Sometimes it’s shockingly explicit, sometimes it’s subtle, but it’s always present: There’s an undeniable racial undertone to this year’s US presidential contest between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.
Part of it is structural: Most Americans are no longer white. This year, for the first time, Latinos, African-Americans, Asians, and Native Americans together outnumber Caucasian Americans. And this trend will only become more pronounced. Hispanic Americans, the largest “minority”, have birth rates above replacement, while whites do not. Scan the crowds that attended the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte this week and the Republican Convention in Tampa last week, and then contrast them. One quickly concludes that the Democratic Party reflects America’s diverse and dynamic demographic profile, whereas the Republican Party is more of a “whites only” enclave. The Democratic Party is increasingly the “majority minority party”, in the memorable phrase used here, and the Republic Party the diminished “majority”, which has now too become a “minority”.
Yes, there are noteworthy exceptions. The Republicans showcased upcoming members such as Senator Marco Rubio from Florida (a Cuban American) and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina (she’s South Asian), as well as former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice (who is, of course, African-American). But its core support is largely white, predominantly male, increasingly from the South, and less and less urban. Present trends are not encouraging for the longer-term future of the Republican Party.
Not unless Republicans are able to broaden their attractiveness. The party is trying hard to woo Latino voters and not lose most of them forever to the Democratic Party. Appeals are being made to Hispanics’ Catholicism and social conservatism, plus their small business orientation. Yet the Republicans’ restrictive, narrow platform on illegal immigration — and Mitt Romney’s notion that undocumented illegal immigrants would “self deport” if life were tougher for them — does not bode well.
The Republican Party is presently perceived as being in thrall to extremists, with moderates regarded as heretics. Many women too feel unwelcome in the party due to its conservative positions on women’s reproductive rights. A nasty incident at the Republican Convention in which two participants (who were promptly expelled) threw peanuts at an African-American CNN camerawoman, saying this is “how we feed animals”, was also not helpful public relations.
In recent months, Republican governors and Republican-dominated state legislatures have been trying to erect barriers to voting. These efforts at suppressing the vote, sometimes in battleground or swing states such as Ohio, include passage of voter identification laws, reduction or elimination of early voting, and gerrymandering. In theory, “voter ID” laws aim to prevent voter fraud. However, vote fraud per se is highly unusual in the United States. Many allege these concerns about fraud are straw men aimed at preventing Hispanics, African-Americans, and other minorities — who are less likely to have government-issued identification and more likely to vote Democratic — from voting. Limiting early voting prevents people who work regular business hours from voting on the weekend before an election. Again, this restriction is seen as targeting the poor and minorities, groups that tend to vote Democratic.
Some of these laws may end up being heard by the US Supreme Court before the presidential elections. In terms of the Voting Rights Act, there must be federal approval of any changes to voting in states with a history of franchise discrimination. The justice department has rejected voter ID laws in states such as South Carolina and Texas.
It’s a challenging time for the United States. The shifts in the global environment, with China’s economic ascendance, and America’s diminishing political and economic dominance, make some Americans look for a scapegoat. And so, for some, particularly blue-collar white working class Americans, Barack Obama has become the perfect symbol of all that is “wrong in America”. Some of the personal-and racial-animus directed at him is noteworthy and appalling.
A woman from Maine interviewed on National Public Radio last week revealed that she “just didn’t like how (Obama) looked” and that he “didn’t look presidential”. Such racially-based opinions are often masked with generic prefaces such as “he’s such a nice guy” or “don’t get me wrong, he’s very likeable” or “he’s a great family man” before the person launches into why Obama should not be re-elected.
Reacting to Clint Eastwood’s off-colour dialogue with an empty chair at the Republic Convention, Obama commented, “One thing about being president or running for president — if you’re easily offended, you should probably choose another profession”. He could just as well have said this about the racial slurs being passed his way.
For Romney to win the presidency for the Republican Party, he will have to obtain the votes of a huge majority of white voters and a portion of Latinos. Given the demographic challenges the Republican Party faces, competing fairly might not seem a winning strategy. Hence the resort to “other”, less savoury tactics designed to suppress democratic voting.
Micheline Tusenius is a South African, presently but temporarily living in Washington DC, with her American husband and their two children. They last lived in Johannesburg in 2010, but visit South Africa often. Visit Micheline’s blog, Watching in Washington, here.
@Micheline, out of all of the questions you ask, the most important question you omitted is, what is/was the difference between the Republicans and Democrats anyway? It follows, what was the difference between Obama and Bush? Their policies are exactly the same. The obvious analysis that still needs to be made and I am quite surprised that media etc is so quiet on this, is the analysis on Obama in particular. But let us remind ourselves of all the gurus and Dalai Lamie who paraded Obama as if he was someone from outer space. They predicted that this was the son of another continents soil, who will blow the wind of changes in his mother country. They predicted that America will be overhauled by his dynamic leadership. They predicted that he was so clever and that he will bring govt policies into American politics that will change the way things are done on this globe. What happened? Where is the anaysis? Where are all those ”informed sources” in state departments that informs these gurus? The lack of principled critiscm is quite stunning in the face of the horrendous assaults on the Middle East and sovereign countries. The “live tv” brutal attacks on Palestine by Israel. The live tv show of assasinations of head of states. The so-called “Arab Spring”. The biggest poppy-crop ever harvested in Afghanisan etc etc. Against this and other background, Is there really any difference between the two?
