The Limits of Racial Optimism

It is no surprise that the nation's first president of color has been a lightning rod for discussion of race and racism in America. For those who struggle for racial justice, this inevitability has had positive and negative components. For a nation that often wishes to ignore the deep racial problems that permeate society, Barack Obama's election has forced us to confront, on a regular basis, the ugly truth that Martin Luther King's dream has not been realized. On the other hand, President Obama has had unrealistic expectations placed on him with respect to his ability to mend the country's racial wounds. We argued back in March that he would have a difficult time dealing with racism while in office, an analysis we felt compelled to offer as a result of what we saw as a dangerously and unrealistically optimistic frame employed in the mainstream media and, to a lesser extent, adopted by racially progressive thinkers, writers and activists. There was considerable evidence that the mass public also felt quite hopeful in this regard.

USA Today released results of a poll they conducted jointly with Gallup THIS WEEK that was similarly framed in terms of American optimism with respect to improvements in race relations. While President Obama's approval ratings hover at around 50%, the pol reveals that six in ten Americans say that race relations will improve under his presidency; just 13% think race relations will get worse. Further, 40% of Americans believe things are already better in this regard; 22% think things have gotten worse.

Of course, examining differences in these attitudes with respect to the race of the respondents is important. According to Susan Page's story reporting on the poll:

Blacks are much more likely than whites to say that racism against blacks persists -- 72% of blacks say it is widespread, compared with 49% of whites -- but they are also more optimistic that Obama's election will improve that.

A 53% majority of African Americans say race relations already have gotten better as a result.

In other words, while Whites are more likely than Blacks to think there is not persistent racism against African Americans, they are less likely than Blacks to think that Obama's election (and presidency) has improved race relations already or will improve it in the future.

Compared with attitudes nearly a year ago (right after the election), there has been an understandable (and perhaps predictable) tempering of optimism, though the percentage of Americans who believe that race relations would one day no longer be an issue in America is still slightly higher than before Obama secured the Democratic nomination.

In many ways, the framing of these data in terms of "optimism" is quite curious. For instance, consider this statement:

Over the past year, the percentage who say blacks have as good a chance as whites in their community to get a job for which they are qualified has risen by 8 percentage points. That's the biggest one-year jump since Gallup began regularly asking the question 20 years ago.

That's your cue to ask, "So what?" Without a breakdown by race for this question, and knowing that the poll is (appropriately, since it is a random national sample) dominated by Whites (there is no Black oversample or weighting of Black responses reported), this simply appears to reaffirm our understanding that Whites are more likely than ever to believe that we are in a post-racial society. If these attitudes are, indeed, an accurate reflection of reality (that is, if Blacks in their communities actually DO have as good a chance as Whites to get a job for which they are qualified), then that certainly is a reason for optimism. If it is just what folks think, then this is actually a reason to be quite pessimistic because such attitudes mask the true state of racial injustice and render more difficult the struggle to move toward equality.

An interesting finding that is not discussed in the story (but is presented in the graphs that accompany the story) involves respondents' degree of satisfaction with "the way things are going in the United States": 47% of Blacks and 22% of Whites report satisfaction. Even with the larger margin of error among African Americans in the sample (due to the smaller number of Blacks in the sample), this finding is remarkable and, perhaps, speaks to the important symbolic power -- at least, we suppose, if these numbers are correct, for African Americans -- of having a person of color in the White House.

Question and response option wording and the order in which questions are presented to respondents is important to know. We are not able to ascertain much of that information because the USA Today article does not provide it, and there is no link to the survey instrument. Specifically, we are concerned about the conflation of "race relations" and "racism against African Americans." These terms might prime very different underlying constructs among respondents, but they are somewhat carelessly used interchangeably (or at least alternately) in the article. One might imagine, for instance, someone believing that racism as a systemic force is still persistent against Blacks but that our collective ability to address it ("race relations") has improved. Or, one could imagine the exact opposite (e.g., someone who does not think racism is a problem anyway and sees more racial animosity reflected in the media since Obama's election). Further, we could learn much more if we could statistically control for other important factors that are known to be related to racial attitudes such as self-identified partisanship and ideology, geography, age, and gender. Perhaps most helpful would be measures designed to tap attitudes toward racism, such as Henry and Sears's "symbolic racism" scale for Whites and either the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity by Sellers or questions designed to tap Dawson's concept of "linked fate" for Blacks.

In other words, we can learn very little from this poll to help us meaningfully understand people's real attitudes about race relations and racism in America today. Add to that the fact the our conscious attitudes about race may not be as predictive of our behavior as our subconscious beliefs, and the poll (and corresponding story) is darn near useless in its current form. Certainly the headline -- "Poll: Hopes Buoyed on Race Relations" -- is not warranted and serves only to reinforce the wishful (and under-informed and misguided and blissful) notion that Obama's election either signaled or has ushered in a post-racial era in America.

No Peace for Obama: How the Prize Might Harm His Image

The collective groan you heard Friday morning came from the West Wing of the White House. As it was announced that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, his advisers scrambled to figure out, ironically, how they could possibly spin the news to minimize the negative effects. For his part, the president was appropriately reserved, noting essentially that he did not deserve the award. That may be an accurate assessment, but what is more important than the decision of the prize committee are the potential negative political effects. In our assessment, President Obama is in deep trouble on this one.

We are certainly not unique in this assessment, of course. Several thoughtful ideas have been put forth in the past two days about the negative side of this honor (see here and here for just two examples). From our perspective, though, the trouble is not about whether the award was "deserved" or "earned," and it does not really stem from the attacks of folks like Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin (both of whom thumped the president for his award on Friday). The trouble is not with the AM talk radio/Fox News crowd. There is no political ground to be lost to those folks because there is likely nothing that the president could do to win those folks over. David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel do not lose any sleep over the direct effect of what those folks think or say.

The trouble is with the indirect effects of such attacks, and the president's advisers know it. Specifically, there must be concern about the degree to which winning this award plays into the frame of Barack Obama as "other."

We have written about framing in this space before (see here and here and here, for example). Along with agenda setting and priming, it is is one of the most notable theoretical advancement in media effects research in the past two decades. At its most basic level, framing involves putting information into context (and recognizing that information is processed contextually). And while much time has been spent arguing over what frames have been employed in given political contexts, one need not get hung up on the intent of persons to construct frames to understand their effects.

Even though dozens (hundreds?) of framing studies have been published in the last 25 years, perhaps the most clear examples of framing effects comes from one of the earlier studies. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman reported results of some framing studies in a 1981 issue of the journal Science. They presented alternate versions of a problem to participants who were randomly assigned to one of two the groups. The exact factual elements of the choices presented to participants was the same, but the way that the choices were framed differed. The results were striking (well beyond conventional levels of statistical significance).

Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:

If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.

If Program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.

Which of the two programs would you favor?

