AAASCEC -- Directors Thoughts
Obama wins the nomination and still disingenuous questions linger
by Judson L. Jeffries, Professor of African American and African Studies The Ohio State UniversityRace has a way of rearing its ugly head whenever a Black candidate runs for elected office. Nearly all Black candidates who run for political office in an overwhelming majority white jurisdiction go out of their way to avoid mentioning race in any context. If she/he is running for an office that has never been held by an African American he/she counsels his campaign handlers and surrogates to refrain from calling attention to the potentially historic significance of being the first Black to occupy said office. Doing otherwise would raise latent fears among whites about the balance of power between the races. For example, when Douglas Wilder ran for governor of Virginia in 1989 some whites indicated that they were reluctant to vote for Wilder, because they feared that, if elected, he would fill the 3,000 appointments afforded the Virginia governor with “mostly Blacks.” Shrewdly, Wilder took great pains to stay clear of race—focusing on issues that are devoid of racial overtones such as the environment, education, the economy, abortion and taxes—issues that transcend race. Wisely, Obama has campaigned similarly. In both cases though neither the media nor their white opponents have been as conscientious; constantly asking if Obama’s supposed unpopularity among blue-collar whites is attributed to race; repeatedly referring to the fact that Obama has made history as the first Black Presidential nominee of a major party probably does more harm than good. Consistent references to Wilder’s historic candidacy in 1989 in many of Virginia’s news dailies surely undercut some of his white support, even in places like Norfolk where whites were supposedly open to the idea of a Black governor or shall I say less resistant to the idea of a Black head of state.
Reporters typically make an issue of race even when the candidates, even white candidates choose not to. But on those rare occasions when reporters fail to do so one can always count on the white candidate to raise the issue in a way that gives him or her plausible deniability. In other words, some white candidates will draw attention to a matter that is not overtly racial, but can be racially construed by many white voters. For example, Black candidates, but especially those who run for governor, the U.S. Senate and the presidency are forced to pass white peoples’ litmus test. One very important component of that test is that Black candidates have to reassure whites that they aren’t like most Blacks, and that they do not associate with white peoples’ image of the typical Black, that is an angry Black man. Black candidates have to prove that they do not keep company with Black figures that make many whites feel uncomfortable in a racial way. Whites do not want to be made to feel that they are responsible for Black people’s plight. Blacks who castigate whites for creating the conditions under which Blacks have languished rub many whites the wrong way. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is such a figure. Not surprisingly then, when the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson ran for president in 1984 and 1988 he was widely criticized for his relationship with the Muslim leader. Certain segments of the media and white public were not satisfied until Jackson publicly distanced himself from Farrakhan. In 1989 Wilder kept Jackson at arm’s length, declining Jackson’s invitation to campaign on Wilder’s behalf. In fact, the Wilder campaign diplomatically asked Jackson to stay out of Virginia altogether for fear that Jackson would polarize the electorate. After Jackson’s unfortunate remark about New York, calling it Hymietown, Jackson gave, as far as many white voters were concerned, good reason to believe that he was anti-Semitic; as if Jackson’s background as a civil rights leader was not enough to turn some whites off, now in their eyes, he had proven himself anti-Jewish. The fact that most whites weren’t going to vote for him anyway is beside the point.
Obama has been subjected to the same litmus test that both Wilder and Jackson encountered. Early on, some tried to link Obama with Farrakhan, but the ploy lacked traction. Although Obama and Farrakhan had no known friendship, the fact that both championed Black people’s cause and lived in Chicago seemed to some a logical, but fallacious assumption, for some, to make. When the Farrakhan association did not stick, Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright was made an issue. The militant Black minister, in the tradition of Vernon Johns, was called racist because he preached the truth about a country for which he served honorably and admirably. Comically, he was called unpatriotic because he criticized the current administration in a time of war. I say comically, because Wright represents the very essence of a patriot; that is one who fights for (whether in the military or in another capacity) his country when he believes the cause is just and one who criticizes and fights against his country when he believes it is in the wrong. Still, the Black candidate (in this case Obama) was pelted with questions from many corners about his friendship with his fiery pastor. Eventually, during a televised debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama was compelled to denounce comments made by his pastor of more than twenty years.
Wright is someone who makes whites feel uncomfortable. Consequently, they need to know that Obama, a candidate for the presidency, does not harbor similar sentiments. To convince whites of this Obama had to distance himself from the man who had helped develop him spiritually. Months after having shrewdly denounced Wright, Wright is still a topic of conversation for some whites who claim that their only concern about Obama was his association with a known racist. Such a claim is incredulous, not to mention disingenuous on many levels.
For Black candidates who are considering a run for governor, the U.S. Senate and the presidency, passing white people’s litmus test is an occupational hazard that few have been able to get around. This, by and large is the reason why only two Blacks have ever been elected governor; three Blacks have ever been elected to the senate and no Blacks have ever been elected to the oval office.
Judson L. Jeffries is a professor of African American and African Studies at The Ohio State University. His research and published work reflect his knowledge of American and World Politics, Homeland Security, Race and Politics, Public Policy and Media and Politics. Judson's most recent book, Black Power in the Belly of the Beast, was nominated for the 2007 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award, the only American book award designated specifically to recognized works addressing issues of racism and diversity.