@Tofolux: Don’t forget that Obama has kept Guantanamo and all of the other prison camps open; has not repealed the Patriot Act (two lies in a row); is upgrading Americans nukes housed in Germany; continues to bypass Congress on many issues (including military, which is unconstitutional); is increasing the bloat in the Federal government (along with borrowing from the Federal Reserve) and now has the authority to have any American citizen assassinated at the stroke of a pen.
I fear that Romney won’t be any better.
@Micheline, this was a very good article because you pointed out what everyone knows and will not say. The Republicans have made Obama the issue and not his policies because, the Republican policies would be the same. Why are the poor whites in the southern part of the US are against the social programs that they benefited from?
@Tofolux, it’s sad you didn’t understand the article and you go on to ask questions that’s not important in this election.
@Tofolux, it’s sad you didn’t understand the article and you go on to ask questions that’s not important in this election. Both of these parties in the US all agree that this country security is priority, both of these parties will not hesitate to use the US power to protect her interest. The difference in the two parties are their approach to economic and social problems in the US.
The expectation is high because Obama was the first black president in the US. Obama took over a government that was on the verge of economic collapse and he has been trying to keep the ship floating. If the US economy had collapsed there, would be problems all over the world and this includes China.
@Lennon, Obama can’t do the things he wants in Washington without Congress approval. The US president doesn’t have the same power as the SA president. The president can eat free in the White house when there is a state dinner and all other times, he has to pay for his food. The president can’t divert money to spend on his home like Zuma did, he would have to pay out his pocket. The government should keep that base open because the American people shouldn’t be exposed to these people. The US has always had covert operations going on since WW2 to protect the US security. However, this article is about the racial overtone in this up coming election and Obama is the focus instead of his policies.
Racial overtones in the American election? How dreadful!
Aren’t we lucky to have a nonracial government who does not recognise race and therefore does not discriminate against people because of their colour? If you do not think so, the non-existence of BEE and BBBBBBBEEEEEEEEE laws should more than set your mind at ease.
Hell, we are so blessed not having race as an issue in this perfect country of ours!
@ Sterling: Leon Panetta doesn’t seem to think that Congressional approval is necessary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84
But yes, you’re right. This is about race and the Republicans may well win support from white Americans who aren’t keen on a) a black president and b) lax immigration policies. I think it’s a sure bet that Obama himself would play the other side of this. Thinking back to the killing of Trayvon Martin, Obama is reported to have said that if he’d had a son, he would’ve looked like Martin. Some have suggested that this was a ploy to gain support minority groups.
@Lennon, the issue that everyone want these candidates to talk about is the entitlements programs. Ryan Paul whom Romney chose as his running mate has gone on record as being against social security, medicare, student aid, and most social programs. Romney says he doesn’t share Ryan Paul views however, he was chosen by Romney as his running mate. Ryan Paul is advocating tying the Social Security system to the stock market and if the market goes down many of these people could be wiped out. Paul wants the people receiving medicare to be given vouchers and to get rid of the present system. Romney and Paul all want a massive cut in the budget but, what will happen to the jobs lost in the budget cuts? Racial overtone is not going to help when the public find out these two real agenda.
Thanks for all the comments. As Sterling first offered, this was not an article about the philosophical differences between the campaigns. He also noted that so many poor whites vote against their economic interests. This suggests that other issues also influence their voting behaviour. Sterling’s last contribution is also useful. The core difference between the two campaigns could be summed up–using the terms of the Democratic Convention–as “we’re in this together” or “you’re on your own”. The former approach to entitlements surely better protects the interests of the most vulnerable. Let’s hope that the focus of the last two months of the presidential contest will now be on the substantial philosophical differences between the two candidates. These differences are, after all, the ones that really matter.
Micheline, the problem is the ‘non information’ surrounding Obama who was probably the lest examined president candidate ever. Clinton hammered Bush 1 about the economy and won but this is never really discussed and especially the figues of the below quote from a libertian site showing that Obama’s economic policies (actually just an extention of Bush 2′s) HAVE NOT worked:
Friday’s payroll jobs report says that 96,000 new jobs were created in August and that the unemployment rate (U.3) fell from 8.3% to 8.1%. As 96,000 new jobs are not enough to keep up with population growth, the decline in the U.3 unemployment rate was caused by 368,000 discouraged job seekers giving up on finding employment and dropping out of the work force as measured by U.3. Discouraged workers are not included in the U.3 measure of unemployment, which makes the measure useless. The only purpose of U.3 is to keep bad news out of the news. the U.3 unemployment rate only measures those who have not been discouraged by the inability to find a job and are still actively seeking employment.