Nearly three-quarters of the participants who were presented with this program (72%) chose Program A.

The other group got the problem with the same description, but the program response options were as follows:

If Program [A] is adopted 400 people will die.

If Program [B] is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die.

Participants who got this formulation had a near reversal of the other group: 22% of them chose Program A, while 78% chose program B.

The only difference between the options, of course, is the way that they were presented. For both, Program B is the riskier choice, so when folks first read that they can "save" 200 people (a positively framed certainty), they are more likely to avoid the risk, but when the first option is worded as a certain negative ("400 people will die"), there is a greater likelihood to gamble and try to save everyone, even if the odds are poor.

So what does this have to do with Barack Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize?

Much (certainly not all) of the persistent criticism of President Obama over the last two years (beginning in the Democratic primaries, lest you think Republicans invented this) has centered on his "otherness." As we have noted a number of times in this space, this certainly cannot be considered to be race neutral. But even if the intent is rooted in bigotry or racial resentment, it is easier for Americans to accept a theme of "otherness" about a person of color or a White woman than a White man because of the way we were (and are) socialized.

So while Limbaugh, Beck and the rest of the president's most vocal opponents are largely irrelevant to the base of support that the president and his Democratic allies need to govern and win reelection, their language and imagery depicting Obama as "not one of us" has a great potential to take hold tacitly and shape the way that subsequent information about him is processed.

Because President George W. Bush was often depicted as not being very bright, every verbal gaffe, no matter how small, became exaggerated in the American imagination and served to reinforce that image of him in a way that such a mistake would not function with, for instance, this president, who is almost universally recognized as very bright, even by his opponents. Similar characteristics are true of other notable public figures: John Kerry as flip-flopper, Al Gore as boring, Bill Clinton as manipulative, John McCain as out-of-touch, etc. When Richard Nixon went to China in 1972, he was not widely criticized or suspected of pandering to the communists because there was no existing frame in place that would facilitate such a "reading" of the event. A president who was not such a staunch anti-communist would likely not have fared nearly as well.

So when Barack Obama is honored by "foreigners," particularly those rooted in democratic socialist nations like those in Scandinavia, it provides additional "evidence" of his otherness to those who are predisposed to believe that he "hates America" or, at least, is not proud to be American. While there are only a minority of Americans who consciously hold those attitudes, there is a real potential for the frame to take hold subconsciously because it is so often and persistently employed.

Worse for Obama and his supporters is the fact that the president is planning to go to the ceremony to accept the award in December. The video and still imagery that will emerge from that event also has the potential to contribute to the reinforcement of the "otherness" frame.

Supporters of the president will understandably argue that this is not "fair," or that it is a function of an overly simplistic binary model of "patriotism" that holds that anything Europeans like must be bad for America. But the power of framing lies in the fact that it is not at all reliant upon "logic" or meaningful empirical evidence to function. Quite to the contrary -- frames may be developed intentionally, but their effects wholly rely on subconscious processing of information within their parameters.

Think about it this way: If Tversky and Kahneman would have presented participants with both types of response options, there would have been no framing effects. It is likely that the results would have been closer to 50% because then participants would reason through the more objective options (i.e., Is it worth taking a risk to try to save everyone, or should we go with the definite plan that saves 200, even though 400 will still die?). Since each participant was only presented with one pairing, though, the framing mattered (a lot).

Much like racist messages, when frames are exposed and brought to consciousness they lose much of their potential for effectiveness. But so long as the connections between the attacks on President Obama as having a fake birth certificate, refusing to wear a lapel pin, being a socialist (or fascist or Muslim or Black liberation theology Christian), preferring "czars," paling around with terrorists, etc. are not connected as being part of an "otherness" frame, seemingly benign or even positive events like receiving an international award for peace can very much work to reinforce and perpetuate negative attitudes about the president.

In this context, it is likely that the president would have preferred to have gotten out of bed Friday morning to find that he had to make a choice about possible responses to combat an unusual Asian disease.

White Friends, Black Friends: The Personal Nature of Racial Politics

We have been working together for over eight years now. We come from different backgrounds (personally and professionally), but we share a common vision for advancing racial justice by learning (and sharing) through employing the most contemporary social science research theories and methods to the study of race, politics and communication. As regular TWIR readers know, we try to provide a unified perspective on current events in this space each week. That is, except in very rare circumstances, we put forth analysis here that is a representation of our collective thoughts and application of social science research. Occasionally, however, we write separately, either because we disagree with one another (see here and here, for instance) or because the topic is primarily relevant from one of our perspectives (see here or here).

THIS WEEK, Charlton provides his unique perspective on interracial friendships in this era of heightened awareness of race and racism. It's not that Stephen has nothing to offer to this discussion (after all, he has interracial friendships – Charlton being the most valued – as well), but as you will discover, what Charlton has to say represents a perspective that we decided is best presented from his voice alone. As always, we look forward to your thoughtful comments.

***

Race. Politics. Race politics. The politics of race. Identity politics.

Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill is perhaps most famous for popularizing the phrase, “all politics is local.” Those of us who venture into that tangled web where race and politics intersect are especially reminded that all politics is also, personal. In fact, no politics are more personal than racial politics (and the politics of gender and sexual orientation are equally so).

Today’s electoral politics are – in the words of Thomas Hobbes – nasty, brutish and short. But at the end of the day, there is a winner and a loser. Life goes on as the thrill of victory eventually ebbs for the former as the sting of defeat does for the latter. Members of Congress do legislative battle with competing bills, ingenious maneuvers, pointed hearings where they skewer opposing colleagues and roast them with fiery floor speeches meant to paint their adversaries as the worst among us – from heartless baby killers to Machiavellian demagogues and all else in between. Still, they emerge able to shake each other’s hands, extol the virtues of bipartisanship, and then share slippery oysters and a sip of whiskey at Old Ebbitt’s.

Those of us who willfully surround ourselves with the critical minutiae that race bring to everyday life sometimes like to think we are playing the same game.

From the verbal beat-downs we apply to modern racial rabble-rousers like Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck (I specify “verbal,” lest any of these folks mistake me for just some Black thug like Barack Obama who inspires Black violence against White people), to the daily debates we engage in over controversial race-based social policies like affirmative action, school desegregation or health care. From our heated discussions on national television designed to convince the public of the folly and fallacies of post-racialism, colorblind ideology and the like to our attempts to get youthful undergraduates to understand the subtleties of modern racism, persistent discrimination, and notions of White privilege, we (more a personal projection than a factual generalization) often like to think that we can immerse ourselves in these murky waters and emerge unsullied and unaffected. We sometimes fool ourselves into believing that our engagement with the stuff of racial politics is a wholly intellectual enterprise – participation in a kind of rational discourse from which we can simply redirect our attention when we wish not to talk about it anymore. We sometimes like to think that what we do and what we talk about exists primarily in that mystical abstract world of ideas.

