Is it racism?

There is probably widespread consensus that a white person who votes against his or her economic and other interests because of the color of Obama's skin, is a racist. The question is whether the overwhelming support that Obama receives from minorities can also be classified as racism.

It is clear that the very fact that someone uses race in the decision could be classified as racism. Having said that, what race represents to white people cannot really be compared to the experience of minorities. This is an extraordinarily thought provoking examination of what Obama's race means to minorities. It's a trifle long, so, while I strongly urge you to read the whole article, here are some quotes that'll give you flavor of the article:

In describing how the author, a Hispanic, felt about his drive to succeed, he says: "I needed to succeed because I was a minority -- which meant there was no failure like success, what with the doubt and resentment that shadow one's accomplishments. (Was it because of affirmative action?)"

...

"Anyone who has ever felt in his own body the hot shame that awareness of color brings could not escape the myriad emotions that emerged in the course of Obama's campaign. There was cynicism. I certainly believed the axiom that my generation -- and who knew how many generations more to come -- would not live to see a black man become president. (The realization that I'd abandoned all hope shames me to no end.)"

...

"Obama's victory in the Iowa caucuses brought an oh-so-cautious optimism, and resurrected the ghosts of the past in fears over his safety. Then came Wright, and Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech in Philadelphia. My wife and I watched it live as we spoon-fed our twin baby daughters. Obama's attempt that morning to span the distance between his black pastor and his white grandmother -- to span the distance between all of us "others" in America -- brought tears to my eyes. (But I held them back.) It was a speech that addressed the confused kid who ran for student body president and the adult who'd endlessly wrestled with the contradiction of color."

...

"Much has been said about a "post-race" generation that Obama would seem to herald. But the very presence of the "r" word in the moniker tells us that there is more road left to travel. By insisting that we are past race, we betray how much it is still with us.

Which brings us to the intangibles of an Obama victory. What would it mean for the subject of race in America? Surely, some will see it as an opportunity to continue to open the kind of discursive space Obama himself did in Philadelphia. Others will no doubt declare the end of the story: If Obama can become president, then truly all barriers have fallen.

What difference will it make for my daughters to grow up pledging allegiance to a flag next to which hangs a portrait of Obama? Maybe, given the confluence of the economic crisis and this "historic election," America will finally be able to speak about race and social class at the same time.

In focusing on these things, perhaps I reveal myself as hopelessly trapped in the world of color I grew up in. Or maybe I'm pointing out the possibility that instead of "post-race" we are actually "pre-race" -- that is, on the verge of truly engaging the legacy of America's "original sin" and the way its reverberations affect us even today.

But right now, days before the election, I feel more than I think. I am my body, my color, with all the great weight of its shame, with all the anger about how I came to believe what others believed about me, and yes, the hope that survived my cynicism.

I am taut with tension -- as if I'm expecting a blow, as if I'm waiting for a storm to pass."

Extreme racists coming out of the closet

If anyone had any doubt what the whole "Who is Obama campaign" is about, here is a video that should dispel them.



I often wondered where the racists were. Well, now we know. By the way, this is the type of report the Arabs are seeing.

The Bradley Effect

One of the issues that has become a subject of speculation is the Bradley Effect. Does this effect really exist? How does it affect the race?

First, what is the Bradley effect?

The effect is named after Tom Bradley's run for Governor of California in 1982. On October 7th, Tom Bradley, an African American, led his GOP opponent by more than 12 points and looked set to become the first African American governor. Even on election day, some exit polls had him ahead, and some news agencies called the race in his favor. Then the results came in and he lost. The popular explanation for the error was that people were not willing to tell pollster the truth about their voter preferences because of racism. If that explanation is correct, then polls not withstanding, Obama would need to lead by 6% or more in the polls to win the election.

So, is the Bradley effect impacting the polls in this race? Probably not. Why? Well, consider the following:

• It's not clear that the Bradley effect ever existed. It may have been a cop out by agencies that got things wrong. This post explains why.
  
• If there is a Bradley effect, it didn't show up in the primaries. Generally, except New Hampshire, the polls were spot on in the primaries. Even in New Hampshire, it was more some assumption errors than the Bradley effect that explains the discrepancy.
• Much has changed demographically in the US. African Americans and minorities now make up much more of the electorate. If we assume that there is a Bradley effect, there may in fact be a reverse Bradley effect where minority turnout and votes swing so dramatically that it completely offsets the effect.

