Race & Sen. Obama’s Success
March 14th, 2008 at 07:54pm Geoff
Joe Klein makes more than a few suspect claims (superficial, unsupportable claims really) in his post yesterday on Time’s “Swampland” blog. But I would agree to an extent with his main assertion, that Sen. Obama has been successful because of his talent, not his race.
I would actually recalibrate that statement just a bit. Sen. Obama has come a long way by virtue of his talent—as Mr. Klein correctly points out, he is “the best public speaker the Democratic Party has produced since John F. Kennedy”—, but the extent of his success (at this moment, favorite to be the Democratic nominee for President) has been determined by his race to a large degree.
As Ramesh Ponnuru has documented, there have been camps within the Democratic Party for forty years now; the traditional Democrats (the most notable representatives including Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and now Hillary Clinton) and what we may call the “new” Democrats (George McGovern, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, etc.). The former has usually been more materially concerned— focusing on entitlements, welfare, and other government programs—while the latter, being more affluent on balance, has focused on the “ethereal,” like change, hope, and a new politics.
Heretofore “new” Democrats have not been very successful, with George McGovern losing in one of the largest landslides in American history in ‘72 and both Hart and Bradley failing to capture their party’s nomination in ‘84 and ‘00 respectively. What has made the difference with Sen. Obama though, as Mr. Ponnuru writes, is race. “Obama’s blackness expands the new party’s coalition in two ways. It brings in his fellow black Americans [who had previously favored traditional Democrats]. It also heightens his appeal to the party’s natural constituents. Well-off liberal white voters are delighted to have the opportunity to vote for a nice black man.”
Mr. Klein is only half-right then. Sen. Obama has gotten to the top by virtue of his talent—which is impressive in many ways—but what has put him over the top, and has distinguished him from previous failed Democrats of the same cloth, is his race.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
4 Comments
1. KMorrison | March 16th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I’m fascinated by this topic, unfortunately, it’s such a difficult one to cover in a decent way.
I can understand why Senator Obama would be offended by the theory that he’s doing well because of his race. However, he is relatively inexperienced and leans way to the left which begs the question (as the article pointed out) why is he successful when others weren’t. He certainly is the best speech maker of the lot, but does that make up for other short comings?
2. Geoff | March 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
So far it has. And in a Democratic Party primary, experience in national security and foreign affairs is not put at a premium and inveterate liberalism is far from frowned upon. That won’t necessarily be true in the general, if he’s the nominee.
3. Sarah | March 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Identity issues remind me of a riddle which asks, “Does a lion eat with his tail?” …No? …”Yes, he can’t take it off.”
4. Sarah | March 17th, 2008 at 3:21 am
I disagree with the notion of ‘color blindness.’ Color is real. But we are thinkers, not animals. The role that identity plays in voting decisions is completely subjective. Right?