Then sometimes, we are reminded that the political is the personal when it comes to talking about race. Sometimes we are reminded that despite the hordes of protesters hurling racial insults while the whole world watches, despite all of the “liberal media’s” talk of racism replete in today’s conservative rhetoric, despite our penchant to talk about the broad, statistical realities of racial inequality, skyrocketing incidences of racial violence, increased accusations of workplace discrimination and the like – our discussion about race often comes down to those most basic features of everyday conversation: two people, face-to-face (or what passes for it in our electronic age), talking about something that matters to them – personally.

* * *

Thanks to Facebook, I have recently been back in touch with people from what seems like a different life – particularly, folks from the conservative, Baptist, predominantly White college I attended and from which I graduated nearly twenty years ago. In that much time, some things – some people – change, and some things and people remain the same.

For me, college was a continuation of high school, where learning and learning to be liked alternated and competed for top billing on my life’s marquee of personal goals. (I completed college with a 2.7 GPA, so it is clear which one prevailed.) Where I grew up – on military bases in a city with a large minority population – racial diversity was as ubiquitous as MTV . My schools ranged from being 98% Mexican-origin to highly diverse, though slightly majority-White. So when I showed up for college in the middle of Oklahoma, on a campus where I could count the number of people who looked like me on two – okay, maybe three or four hands – I was a bit taken aback.

But I knew one thing: you do not make friends talking about race, racism, racial discrimination and the like. So I did not (talk about it, much), and I did (make friends). When a few of the women from the campus’s small Black Student Union asked me to join them at one of their meetings, I smiled, said okay, and quickly forgot about the fact that I never intended to go. Who wants to be part of the militant crowd when there are parties to go to, fun to be had, women to meet?

The reality, of course, was that I was not always able to avoid difficult discussion about race. But those are different stories for a different time. For the most part, I became a model for all our colorblind dreams. I even had one of those red, yellow, green “Love Sees No Color” t-shirts that were popular in the early nineties and wore it with pride, hoping forever to avoid those uncomfortable moments having to confront the issue of race.

Fast forward almost two decades. Facebook. Becoming new friends with old ones, eager to see how everyone turned out, these friends and acquaintances – many of whom I hadn’t seen or heard from since we walked across the graduation stage.

In the heat of the moment – post 2008 election, the beginning of the nastiness of the health care debate, amidst the discussion surrounding Henry Louis Gates’s run in with Cambridge cops, surrounded by birthers, hordes of “I want my country back,” protesters, yelling "communist, communist, communist" in the streets about everyone from Barack Obama on down to almost every Black person in or nominated for cabinet posts – I just could not help turning my personal Facebook page (not to be confused with the RaceProject Facebook page) into a site for political warfare. I posted articles of interest about race. I posted my own published or on-air commentary. I responded to comments made by my some of my new and old friends.

At some point, I looked over at my running count of friends. 666. Hmmmm. I could have sworn I was up close to the 850 mark. Seems that some of my friends were steadily peeling away, and I began to notice how I – like everyone else – had begun to take this race talk very personally.

"With the possibility of a recited "I pledge myself to President Obama" being in there, you're damn right I'm concerned. Bush never asked that. Clinton never asked that. Regan never asked that. There are three acceptable entities to which one may pledge oneself: God, Country, Family. To ease the confusion, Obama is NOT country."

An old friend – a college friend and post-college roommate actually – threw this my way when I explained my utter disbelief that anyone would question the President of the United States talking to children in a televised address. I brushed it off without delving further into the matter. The following came a few days later, when I questioned Conservative attacks against Van Jones and his eventual resignation, saying that I thought it was shame when good people are victims of such witch-hunt-style political rhetoric.

"It's a shame when good, intelligent people are willfully blind to or willfully ignorant of what's right in front of them."

I jumped further into the conversation on this one. The rest of the conversation went something like this:

Me: Willfully blind or ignorant. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that you were talking about some other group of unknown and unspecified folks, not me.

Him: Sorry, my friend. I may not be able to debate the topics well, but I've never shied away from anything. I've watched Mr. Jones on CSPAN a few times (reruns, you know) and didn't have much issue with him other than all the green stuff. Nice as he seems to be, after his history coming to light, you have to be willfully *something* to think he's good for the country.

Me: Oh, well then. Please do let me know the next time this ignorant fool can be the beneficiary of your infallible wisdom! I'd hate to think I can actually think a reasonable thought and come up with a reasonable conclusion on my own!

Him: Don't play the passive aggressive game. It doesn't suit you. If you think a guy who signs things without reading them, who is an admitted communist and who really thinks green jobs are a viable way to save our nation... if you truely [sic] believe he's good for our nation, then do your best to educate me. Otherwise, the race card is an easy and obvious dismissal of the thoughts and opinions of people who disagree with you. I love reasonable thoughts and I love a good discussion. Bring it on. Make me do some work.

Me: I'm big, I'm Black and I'm overeducated. Many in your camp would say that aggression suits me just fine! Whether it does or doesn't won't get me to back down from the mote in the eye of folks like you who will cry that folks like me played the race card when you folks seem to always refuse to admit that race is ever a factor, that race may possibly . . . be a factor in any kind of political action, decision, personal preference or the like. That you can dismiss anything like me says anytime we venture to point out the possibility - however glaringly explicit or implicit it may be. So then, why don't you tell me which of the following you would consider to be an example of me NOT playing the race card?

What followed was a list of about 20 things that I challenged him to tell me whether I was – as I am and we are so often accused of – seeing race and racism in everything. He rose to the challenge. I have yet to respond. But the point of it all is simply that with all my talk of “conservatives this, and conservatives, that,” my friend was hearing all of my accusations and claims of conservative insolence as a personal affront. My talk of conservative racism was heard as, “you, my friend, are a racist, a bigot, etc.” and much of our conversation didn’t get beyond that. (Stephen and I wrote more about this a few weeks ago in this space when we talked of the idea of “racism fatigue.”)

I say all of this to remind us – myself really – that all conversation comes down to two people addressing each other. Good conversation is risky, sometimes difficult, sometimes painful, but often productive. On the one hand I WISH I could be like another old college friend of mine who regularly says things to me like, “I look at the values of the people and truly could care less about,” or, “I am sick of race being used...isn't this a Post Racial president...I talk about [race] more now than I ever have in my entire life!" or who sends me articles by Black people with titles such as “American Thinker: Why I am no longer an African American.”

