Discriminations: Good Advice, Incredibly Dumb Argument

First, let me say that everything written by Peter Beinart, an Editor-at-Large of The New Republic and currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is not dumb. Second, the advice he gives Obama in a Washington Post OpEd today to abandon race-based for class-based affirmative action is good — good for Obama, good for the country. But third, his argument supporting this sound conclusion ranks among the most egregiously dumb things I’ve ever read.

Beinart begins by arguing that even though Obama “really, really doesn't want this campaign to be about race” (“He wants it to be about change...”), it will be. Why? Because there are so many racists who won’t vote for a black and, perhaps more importantly, he says, “[r]ace will be central to this campaign because McCain needs it to be.”

That’s the lesson of recent weeks, when the McCain campaign brought up race (on the pretext that Obama had brought it up first). The Obama campaign tried desperately to change the subject but couldn’t. Once the chum was in the water, the media sharks went wild.

So, Obama bringing up his looks over and over again and warning that the mean, evil Republicans were going to try to make voters afraid of him because he’s black does not count, for Beinart, as bringing up race.

Moving on:

Already, there is reason to believe that race is weighing Obama down. A survey this year by CBS and the New York Times found that 94 percent of respondents would vote for a black presidential candidate. But when asked if “most people” would, the number dropped to 71 percent. Notre Dame political scientist David Leege estimates that 17 to 19 percent of white Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents will resist voting for Obama because he is black. That’s far more than the percentage of Republicans who may vote for Obama because he is black. And it’s a major reason that this election — despite Obama’s myriad advantages — remains close.

Here Beinart seems to assume that what people say “most people” would do is more accurate than what they say they would do. He ignores Republican-leaning independents who might vote for Obama because of his race, black conservatives who wlll vote for Obama because of his race, and he also ignores what will almost certainly be a larger than normal turnout of black voters who will vote for Obama because of his race (see Ward Connerly’s discussion of them here). Still, Beinart, seer that he is, is able to look into the collective hearts, minds, and souls of American voters and conclude that the only reason the race “remains close” is the racism of white voters.

Now it really gets good. Despite the pervasive racism of the electorate Beinart remains an optimist, “because even racists can be wooed.”

Think about it this way: Many of the voters who right now won’t vote for Obama because he’s black would probably vote for Colin Powell even though he’s black. That’s because they don’t see Powell as a racial redistributionist, a guy who would favor his community at their expense.

What Beinart is really saying here is that Powell is not really black, because he’s not a “racial redistributionist.” [The following sentence was added and the one after that modified after initial posting.] It never seems to occur to Beinart that if voters will vote for black candidate P, who does not support racial redistribution, but will not vote for black candidate O, who does (or who they think does) support racial redistribution, the reason they don’t support O in greater numbers is not at all because they’re racist and he’s black but because they disagree with his position on an issue (actually, probably many issues) that are important to them.

If I cared what Beinart thought I would wonder if he believes the inevitable corollary of his almost silly attempt to explain differing white responses to Powell and Obama while continuing to maintain that large numbers of white voters are racist — if Powell is not really black because he doesn’t believe in racial redistribution, then people who look white but do believe in racial redistribution are really black. Beinart, thus, is not only a seer but also the arbiter of blackness in our society.

You’d think that Beinart, already in way over his head, would stop digging (especially because what he’s digging in is not dirt), but no, the hole he’s standing in just keeps getting bigger.

There’s no rational reason to believe Obama would [favor his community at their expense], either. But because, unlike Powell, Obama is a liberal Democrat who enjoys overwhelming black support, that’s what many racially hostile white voters assume.

At this point one can only wonder how someone like Beinart, who apparently can neither read nor hear, has managed to scale the heights of intellectual influence in this country. Does not the facts that Obama supported extreme racial preferences, even quotas, in his legislative career in Illinois (see article mentioned here) and that he has steadfastly maintained his support for racial preferences in the current campaign provide quite a bit more than a “rational reason to believe” that a President Obama would continue to support racial preferences? Can Beinart, seemingly unaware of these facts, point to even one example of a racial preference policy that Obama has ever opposed?