... but, that should not make you more comfortable about the polls, because:

• Polling samples people's opinions and then projects it on the population using a segmentation based on historical data. This method works well as long as the dynamics of the campaign are similar to past elections. However, if there are changes in voter turnout or some key assumptions, e.g. like having a woman or an African American on the ticket, history is not a good guide for these assumptions, and the polls become uncertain guides. Case in point, the 1992 UK elections.
• A lot of the polls at the moment factor in the opinions of the under 30 age group, which overwhelmingly supports Obama. This age group is notorious for not turning out. Their low turnout cost Kerry and Howard Dean their elections. Their low turnout impacted Ron Paul, who didn't get close the the votes he was polling in the pre-election polls. Will they turn out for Obama in the general elections as they did in the primaries?
  

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ has some more interesting thoughts on this. Overall, what all this tells us is that while polls are interesting, their predictive value in this election is uncertain. They may well be spot on, but they may be wildly wrong.

Racism in the Presidential race

There are a number of articles and opinions flying around on how race plays into the race. A couple of the more interesting blogs that have been tracking this issue are these from the BBC that track Obama and McCain on the campaign trail. They are fascinating blogs, even if you are not interested in the race question.

Here are some interesting excerpts from the blog following Obama on the campaign trail:

So no-one on the road gets into the detail of McCain's or Obama's plans. What they do talk about are the "low blows" of the campaign.

In Pennsylvania at the weekend, I was at two events with Barack Obama. When he mentioned John McCain's name, the crowd booed. It was instant, immediate. It seemed to me the "boo" of a ball game, tinged with a little irony. I did not detect any hatred. Obama immediately told the crowd that he respected John McCain's service to his country but that he disagreed on the economy and on other issues. He added that we can disagree and still respect each other.

Last week at a Sarah Palin rally in Ohio, the feelings were different. Many of the people there detested Barack Obama. "Detest" is a strong word, but I felt their dislike of the Illinois senator was visceral. Nearly everyone I spoke to doubted his patriotism.

One conversation went like this: "Do you think Barack Obama is a patriotic American?" "No. No, nothing in his background indicates that." The man went on: "I think he's got too much Marxism and black power in his background."

The man, on camera, added a bit of analysis; he thought Obama was angry because he had some white blood in him.

Another woman told me: "I just believe he is not an American. I just think he's angry."

A younger woman had a poster with a picture of Adolf Hitler on it. Hitler's face had been replaced with that of Obama. We did not use this in our coverage because we did not think it was in any way typical of the Republican crowds.

Yet the people around her did not challenge her.

An older man was explicit in that he thought "race" was an issue. But what caught my attention was "patriotism".

In our conversations, many of which were on camera, I struggled to find someone who felt Barack Obama was "patriotic".

I tried to nail down what lay behind this. Many people were disturbed by Obama's associations with the radical William Ayers and with his former pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright.

Yet I felt the concerns ran deeper than that. It was the fears of "otherness". Many of those we spoke to just felt he was not like them, he did not share their values. They spoke about lapel badges, saluting the flag and, above all, about the military. For some, being patriotic was about supporting the military.

I asked a question as to whether it was "patriotic" to oppose the invasion of Iraq. Some agreed - reluctantly, I thought.

These may be superficial encounters but the "boos" in Pennsylvania seemed different to the comments in Ohio.

…

The other fear concerns race, that some working class Democrats won't vote for a black candidate. The issue is openly discussed and no-one knows what part it will play in the silence of the voting booth.

This afternoon we were in Scranton, where Bill and Hillary Clinton appeared with Joe Biden and his wife Jill. There are still people who voted for Hillary in the primaries but are resisting voting for Barack Obama. We met a biker called Joe who was precisely in that position. He said he'd supported Hillary but was worried about Obama's background. …

The signs are, however, that the economic crisis is driving doubters into the Obama camp. The pollsters are noting a sharp increase in support for Obama and most of that is due to a feeling "that the country is on the wrong track".

…

Asheville, North Carolina: The first deep shades of autumn have descended on North Carolina. The crowds at the local high school memorial stadium were still filing in when Barack Obama started speaking.

It looked impressive, but a young man said to me: "Go 10 miles up the road into the mountains and you'll hear a different story. "Race is still an issue here."

So, later, we drove up I-63 and the Leicester Highway and turned on to a road that ran through the hills.

We were looking for interviews when we saw a man working a plot in the late afternoon sun. He was in his 50s and wore dark overalls.

He drew out his words as he thought about the election.

"I'm a Southerner," he told me, putting tomatoes into a wicker basket. "My grandfather owned slaves, but I'm thinking of voting for a black man."

I looked at him. The comment seemed to surprise him even as he made it.

He thought about it for a while and added: "It was the Wall Street bail-out that has done it."

He was disgusted that the reckless bankers were being helped - he didn't agree with debt. He was sick of Washington and was prepared to give Mr Obama a chance.