While I am frustrated (both personally and professionally) by what I have been observing on the landscape of racial discourse in America today, I am also saddened because I cannot help but think that these White friends from years past were able to enjoy my company because we spent our time talking about football or music; I was not "acting so Black" back then. My ideas about race and racism have not changed, though, and my guess is that theirs have not either. The suggestion that I am somehow "different now" is predicated on a willingness on all of our parts to ignore the obvious, which was an arrangement that served all of our interests then. In that way, these friendships serve as a metaphor for America's collective relationship with racism. While I have no doubt that their friendship was genuine, I have to wonder whether, at least on a subconscious level, these folks were able to soothe themselves about their own deep-seated racial predispositions (which we all have) through my friendship. In other words, my presence in their lives enabled them to say, "I have a Black friend," which, for many, is as powerful evidence of not being racist as one needs (right alongside avoidance of the "n-word"). Did I (ironically) function as a racial quota, and am I less valuable now that I am active in pointing out that racism is more complicated that individual-level bigotry? Does their White privilege allow them to believe that since I think this way that they are correct and I am "wrong" (overly-sensitive, radical, out-of-touch with "real" America)?

I, too, sometimes wish that race was not such a necessary part of American social and political life. But people of color do not have the luxury of willing it to be so. On the other hand, I am reminded almost daily of the reality that when one talks about race with some folks, they will always hear – no matter how impersonal one tries to pitch the conversation – themselves being labeled and denigrated for being "a racist." Feelings are hurt, misunderstandings occur, time has to be spent easing bruised feelings. It is difficult, it is messy, it is – very personal.

Racism Fatigue

In 1998, Susan Moeller published Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death, in which she explains that media coverage of these types of stories contributes to the tendency of Americans to divert our attention from worldwide human suffering. Moeller helps us to understand that the ways issues are presented determines the degree to which folks will continue to be responsive. As we work our way through the administration of the nation's first Black president, it is important to consider whether Americans are experiencing "racism fatigue."

THIS WEEK, we wrote an article for OpEdNews wherein we explained the racial context for Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst during the president's health care address to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night. If you are interested, we encourage you to jump over there and give it a read. Essentially, we explained that the persistent characterization of Barack Obama as "other" by his opponents has established a context within which behavioral norms can be dismissed. Just this week, it meant that Joe Wilson could hurl an insult during a formal address and that some parents could pull their kids out of school rather than have them listen to the president give a speech (the contents of which were released in advance) about working hard and getting an education.

The response to our article surprised us a bit. Some folks were frustrated that we stopped short of calling Wilson's actions racially motivated (TWIR readers know that we almost never speculate on intent) while others chastised us for invoking race at all. There was a lot of Internet chatter about Wilson's past behavior regarding race since his outburst, and that may be of interest to South Carolina voters or others who are determined to expose him as a bigot (we have chosen to not even link to that material here). We read that material and appreciate its value; it is just not central to what we think matters most.

In fact, we believe that the "gotcha" practice of trying to out bigots can be counterproductive because it tacitly reinforces the notion that "racism" is primarily about individual hatred of persons of color. While those who are bold enough to be open about their resentment of persons of color ought to be recognized as having conscious attitudes that set them apart from most of the American public, overt bigotry represents only a fraction of racial inequality in 21st century America. We ought not lose sight of bigoted occurrences, but we think it is most important to draw attention to the racial underpinnings in contemporary political discourse because that represents a more widespread and powerful current that is carrying along our centuries-old tradition of White supremacy.

But it can be quite tiring, indeed, for racially progressive folks, the millions who are genuinely trying to understand the roots of discrimination and White privilege. The more we folks who do this sort of work write, speak and advance sophisticated ideas about systemic racism, the more (and louder) defenders of the status quo put forth overly simplistic snippets that are easier to understand and, thus, believe.

Such reactions were on display this weekend as millions of (overwhelmingly) White folks gathered at rallies organized by political groups who oppose Barack Obama and/or his policy preferences. Joe Wilson was heralded as a hero at many of these gatherings as many noted that his outrage Wednesday night was justified because they, too, believe Obama is a liar. Further, the outburst was related to and consistent with their desire to keep "aliens" from having access to health care. They see no racism in labeling millions of Brown folks as "other" and subsequently (and angrily) preventing them from having access to what many believe to be a fundamental human right. Despite the fact that they have chosen to speak out so forcefully against government spending during the administration of the first Black president when two of their heroes -- Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush -- greatly contributed to the deficit during their presidencies, they see no racism in their position. Despite the fact that similar groups of Obama's opponents just a year ago brought stuffed monkeys, claimed that Obama was a Muslim and an Arab (which suggests that he is both a terrorist and a liar), yelled that he should go back to Africa, and engaged in myriad other bigoted behaviors, they see no racism in their position.

To the contrary, these folks, when asked about such underpinnings, become quite agitated, noting that the minuscule number of persons of color who agree with them is a coincidence, that they have a Black friend (seriously, this is often used as an alibi against any suggestion of internalized racism), and that it is Obama's supporters who are the real "racists." They are fatigued -- tired of always being called "racists."

This is also where the fatigue begins to surface on the part of advocates for racial justice. In the context of such anger and hostility, is it possible to explain to someone that "racism" is a systemic concept tied to White supremacy, not simply individual-level prejudice? Can one help a sign-waving, screaming, scared middle class White person to understand, in that moment, that 98% of their brain's activity takes place outside their consciousness, so ruling out racism as a factor is impossible? When fear and hostility are in full bloom, it is neither the time nor place to try to explain the complexities of human thought and behavior broadly, let alone neuroscience.

But where is the space for such discussion? All the world has become a tea party or town hall meeting for those who oppose President Obama.

That's why Joe Wilson screamed out. When Congressman Wilson apologized, he said, "I let my emotions get the best of me." At the end of this summer of anger, we are seeing the manifestation of a rhetorical climate that has painted Barack Obama as an "alien" himself. "I want my country back!" is heard at many of these gatherings. One wonders, from whom? From the "other" who has taken it, of course. From the man who does not look like other presidents looked. From the man who doesn't look like "us," like "America." From the man who is not really even American (so say "the birthers") and, therefore, is not even legitimately the president. From the man who will take care of people "like him" and seek retribution and/or reparations for slavery against Whites. From the Marxist/communist/socialist/fascist/terrorist man who used his Hitler-like oratory skills to fool Americans into electing him.

It is exhausting in its intensity and, quite frankly, its effectiveness.

White conservatives are genuinely tired, and while many of their criticisms of the president are not legitimate, we think that their fatigue is understandable. They are tired of being told that they are "racists" because they oppose a man who happens to be the nation's first Black president. They are tired of knowing, with all of their being, that they are not, in fact, "racist," even if they cannot always explain why they are so angry about this particular president. Most of them have worked for generations to use the appropriate term to describe Black Americans, moving from "colored" to "Black" to "African American" and now just resorting to just speaking the word more quietly than the rest of the sentence to avoid any perception of bigotry. They taught their children never to use the n-word, to give everyone an equal chance, irrespective of race or ethnicity, and they genuinely appreciate the diversity that has come to characterize their work spaces. For heaven's sake, some of these folks marched in the 1960s to end legalized segregation of schools and to bring about social justice in our laws! "What more," one can hear them shout, "are we supposed to do?! We have a Black president! That's not equal enough for you?! What more do 'you people' want!"