Can Beinart really believe that a black president supporting preferential treatment for blacks is somehow not “favor[ing] his community” at the expense of those who are denied preferential treatment because of their race? On second thought, after reading this OpEd I’m prepared to believe that Beinart can, and does, believe whatever he wants.

If a peanut-growing president favored federal subsidies to peanut growers but not to others, some liberals and mainstream media mavens (but I repeat myself) might grouse about conflict of interest. But race, we keep being told, is different.

Say What?

"Think about it this way: Many of the voters who right now won’t vote for Obama because he’s black would probably vote for Colin Powell even though he’s black."

I've thought about this and concluded Peter is illiterate. He describes voters who won't vote for Obama because they believe he supports redistributionist policies as not voting for him because he's black. Is there anything more Orwellian than describing something accurately but then pronouncing the opposite conclusion?

This reinforces my continuing point that race is so poisonous that for the most part it can't even be discussed. Too many parties simply lose their minds whenever the subject comes up.

Posted by: mj | August 13, 2008 9:57 AM

A Pet Peeve:
You don't mean, "everything written by Peter Beinart ... is not dumb"; you mean, "not everything written by Peter Beinart ... is dumb".

However, based on the quote you give, I suspect that both of these assertions are false.

Posted by: LTEC | August 13, 2008 11:22 AM

if you don't vote for obama, you are a racist. That's the message to white people. I wonder if it applies to hispanics and asians and arab americans and others, or if we are to assume that they will of course vote for obama. Interesting to see if americans will be "guilted" into making Obama president, a man with nothing but youth, attractiveness, and yes, race to recommend him as president. if he was white, no one would think about him twice, a hard line leftwinger with no experience in governing.

Posted by: Anita | August 13, 2008 2:46 PM

Does the WaPo have an editor who actually reads it and takes no note, or just a matador- "it's from so and so, I'll just wave it through".

Posted by: David | August 13, 2008 7:10 PM

Anita writes:

>>>"Interesting to see if americans will be "guilted" into making Obama president, a man with nothing but youth, attractiveness, and yes, race to recommend him as president. if he was white, no one would think about him twice, a hard line leftwinger with no experience in governing."

I guess you're not a history buff, Anita.

>>>"Abraham Lincoln is the consensus choice for being the best President in American history. He preserved the Union and put an end to slavery. Yet, he served but 4 terms in the Illinois General Assembly and one term as a U.S. Congressman. No wonder supporters of Barack Obama are able to counter the argument that Senator Obama is too inexperienced to serve as President. If Lincoln could have been such a great President without prolonged elected public office experience then maybe such experience is not crucial. Further, Lincoln had no significant experience in foreign affairs before becoming President."

Art Pitz
http://www.qctimes.com/blogs/?p=2130

You want to tear Lincoln off Mount Rushmore, don't you, Anita? You want to melt down every penny? You want Jerome Corsi to write some scaborous screed about Lincoln's alleged "muslim" ties based upon his beard, right?

Just face it, Anita. You're just another Obama- hater pleading for another disastrous Bush term.

--Cobra

Posted by: Cobra | August 14, 2008 11:10 PM

if you don't vote for obama, you are a racist. That's the message to white people

Yes, I agree that liberals are making this argument. And, frankly, if I were the McCain campaign, I'd be spreading this message very widely. (No, Cobra, not to appeal to racists, who obviously wouldn't need to be appealed to. To appeal to the large number of non-racist people in the middle who thought Willie Horton was a criminal, not a black man.)

Posted by: David Nieporent | August 15, 2008 6:06 AM

Cobra,
Another great comment. Hysterical. I'm sure Grand Dragon Anita is busily collecting pennies and grinding off the image of Lincoln as we speak. Or maybe planning the destruction of his face on Mt. Rushmore with explosives. One can hope! Your stuff is always great for a laugh. Thanks again.