"Something is wrong with America," he said.

I asked him to go on camera but he refused. "I see how TV chops you up," he said, without meaning offence.

But he confirmed that in these rural areas race is still an issue.

For men like himself, electing a black president is still a big step. The young man at the rally had been right.

But this brief meeting confirmed something else: that the economic turmoil is challenging old certainties and prejudices.

Racist, where art thou?

This is a clip from Countdown on MSNBC. If you had been wondering where all the racists had got to, wonder no more. They were all at the McCain-Palin rallies.



Palin has managed to draw all the racists and bigots to their fray.

Objectivity and politics ...

In Charles Krauthammer's recent piece he argues: "Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not."

Really? So, how does he justify Sarah Palin and John McCain smiling blithely and egging the crowd on as the crowd shouts, "Kill Him! He's a terrorist! Off with his head!" and various racial epithets? Well, he doesn't, of course. In fact, conservatives are apparently bewildered by the media criticism of Palin, and argue that both sides engage in this type of rhetoric. Really? No sign of such hate spewing from the other side, at least not as far as anyone covering the Obama campaign can tell.

However, while I jump to condemn him, might I also be permitted to recognize that Mr. Krauthammer is the victim of one or two common human failings (you can read Daniel Gilbert's book 'Stumbling on Happiness' for a a more humorous explanation of these).

The first fallacy is how we accept and reject information. Rationalists may believe that they are like Mr. Spock, absorbing information, evaluating it with an unprejudiced eye, and then reaching a conclusion. They may believe it, but they would be wrong.

Experiments suggest that human beings generally evaluate the worst characteristics when rejecting something, and the best when accepting. So, to Mr. Krauthammer, the relevant information about Obama is the worst things about Obama, i.e. every dubious association he has ever had, his lack of experience, etc. In contrast, the relevant information about Sarah Palin are the best things about her, i.e. her ability to connect with people, be positive, and be tough. Sarah Palin is experienced because she has "executive experience" a standard by which she has more experience than John McCain. Obama is not because he has only been a community organizer, college professor, state legislator and US Senator. The point is those who support Obama can't see what Mr. Krauthammer sees and vice versa, because they have already formed their judgments and are actually seeking only confirmatory evidence, and are dismissing the non confirmatory evidence. In some cases, in experiments, people with opinions are physically incapable of seeing the evidence that does not conform. Admit it, you have sometimes turned away from information because you didn't agree with it. We all have. That's why it is so hard to be objective.

The second fallacy has to do with how those preconceived notions and judgments are formed. There is no comprehensive theory that explains how that initial judgment is formed, but we do have a lot of concepts that explain some of it. I won't attempt to go through all of them, but let me touch on a couple.

We tend to believe things that are repeated often. It's the entire basis of advertising. Say something over and over again and after a while it feels true.

The other is that we make implicit associations that are based on unconscious frameworks. For instance, in test after test, people of all races have been found to unconsciously associate African American with criminal behavior. Even African Americans tend to exhibit this bias.

The fact that you have implicit assumptions or a biased framework does not in itself lead to overt racial bias. However, it makes you predisposed to believing adverse information. Couple that with frequent repetition of that information, and a complete lack of interactions where the counterpoint is effectively presented, and very soon you may actually exhibit overt racism. Now, if you actually worked with someone or frequently interacted with someone, over time, you'd come to realize that a lot of the opinions were wrong. However, it would not necessarily eliminate the framework nor replace the opinions of others. The unconscious view of the world is surprisingly resilient.

Mr. Krauthammer's inconsistency in evaluating Palin when she commits transgressions at least equal to Obama's, suggests that he is victim to one of the most common fallacies of human behavior - i.e. he is seeking confirmatory evidence. Was this driven by race? I don't know. Was this driven by the frequency with which conservatives sling mud against Obama? Again, I dont know. However, it would be surprising if Mr. Krauthammer's prejudice wasn't, at least in part, affected by race and his constant association with people who repeat his views.

However, turning from Mr. Krauthammer to the campaign strategies, it is clear that both campaigns are using these fallacies to their advantage, Obama has systematically rebranded McCain as a Bush clone, helped along in no small measure by McCain's erratic lurch to the right. Meanwhile, the latest vehement attacks by McCain and Palin against Obama linking Obama to Bill Ayers seem designed to exploit the implicit unconscious racial bias, which they hope to reinforce through repetition.

Here's the question - to what extent has Obama reinforced his image so that people will tune out McCain's allegations? To what extent is racial bias so deep seated that it could change people's opinions with just four weeks of mudslinging? To what extent can Obama blunt the attacks by tying McCain to the economic crisis and Bush? We will soon know the answers to some of these questions.