They're so damn tired.

But they are tired precisely because there is so much about racism that they do not understand. It is difficult for humans to understand that we cannot know what we do not know. It feels ("logically") that we are in control of our own brains. We are not. Perhaps the ultimate irony is that while we have made so much progress with respect to individual-level prejudice (even considering the backlash we are seeing now), we have much more work to do to help folks understand the complexity of systemic racism. It is very hard work -- not just to facilitate such discussion, but to engage in it. It is hurtful to realize that racism internalized from our culture is more powerful than explicit teachings to the contrary by our parents (or to our children). It is frustrating to think that we are on the right track, only to catch ourselves reaching for the door locks or feeling a tinge of fear or at least suspicion when a Black man approaches (this isn't just Whites, by the way). And it sure as hell is exhausting to worry about whether someone will call us "a racist" when we feel certain that our attitudes are not at all rooted in racism.

Racism fatigue is not new, but we are seeing a widespread outbreak in 2009.

Joe Wilson's emotions got the best of him. Indeed, much of the political psychology research has revealed the false dichotomy between emotion and reason that Enlightenment-era philosophers put forth (privileging the latter over the former, of course). It is unrealistic (and, we would argue, unwise) to ask folks to take emotion out of their political decision-making. After all, we tend to appreciate emotions that lead to outcomes that we embrace. (Progressives want folks to feel empathy, for instance, so that more socially just policies are adopted.) We find nothing wrong with the fact that Joe Wilson feels strong emotions about making preventative health care available to those who cannot afford it, even if our emotions on the subject are quite different from his.

Further, we find the tangential discussions surrounding his act to be distractions from the primary point (health care reform) and our point (the racial context for the outburst). That is, we do not particularly care whether the action was consistent with practices of the British House of Commons during Prime Minister's Questions or whether the president was actually lying. Those are fair items to consider in a broad discussion of the incident, but shouting insults has not been and is not the custom in the U.S. Congress -- whether the president is there or not -- even if the he was not telling the truth.

The folks at the rallies this weekend hold anti-reform attitudes that are similar to those held by folks who opposed civil rights reform a half century ago. White Southerners were tired of being told that they were "bad people" for expecting Blacks to live their lives separately from Whites. They were tired of uppity Blacks telling them anything, in fact. And they were tired of White Northerners talking about them like they were unenlightened bumpkins. They knew the truth, and they were tired of being told otherwise. They wanted their country back. The parallels to the current fight for civil rights (of which the extension of health care to all is but one part) are striking.

So how do we overcome racism fatigue? The first step, we propose, is to do our best to continue to be persistent about the effects of systemic racism but also continue to be diligent about explaining that pointing it out is not an insult. "Racist" is an adjective; it ought not be used as a noun because doing so drains it of its power. Here's why: First, calling someone "a racist" (noun) suggests that he or she is aware of his or her racist attitudes; that may or may not be the case. We can almost never prove intent because those who are intentionally bigoted know how to maintain plausible deniability. It is a no-win situation. Second, using the word as a noun permits defenders of the status quo to turn it around and use it to describe anti-White attitudes (see the sign from this weekend's rally in Washington, DC, above, for example), which rhetorically forces the concept into the neutral position. Anti-White prejudice exists (and, we believe, should be vigorously opposed), but is not nearly as dangerous as racist attitudes because it carries with it no systemic power. When "racism" becomes understood simply as any resentment based on skin color, the true power and effect of racism is lost. It is possible to identify racism without tying that concept to the intent of one or more individuals. When people stop feeling as if they are being called "racists," they may be more open to understanding the way racism really works.

Even so, it may be too late, or the context might be wrong. White folks of all political persuasions, by and large, want to believe that Barack Obama's election signaled the end of American racism -- Dr. King's dream realized. If we are in a "post-racial" period, it is not appropriate to bring race into the discussion; those who do are "playing the race card." So, in effect, there has been a cruel shift in culture such that those fighting for racial justice are accused of actually perpetuating injustice. Who wins in such a circumstance? Defenders of the status quo, of course, because no further progress can be made.

The problem, though, with arguing that this may not the right time to be pushing harder is that White folks are not the only ones with racism fatigue -- those who have been on the receiving end of American racism for generations are quite tired, too, and have been for some time. We have to push, and we have to push wisely, not just strategically. We have to raise consciousness and understanding about the complexities and destruction of systemic racism. We understand that conservative Whites are tired and that progressives are feeling tired, too, but now is not the time to rest. The stakes remain high for those who are harmed by racism: all of us.

Don't Talk to Strangers: Obama as Other

It is wise advice for parents to tell their children not to talk to strangers. It was not until THIS WEEK, however, that such an admonishment was applied to listening to a speech by the president of the United States.

Barack Obama plans to give a "back to school" address on Tuesday "about the need to work hard and stay in school." In such a polarized political context, it is refreshing to have a visible leader speak about something on which folks from every political persuasion can agree. Except that with this president, in this context, conservatives are suspicious about the content, demanding to see the text of the address in advance.

One-time Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer called the speech an "unprecedented" use of power." He was not making a cheeky reference to President George W. Bush's surveillance of U.S. citizens, Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus or any of the invasions of sovereign nations that the U.S. has undertaken over the years. He was being completely sincere, and so was the chairman of the Florida Republican Party in a memo that accused the president of using "taxpayer dollars . . . to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." A Republican state lawmaker from Oklahoma is quoted as saying, "As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality. This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Of course, such an argument is wholly without merit. There is certainly a "cult of personality" around the U.S. president for school children, and there always has been. Fred Greenstein's groundbreaking work with children in the 1960s revealed that presidents are perceived as "benevolent leaders" to children, irrespective of their parents' political beliefs. There have always been portraits of the current president hanging in schools, courthouses, post offices and other public spaces. Portraits do not invite "a critical approach" to presidents, as the Arizona state schools superintendent said should happen; indeed, they invite "worship" of our nation's top leader in the name of patriotism.

Is this paranoia racially driven? A solid case could probably be made for that, but we are not going to make it. What we will do, however, is explain how these accusations work to erode Obama's image as part of a larger push to portray him as "other." As we always do, we will take the social science approach and focus on the effects of this communication rather than the intent of the folks who are crafting and delivering the message.

Social science research reveals that racist messages in political campaign communication almost never occur as a result of a candidate using direct ("explicit") racist language. Rather, there is a combination of images and code words that are effective because they activate deeply-held racist predispositions in the minds of voters (not just White voters). Again, this work speaks to the way that such messages have the potential to affect voters; it makes no claims as to whether such appeals were intended by the candidates or their campaign teams. In some case (like the infamous Willie Horton ad from 1988), we can know intent because the architect (in that case, Lee Atwater), admitted as much (in that case, after he knew that he was dying -- far too young -- of cancer), but for the most part, we cannot, as President George W. Bush used to say, know what is in their hearts.