The government produces another unemployment measure, U.6, which includes people who have been discouraged by the inability to find a job and have been out of the work force for less than a year. This measure of unemployment is 14.7%, a number that would get attention if reported.
When the long-term (more than one year) discouraged workers are included, the US unemployment rate is about 22%.’
Brent
@Micheline, there has been no mooting of philosophy. A fundamental question is posed. What good is Americanism to any society anyway? The world has been duped by America. Peel away the hollywood layers and what you see is very ugly. eg California at the moment is a failed state. Also, no where do we read about the real impact of the economic downturn. No where do we read about the dismal state of education, health insurance, the negative impact of scholar bursaries on the college graduates etc. These are fundamental issues and yet now we must pretend that it should be a philosophical debate.
Micheline, no doubt there is a good deal of racism in this race, chiefly driven by the Republican need to appeal to a substantial racist constituency and the fact that the Democratic candidate is black.
However, it does seem to me that a major issue is the desire of both parties to avoid talking about the major issues of economic decline and the disintegration of human rights and any pretense to an ethical foreign policy. In other words, what tofolux was talking about is actually what the Democrats and Republicans should be talking about but aren’t, and therefore prefer to talk about race.
It is true that if you’re black and American, you’re probably screwed anyhow. But I don’t think this election is really about how to make blacks more miserable. It’s about how to make the rich richer.
Brent, ever since the rise of the Tea Party libertarian is pretty much the same as conspiracy theorist, especially the notion that Obama had not been vetted by the Secret Service or the media before he ran for President
@ Brent: What they also fail to mention is that the vast majority of these jobs are low-pay retail jobs. Not exactly what the public are after, especially those with tertiary qualifications.
@ Sterling: Paul Ryan is insane if he thinks that’s a good idea. I know Romney wants votes, especially from the ultra-conservative, but I think that Ryan might just cost him votes in the end.
It’s also quite disheartening that many Americans appear quite content to stay on government welfare (not counting those who actually are trying to get work) and these people will bear the brunt of any cuts.
Thanks for a great article. President Obama’s election was seen as a post racial American; unfortunately, his election has brought out racism and resentment against Americans who are not straight, white etc. America is under attack by far right wing white males who resent the changing demographics in America. Like South African whites, blacks in America are Americans and we should be afforded the same opportunities as all Americans.Todd Kidd, black American, Louisiana.
@Brent & Lennon, in 2008 the US economy almost collapse and this country had a $22 trillion dollars meltdown. This meltdown was caused by the removal of regulations from the banking system in1999. The last president to be faced with a problem like this was FDR and he had regulations put in place to control the banking system. Obama was faced with a meltdown and two wars that he didn’t start. He was forced to restore the regulations to stop the excessive gambling going on Wall St. The same people hollowing about get the government out of the economy are the ones that ran to Washington for bail out. The banks were selling houses to people that they knew couldn’t afford with no money down and the bubble started to burst in 2007 and it was covered up. In 2008, the bubble burst and the government couldn’t cover it up. Guess who was the president? Bush a Republican.
@Brent, in the US there is a vast underground economy and million of people are working and not paying taxes. I know people who are barbers, painters bricklayers and other professions, all are working and never pay taxes. You will be shocked at what a babysitter get in the US and these people aren’t considered employed. So, that knife cuts both ways when talking about the jobless.
@ Sterling: Methinks Obama should’ve done what Iceland did: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-iceland-idUSBRE85B12O20120612
One of the things he could’ve done to emulate this would’ve been cutting back on foreign intervention.
@Lennon, the US at one time did downsized her forces in the world and you saw the rise of Imperial Japan trying to take over Asia. What the US got for reducing her fleet in Asia, a Pearl Harbor. The thinking in the US that modern wars are very destructive and it’s better fight overseas then in the US. Actually, the US is paying for your defense bill and you can sleep well because somebody is protecting you.
@ Sterling: I had no idea I might be attacked by Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan. I suppose I should be fearful of Syria and Iran as well as Yemen and Pakistan too.
Oddly enough, the only “rogue” state that is worth worryging about is also the only one with nukes: North Korea. Why is it that they’ve been kept on the back-burner while other “rogue” states which don’t have any nukes have been destroyed?
Politics worldwide has become a self-serving farce, a blatent lie and an insult to the common people. Too often it is a vehicle for big business to control or ensure their future profits and for politicians to get control over vast amounts of money often without the real skills to manage it effectively.
American politics is a rancid business, just like European politics. As for the rest of the world, corruption is part and parcel of the political landscape.Nevertheless, to think the Democrats are close to the Republicans in their underlying beliefs is to confuse American patriotism with their politics.