Posted by: BNP | August 15, 2008 12:01 PM

Cobra, I doubt Anita is pleading for another Bush term. She probably knows President Bush isn't running for re-election.

This: "You want Jerome Corsi to write some scaborous screed about Lincoln's alleged "muslim" ties based upon his beard, right?" is a bit much, surely? Does it irritate you that much that Anita doesn't support Obama?

Posted by: Laura(southernxyl) | August 15, 2008 12:04 PM

Obama, as an articulate ignoramus, reads very well off a teleprompter. He does less well in debates, particularly impromptu formats.

Obama is a devastating threat to black Americans, and we don't even realize it!

Posted by: Viper | August 15, 2008 3:30 PM

Cobra:
"You want to tear Lincoln off Mount Rushmore, don't you, Anita? You want to melt down every penny? You want Jerome Corsi to write some scaborous screed about Lincoln's alleged "muslim" ties based upon his beard, right?"

Lincoln was a Muslim? Who knew. Thanks, Cobra, for bringing this to our attention.

Posted by: John Rosenberg | August 16, 2008 2:30 PM

BNP writes:

>>>"I'm sure Grand Dragon Anita is busily collecting pennies and grinding off the image of Lincoln as we speak."

Hey B, I don't think I exaggerate too much given Anita's past posts here regarding African-Americans. I can't believe Lincoln is one of Anita's favorites, given all his "emancipation" stuff. Lincoln sounds downright "liberal" by today's talk radio standards. Roger Clegg and his acolytes certainly can't be big fans, right?

Laura writes:

>>>"This: "You want Jerome Corsi to write some scaborous screed about Lincoln's alleged "muslim" ties based upon his beard, right?" is a bit much, surely?"

Over the top? A little. I'll concede the point.

>>>"Does it irritate you that much that Anita doesn't support Obama?"

No. I'm not surprised at all, given her overall view of African-Americans, much less the vast majority who don't support Republicans.

I just have a problem with falsehoods and inaccuracies regarding Presidential qualifications.

Viper writes:

>>>"Obama, as an articulate ignoramus, reads very well off a teleprompter. He does less well in debates, particularly impromptu formats."

Earth to Viper...Obama is a lawyer, who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, and was the President of the Harvard Law Review. He was a visiting professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. If anybody has the ability to speak extemporaneously, it's Obama, but because of the nature of politics in 2008 he can't be professorial and legalistic.

That he uses a teleprompter for TELEVISED SPEECHES is now some sort of crime?

...

Are you flippin' kidding me?

If ANYTHING, Obama is restricted linguistically in his speeches by the American people's nagging desire to have things dumbed down.

>>>"Although he has worked to shorten his answers to questions in interviews and debates, the Ivy League-educated candidate does have a tendency to use big words and phrases, such as "actuarially speaking."

On several scales of "readability," which measure the level of education needed to understand a piece of writing, Obama tends to speak two grade levels above Sen. Hillary Clinton, according to a recent Tribune analysis. Typically, he speaks the language of high school seniors or college freshmen, while she speaks the language of high school sophomores or juniors."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-professor-obamaapr25,0,4289836.story.
But of course, this is Bushamerica 2008. A multi-syllabic black man, who pauses to actually THINK out an answer to a given question, instead of spitting out some focus group approved soundbite is now a bad thing.

Outrageous!

How else can you explain the fixation with the SITTING President, who mangles the English language at nearly every opportunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism

But hey, you can have a beer with President Bush right?

If you can afford one...

>>>"Obama is a devastating threat to black Americans, and we don't even realize it!"

Who is "we?"

This is Discriminations. I could probably count on one hand how many posters here would care about a "devastating threat" to Black Americans, as ridiculous as it sounds.

Posted by: Cobra | August 16, 2008 4:39 PM

Discriminations

cogitations declarations contemplations inspirations conversations ruminations

Good Advice, Incredibly Dumb Argument

TrackBack

Say What?

Post a comment