In our most recent work, we found that there is a tendency to use in-group/out-group language to indicate "otherness," a tactic which has the potential to be greatly exacerbated when the "other" is a member of a racial or ethnic minority group. Such language often comes by way of the choice of first person pronouns in combination with images that suggest the race of the in group. For instance, if a White candidate is running against a Black candidate in a district that is majority-White, he or she might run an ad that includes only White citizens, with language about "our values" or "our priorities," signaling that those priorities are different than those of a candidate of color. There is nothing inherently racist about candidates trying to convince voters that they are more "relatable" than their opponents; as a result of the way race has worked in America, however, the priming of group identity with images in combination with such language can work to the advantage of a candidate who employs such a strategy.

We can see this very clearly in Barack Obama's opponents over the past two and a half years. From the Democratic primaries through the election through the first six months of his presidency, detractors from all political persuasions have used language that pushes Obama into the category of "other." The specific elements on which Obama is accused of being different change (quite frequently, in fact): He has been labeled as un-American in at least these ways by political elites: communist/socialist/Marxist, elitist, corrupt, terrorist sympathizer, foreign-born, a thug, fascist and racist (ironically, this is considered to be un-American). None of these labels are racist in and of themselves (even "racist"), but when leveled against a person of color, the dynamic is inherently different.

Does that mean that any attack against a person of color is racist? Certainly not (though Obama's opponents have used that argument, as well). First, even if the messages are racist by these scholarly definitions, that does not mean that those who crafted the message did so intentionally (did we mention this already?). Second, there are all sorts of ways that a person of color can be criticized on political grounds without playing into preexisting negative stereotypes about that person's race or ethnicity. Suggesting that Barack Obama is trying to deceive people has a racist effect because African Americans are presumed to be shifty, dishonest and criminal. To argue that Barack Obama's health care proposal is bad for America because small businesses would have a difficult time with the provisions, for instance, is wholly non-racial. Some progressives have argued that all of Obama's opponents are playing on race because the overwhelming visible criticism of him has been based on fear appeals related to negative stereotypes about African Americans.

This latest criticism over the education speech is no different. The argument is that Obama is trying to play a shell game with the American people, to "get at" our children, and to be dishonest about his true intentions. Such a criticism aimed at a White president (or official or candidate) carries no racist associations, as Whites are not, as a group, commonly assumed to have such characteristics. Since such stereotypes do exist about Blacks, however, the effect of this charge is different.

Former Republican Speaker of the House (and likely 2012 presidential hopeful) Newt Gingrich came out in support of the president's speech on Sunday, but implied that his support was related to the fact that he believed that the text of the speech would be made available so that parents could choose whether to allow their children to be exposed to the message. This is consistent with the calls from many of those who have criticized the speech, suggesting that Obama is trying to hide the content from parents. We do not know how common it is for presidents to release the text of their speeches weeks or days ahead of time (though it is quite common for text to be released to the press hours ahead of time for publication assistance), but in the larger context of conservative attacks on Obama over the past year or so, the request is troubling, as it signals that Black folks -- even the president -- cannot be trusted to talk directly to our students without parents having the chance to censor.

Adults talk to our children everyday without our input: teachers, firefighters, police officers, other children's parents on "career days," etc. Presumably there is no opposition to such speakers because those folks are not "strangers" -- they are members of our community. In the past, presidents of the United States were very much considered to be members of our community -- even largely in communities of color.

But this president will never be accepted as "family" or even as legitimate to many Whites. Once that is understood, it is not surprising that parents would not want their children to hear what he has to say unless and until they approve the content ahead of time. If you are not "one of us," you do not get to talk to our children.

Update (9/7/09, 12:39pm CDT): The text of the president's speech to children can be found here.

Opening the Flood-"Gates" to Increased Animosity

As expected, we are weighing in with our analysis of the arrest of Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, Jr. in his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts THIS WEEK. If you have been monitoring the RaceProject Facebook page, you will be up to speed on all the happenings. If so, jump past the next paragraph; if not, read on.

In short, Professor Gates was having trouble getting into his home upon his return from an overseas trip. He and his driver managed to get into the home, but as they were doing so, a neighbor called the police. While Gates was on the phone making arrangements for the door to be fixed, the police arrived. At this point, there is some disagreement about what happened, but we do know that the police asked to see Gates's identification (Gates says he produced it, the police say he did not do so immediately), Gates verbally berated the police (including making comments regarding to the way Black men are treated by police in America) and demanded the officer's badge number and name, and ultimately, Gates was arrested. The charges have been dropped, but the incident sparked a debate within and between several communities (the press, academics, activists, etc.). Dr. Gates is really upset, and President Obama weighed in during the last question of his health care press conference by saying that he believed that the police "acted stupidly," even though he admitted to not knowing all the facts. He has since talked to both the arresting officer and Professor Gates and is planning to have them to the White House for beers.

There has been no shortage of thoughtful commentary throughout the week. And, perhaps as we might expect, there has been no shortage of thoughtless commentary, as well.

On the thoughtful side, we encourage folks to read the excellent posts by Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Dawn Turner Trice (here and here), Katherine T. Wallace, Liza Sabater, George Mitrovich, Harry Allen, Stanley Fish, Charles Blow and Sam Somers.

On the less-than-thoughtful side, (surprise) Rush Limbaugh played explicitly on the "angry Black man" stereotype (video here; for more on this, check out this MSNBC panel where Limbaugh's comments are discussed), and the angry White guys at The Free Republic were typically repulsive.

As is the trend in contemporary racial politics, there are basically three populations about which we are concerned. The first is the group who has been honest about how this incident is illustrative of the relationship between police and Black men in America. The second group is comprised of those (like Limbaugh) who are explicitly opposed to any attempt to bring about racial equality, either because they are overt bigots who believe Whites are a superior people or because they believe that America is a meritocracy where those who have succeeded are those who have worked the hardest -- and who just so happen to be disproportionately White and male. The third group is comprised of (mostly White) folks who are not particularly sensitive to the ways that systemic racism function; these folks sincerely want to have racial equality, understand that by most indicators, it is not here yet, but have a difficult time viewing the world through the lens of "others."

The last group was out in full force THIS WEEK, trying to make sense of the situation by analyzing the events through what they believe to be a race-neutral lens. These are the folks who were moved by the notion that the arresting officer, Sgt. Crowley, gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the late Celtics basketball player Reggie Lewis (our favorite tweet on this came from @mattbastard (Matthew Elliot): "There's a new one 'I'm not racist--I french-kissed a negro [not that there's anything wrong with that].'") and then found "confirmation" that the officer was not "to blame" because he cannot possibly be "racist" when they learned that he was hand-picked by a Black superior officer to teach diversity classes that include information about how to avoid racial profiling and that a Black officer on the scene the night of the Gates arrest publicly claimed that Crowley acted appropriately.

