking similarities."
In Wisconsin more than 75% of the black population resides in the Milwaukee area, a metropolitan area that accounts for only 32% of Wisconsin's total population. This means that in Wisconsin the white portion of 68% of the state's population (which is more heavily white than the state as a whole because of the concentration of blacks in Milwaukee) rarely if ever encounters blacks. Thus, for a high proportion of Wisconsin whites, blacks are abstractions, approached most closely by turning on Oprah.
Now consider Ohio: to begin with, the black population, in percentage terms, is nearly double that of Wisconsin (11.5% versus 5.7%). But its dispersion within and among the white population is the real difference between the two states'racial demographics. In Ohio 80% of the state's 11.3 million residents reside in the eight largest metropolitan areas (Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron, Dayton, Youngstown and Canton). These cities contain, in the order listed, 24%, 51%, 43%, 24%, 28%, 43%, 44% and 21% black residents. Thus, in Ohio a very high percentage of the white population, particularly its working class component, has regular contact with blacks, or, if living in outer suburbs, has direct contact with other whites who do.
The widely disparate residential patterns of the races is obvious: in Wisconsin, the vast majority of whites live, work, shop, and send their children to school in a world that includes few if any blacks; in Ohio the reverse is true, and the races regularly brush up against each other in all these categories of daily life. Judging from how well Obama did among white voters in these states (satisfactorily in Wisconsin, abysmally in Ohio) increased racial familiarity is not a boon to the Illinois Senator.
The sad truth about racial interaction
Good debaters (and those on the ideological Left) will point out that I have linked two phenomena causally (racial interaction, on the one hand, and disinclination by working class whites to vote for a black candidate, on the other) without actually demonstrating cause and effect. But fortunately it does not take a Ford Foundation grant and a two year study to see what is happening. In this year's Democratic primary results the two phenomena -- extensive racial interaction and poor outcomes for Obama among working class white voters -- have been so universally conjoined that cause and effect can be reasonably presumed.
Without exception, the Wisconsin pattern (little interracial contact) and the Ohio pattern (much more such contact) have correlated with identically opposite results throughout the Clinton/Obama battles: every state outside the South where Obama carried the white vote and won the primary or caucus was one with a small to negligible black population (Wyoming, Vermont, Wisconsin, Maine, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Idaho, Alaska and Iowa); in every state where a substantial and widely dispersed black population regularly interacts with whites, Obama lost the white vote and lost the primary: Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. I have omitted the candidates' home states (New York for Clinton, Illinois and Hawaii for Obama). Pennsylvania, where Clinton has a commanding lead, will follow the Ohio pattern, as will Florida and Michigan in the increasingly unlikely event of do overs.
Simply put, blacks and whites are not doing well together in America, circa 2008. Obama's battle with Clinton, all the pretty rhetoric notwithstanding, is remorselessly exposing that undiscussed fact. Obama is hurt by this -- severely it would appear -- in states where the races interact extensively, particularly at the working class level; while, in states with few blacks, the lamentable state of America's race relations is masked and Obama does reasonably well among white Democrats.
But the states with extensive racial interaction are precisely those that Democrats regularly carry, or need to carry, to win. Of course in several such states whites in general vote sufficiently Democratic to overcome the now obvious disinclination of working class whites to vote for Obama (e.g., Massachusetts, New York, California). But that is not true of the critical states mentioned above and, possibly, several others.
Candor
Michelle Obama attended Princeton and the Harvard Law School. Taking her at her word, interacting with whites in these rarified settings did little to improve her feelings about her country, including, presumably, the whites who made up the majority of her classmates. Given America's current rules of racial engagement -- which allow negative views of whites by blacks to be expressed but forbid the reverse - Mrs. Obama felt free to express herself publicly (though now, no doubt, wishes she had been less candid).
On the other side of the divide, the only remaining permissible venue for white expression of racial grievance is the voting booth. Where social policy, proximity, and numbers create mandatory interaction by whites and blacks in settings less elegant than Princeton and Harvard, white disenchantment engendered by that interaction finds its outlet in elections.
The theory that greater familiarity is an antidote to mutual antagonism holds only if each party likes what it sees in the other as the familiarity develops. This does not appear to be the case with either principal race in America. The consequences are playing out at the ballot box.
Doubters of this reality should not only consider Mrs.Obama's words, but take a look at the racial demographics of states outside the South where her husband won the white vote (and the state), and compare them with the racial demographics of the states where he lost the white vote (and the state).
Whether this voting pattern will persist is a matter on which no guess is ventured. Whether the Wright fiasco will worsen it for Obama is unknoweable. That the pattern does exist is an indisputable fact.
You nailed it. Those "working class racists" as described by this author are, by and large, patriotic. They drive around with flags on their vehicles and are among the first to volunteer when their country needs them. They're the salt of the earth types whose families have been here for generations. They just don't get it yet that the Democrat Party (for which they've voted for generations) has veered to the far left.
The author of this article is trying to deflect the issue and put whites on the defensive again. Gotta keep the focus where it belongs - on the "hate America" crowd (of any and all races).