Here's why these interpretations fall short of the type of sophistication we encourage in this space.

Whether the arresting officer is a bigot or not is completely beside the point. He tried to save the life of a Black man and he has been recognized about being thoughtful about racial profiling. That is impressive and certainly suggests that he is not a bigot, but it does not get him off the hook of systemic racism. He is a White man in America -- and a police officer at that -- and thus has a distinct way to view the world that he (like all of us) is unable to escape. He can be thoughtful about that bias that he carries, but as was so nicely demonstrated in Paul Haggis's film Crash, under stressful conditions, it is harder to activate those filters. In short, this is a familiar refrain: "I can't be racist; I have Black friends"; it is a casualty of the continual conflation of racism with bigotry.

Further, under what circumstances would a fellow officer -- of any race or ethnicity -- publicly state that his colleague (particularly one who is facing public scrutiny) acted inappropriately? Seriously: how would that go? "Yeah, he was way out of line. That is not what he should have done at all. I'm embarrassed to be on the same force with this guy." Please. Who can blame a fellow officer for 1) seeing the situation more closely to the way his colleague saw it, and 2) supporting him publicly under these circumstances.

But this is shaping up to be similar to the OJ Simpson verdict with respect to the way Whites and Blacks see the situation. Most Whites see themselves (or wish to see themselves) in Sgt. Crowley (no visible prejudices, history of friendship with Blacks) and worry that they, too, might be accused of racism if they ever do something to a Black person that the person does not like. Since Whites as a group do not have a history of animosity with police, they view the situation outside of that larger context and simply focus on "the facts." But those events took place in a broader context, and that must be considered.

And it is within this context that President Obama spoke. While many (most?) Black folk cheered when he publicly called the officer's actions "stupid" (but see Bill Cosby's response), they recoiled a bit when he backpedaled on the language later in the week (see Melissa Harris-Lacewell's commentary on that issue on The Rachel Maddow Show).

To elaborate on that point, we reprint what Charlton wrote to a friend on his Facebook page about the issue:

My guess is that Obama's first comments were the most honest. I think that his reaction that the Cambridge cop acted stupidly probably came from the visceral feeling of knowing what it feels like not only to be profiled, but to be someone who has done everything society says you have to do to be great, and succeed, etc. and then still get treated like a common criminal -- in your own home no less. Malcolm X use to say: What do you call a Black man with a Ph.D? "N*****." I think that kind of feeling is what Gates had when the incident happened and what Obama was reacting to when he was first asked about his response. His latest response and apologies, etc. are of course politically motivated, though probably the right thing to do to try to help mend fences and use turn it into a "teachable moment."

Even without all the details, I do believe that Gates reacted exactly as the officer said. I believe he said the things he did and in the tone the officer said he did. But I think that to say that Gates "overreacted" is very subjective. As a person who has been harassed by cops for absolutely nothing other than the color of my skin (like the Shawnee [OK] cops who would routinely pull me over when driving in some of the nice neighborhoods, but never give me a reason why they stopped me, and including on two occasions having the cops called because I was "breaking in" to my own apartment, then doing searches of my apartment for no reason), I think Gates's reaction was somewhat mild -- hardly an overreaction. Was it a reasonable reaction? Probably not, but we're not talking about the realm of reason here. It's the emotional feeling one gets at this kind of personal injustice.

Here's the issue with the officer: it's all about the handcuffs. Gates is a short, scrawny, Ivy league nerd who raised his voice at a cop who had a gun, handcuffs and the power and authorization to use force if necessary to exercise his will. The officer had broad discretion. You don't immediately bust out the cuffs because someone gives you a little lip, especially when you know those words are not at all threatening. Putting Gates in cuffs for "disturbing the peace" is a symbolic act, one that says, "get and stay in your place, boy." But few people have been saying that the cop overreacted. And maybe he didn't. Like Gates acted out of his experience and the experience of other Blacks being profiled, the cop acted out of his experience and feeling of having an uppity Black professor talk to him the way he did: not just as a cop, but as a White person. To him, that was Gates's real offense.

Politically speaking, Obama shouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole. But I respect the fact that he he allowed himself to react as a human being who is Black, who has experienced the good and bad of living Black in America and was there to get someone's back who he saw as someone who was a slight victim of injustice (there are plenty of people of color who are profiled and victimized much more harshly).

This is a perspective that Stephen, for instance, would not have had. No matter how sensitive White folks are to systemic racism, no matter how long they study it and try to understand its implications, there is no substitute for experience, particularly with respect to the mixture of cognitive and emotional responses that come into play in a stressful situation such as this. Witness, for instance, MSNBC's Mika Brezezinsky's struggle to understand this element of the situation here (or below) in a discussion with Eugene Robinson and Carlos Watson.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Finally, here's a bit of bitter humor to bring this full circle: Dave Chappelle "predicted" these events a number of years ago in one of his routines.

Before we let you go, though, we would be remiss if we didn't mention the other big racial story THIS WEEK. The "birthers" (those who believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and, thus, is not legitimately the president) gained a strange sort of momentum as national conservative spokespersons such as Lou Dobbs and some Republican members of Congress continued to attempt to legitimize the claims. CNN's Rick Sanchez tore into these folks, and Jon Stewart made them look like complete nut jobs in his comic send up of their activities. Roland Martin did a nice job in a discussion with Dobbs (see here or below), and the Southern Poverty Law Center sent a formal letter to CNN asking for Dobbs to be removed due to his irresponsible journalistic activity with respect to this matter.



Make no mistake: this issue has everything to do with race. It is a perpetuation of the "otherness" frame that characterized Obama's opponents in the primaries and general election, and it is very much a function of White folks who remain horrified that the nation is being led by a Black man. At the town hall meeting that got so much attention THIS WEEK, a woman screamed "I want my country back!" This language is reflective of a group of people (it's impossible to tell how large of a group) who cannot stomach the fact that a Black man is in charge. Obama, they implicitly argue, is not really American. He's not "one of us." He's quintessentially "other," and he has stolen the country.

When he sided with the "lippy," "uppity" African American studies professor, it was simply additional evidence for the fact that "his kind" stick together; they will protect one another, but they hate Whites. He is a "reverse racist" (as Rush Limbaugh has called him), and he has disdain for (at least parts of) America.

We see some very scary trends emerging THIS WEEK. The White supremacists will always be stoking racial animosity and attacking Obama on racial grounds, but when otherwise thoughtful Whites (whom we put in "group three" above) start to be attentive to and perpetuate these notions, there is a real danger for the racial divide to widen. The backlash we (and many others) predicted at inauguration time is in full effect. What remains to be seen is how deep and how widespread it will become.