“we came here as slaves” -
If you REALLY wanna anger someone using this “argument stopper”,
ask them if they’d be better off born in Africa.
I think I recall that PK is an Obama supporter.
He may use this as ammo to take out Hillary.
Dude!
BRILLIANT!!!!!
It's the perfect 'Rat ticket.
He may use this as ammo to take out Hillary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Use what as ammo?
Based on my reading of the article, you must follow the Wisconsin pattern.
John Zogby.
It makes me sad to watch my children develop their own animosities to black people, after having been raised not to, by their own observations about the behavior of the black children in their school.
..Is basically that his Mad Monk wants to be the one who spreads lime on the floors of the boxcars reserved for Whitey.
Familiarity breeds contempt.
What is the percentage of Blacks are currently in prison relative to their make up in the national population?
What is the percentage of drug use in the Black population?
What is the number of unwed mothers in the Black population?
How many Black woman have multiple children by multiple fathers?
What is the crime rate among the Black population?
Why is it that almost every other minority in America - even Hispanics - has generally thrived in this country? Sure, Blacks were slaves, but they were slaves in many, many other countries as well. In fact, throughout history, many people were enslaved. Whites look at Blacks and ask, "When does it end? When has the debt been repayed?" Further, Whites ask, "Why not stop harboring this grudge from 150 years ago, move on, and improve your lot in life?"
For whatever reason many Blacks, as Obama pointed out, soothe themselves by taking comfort in the fact that their forebearers were at one time oppressed. But one can reasonably ask, "Is this not an excuse merely to absolve yourself from even attempting to succeed?"
Most regrettable is that Black animus against Whites has assiduously been passed down from generation after generation by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright. Where are men today like Martin Luther King? No, the real sin of Obama is that he has supported and facilitated the spread of hate through Jeremiah Wright to the next generation of Blacks, including his own children. That is a sad fact, and it is the reason he is unfit to lead this nation.
Fixed it.
I wonder if any of conservative 527 groups dare to put this on political ads. They should.
I agree....
When we lived in Louisiana, my sons had several black children in their schools, because.. we lived in a small town (Sulphur) with a decent percentage of blacks who lived near us, and who worked at good jobs in the chemical plants. They all got along just fine. Several would come to our house to play after school. I coached my son’s BBall team, with a lot of help from one of the black fathers. They managed to maintain their own “culture”, but were openly accepted by all.
When we moved to Louisville, the only blacks they saw at Middle School were those bussed in from the inner city. 80% of them were unbelievably disruptive. They would “hang together” separately in gangs, they cursed at the teachers, they refused to do ANYTHING To participate in the learning process... and, the school did nothing to them... just passed them along.
It broke my heart to hear the way their opinions were changed. Fortunately, they’ve had better experiences in High School and college.
Obama really has the Demo contest won. He is the smartest, most sincere, best new ideas man to come along in quite a while and young enough to see it through. Of course there is not a "for sure" that some of this stuff will work. But to fail to give it a try, just like the "Power I" in football would be a shame.
One of his competitors is a low life. Very old fallen rotten fruit. Hillary has scorned this country and taken everything for herself. She is a witch in a bumble Bee suit. And she really lost the nomination. She can't win, unless by Fiat. And the Clinton's are masters of that. What living, not brain dead American would want to have those varmint's back in the WH, besides Rush?
McCain is old and heard yesterday on CSpan, frail. I really don't think he is up for the job and could have a falling out or down anytime. His ideas are old school and will not advance the American Experience. Too many years with fingers in the soup. I sincerely hope and pray that he can make it through the election.
Barack is a fresh face that is looking at a larger influence in the world for America. And we need it. This stay at home, play prevent defense, and pat everyone on the back saying isn't it great, is horse crap.
I worked hard for Bush (3500 phone calls) and generally am pleased with his years in office. But in many cases he just didn't have the stones to get things done. I'm really looking forward to a change.
So lets elect Barack and try some of the new ideas. It will be fun and exciting.
It’s not racial. It’s cultural. It just so happens that the culture that you mentioned is largely, but NOT exclusively, black. That sort of “gangsta” culture, one that actively punishes those who seek to break out of it, one that continually plays the victim over and over again, isn’t exclusive to blacks; nowadays you find a lot of Latinos and even some Asians and whites in it as well.
I know black people who work hard, and have achieved, and are great to be around. I don’t care about their race. I’d take them over a trashy white Eminem-style “homeboy” any day of the week.
}:-)4
Many years ago, I used to have “passionate discussions” (Not arguments!) with an intelligent black co-worker who was a liberal democrat.
Every bad thing that ever happened to him, he chalked up as ‘racism’. It’s all they know. It becomes self-reinforcing. Since we’re white, when bad things happen.. we come up with other excuses.... “he didn’t like my long hair”, “He’s a jerk”, etc...
Invariably, our “discussions” would end with him saying: “You just don’t know what it’s like to be black”. To which, I would answer... “No.. and you just don’t know what it is to be white”. We DO NOT look at the world strictly through a racial prism... cause, it’s just not a big deal for us.
I really don’t know how we get past this....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.