Independence Day for African Americans

There was a lot of chatter in the blogosphere over the past few days with respect to what July 4 does (and should) signify, particularly for people of color, as we celebrated the first Independence Day with a Black president.

Many folks tweeted or posted links to Frederick Douglass's famous speech titled "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro." In this address, Douglass tries to explain what it is like to see celebration of ideals that have not been realized. He says:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

He begins (and ends) the speech, however, with optimism:

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too Ñ great enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

Francesca Biller-Safran situated the holiday in a contemporary context, noting that "for many Blacks who have felt ambivalence, separatism and exclusion; this will be a Fourth of July like no other."

Rikyrah, of Jack and Jill Politics, reminds us that to suggest that Black folk have not been patriotic prior to this momentous time in our history is offensive and misguided. For it is easy to love that which loves you back; loving a nation that has treated you and people like you with disdain, disrespect and deceit is a true sign of dedication.

Indeed, several articles and posts over the weekend attempted to call our attention the difference between nationalism ("my country, right or wrong") and patriotism. Byron Williams notes that patriotism is about celebrating the ideals of a country and Mike Lux argues that the folks whose ideas we celebrate on this day (Thomas Jefferson and his buddies) were radicals and leftists fighting against forces that wished to impede progress. They certainly had their own hangups and were bound by their cultural context, but the ideas for which they fought are the same ideas that many progressives are fighting for today.

This is particularly true with respect to racial progress. THIS WEEK, Barack Obama read for his (sorta creepy) animatronic likeness in Disney World's famous Hall of Presidents. (You can watch the behind-the-scenes video by clicking here or watching below.) It gives one a real sense of the history of his election to consider the power of his likeness on that grand stage alongside all the White men who led this nation through the first 220 years.



Thinking about this moment and reading Frederick Douglass's words prompts one to think about how much has truly changed in the past 150 years, as well as how much work we still have to do.

RaceProject on Facebook

For a number of reasons (most of them technical and boring), we have moved the official RaceProject.org Facebook content from a "group" to a "page." If you were a member of the RaceProject.org Facebook group, please "fan" the new page (which has an easy-to-remember URL: Facebook.com/RaceProject). Soon, we will discontinue the old "group," so please take a moment now to make the switch, or "fan" us even if you are new to Facebook or had not joined the old group.

Creating Space for Progress

The Race Project has a number of volunteer research assistant positions available for the summer. Scroll to the bottom of this blog entry for more information.

There are some Americans who honestly believe that racial minorities have an unfair advantage over Whites (see Pat Buchanan) and others who are simply uninterested in seeing any power whatsoever shifted out of the hands of White men (see the Ku Klux Klan). The vast majority of us, however, understand that the legacy of inequality, manifested in (mostly latent) psychological predispositions about members of different groups, has left us with a system that undermines our espoused shared core values of justice, equality of opportunity and even individualism. While it often feels good (and always gets ratings) to call names, point fingers, belittle, ridicule, mock and otherwise humiliate our political opponents, doing so leaves no space for progress.

THIS WEEK, we consider what it means to leave space for change. In this month's Esquire, political statistics whiz kid Nate Silver argues that there may be a trend toward increased geographical polarization in America, as the poor job market makes it more likely that folks will relocate on the basis of ideology. It's the physical manifestation of the "selective exposure" hypothesis in media effects research: people will seek out that which affirms their existing beliefs to avoid experiencing (and, thus, having to relieve) cognitive dissonance. Last year, we reviewed Cappella and Jamieson's book Echo Chamber, which traces the interconnectedness of the conservative media establishment (Fox News, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show). We may be seeing an emergence of a progressive echo chamber, as MSNBC has attempted to become the Fox of the Left, exchanging information over the airwaves and Internet with progressive websites such as Huffington Post, Daily Kos and Media Matters. The other networks -- which conservatives claim are liberal and progressives claim are conservative -- attempt some middle ground by having hosts or guests from the left and the right screaming at one another and hurling insults at or about anyone who has a different perspective.

This is horribly dangerous for our political discourse because it reinforces the notion that one must hold firm to one's ideas, even in the face of clear, contrasting evidence. Five years ago, Jon Stewart intellectually ambushed Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson on an episode of CNN's Crossfire (below), telling them that their sort of discourse was "hurting America."



This moment was situated in the context of a brilliant political strategy on the part of President Bush's campaign team to label Democratic nominee John Kerry as "a flip flopper," a moniker that will likely define Kerry's legacy. Whether Kerry would have made a good president or not is beside the point; whether his changing of positions (to the extent that the claim was even valid) would have been an indication of his abilities is another issue altogether. Our bias, as college professors, is to constantly push for a more complicated understanding of the world, which necessitates leaving space for intellectual growth. The chasm between what we encourage on college campuses and what we champion in our political discourse is wide and seems to be expanding.

In his "Cairo speech" (formally titled "A New Beginning") THIS WEEK, President Obama called for increased understanding between warring factions in global politics (read the transcript here):

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Obama was praised throughout the world for this fresh take, but the position is not without controversy. Conservative pundits accused Obama of pandering and being "soft" because he refused to use the word "terror," a word that Obama realizes is so laden with emotion and perspective that it is virtually meaningless. To accuse someone of being "a terrorist" is to engage in name calling that does not leave space to move us closer to peace.

Similarly, as we argue regularly in this space, calling people "racists" (as contrasted with pointing out racist assumptions) is counterproductive to clearing space for progress toward racial equality.

Perhaps a parallel example would be New Hampshire governor John Lynch's speedy signing of the gay marriage law passed by the NH legislature THIS WEEK. Lynch, who has stated repeatedly that he believes that marriage is "between one man and one woman" gave a speech last month wherein he acknowledged his own limitations:

My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this issue through a broader lens.

[. . .]

Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections. That is what I believe we must do today.

This speech is important in at least two respects. First, of course, it paved the way for NH to be the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. Second -- more broadly -- it serves as an example of what can happen when we give public officials the space to grow without punishing them for that growth (though, of course, it remains to be seen how Lynch might be ultimately punished).

Another public shift in position THIS WEEK came when Newt Gingrich retracted his statement (which we discussed last week) that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is "a racist." Said Gingrich:

My initial reaction [to Sotomayor's 2001 speech] was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable. . .

Of course, Sotomayor's words are not unacceptable -- even if President Obama thinks they are -- to those who understand how important life experience is to one's outlook and how important that outlook is to providing meaningful (and yes, empathetic) representation and leadership. In terms of overall effect, Gingrich's "apology" is not particularly important. He still opposes her nomination, in part because he is offended by her unwillingness to pretend that she is without perspective, and the clarification may have more to do with trying to soften his image on the eve of a presidential run.

But, while we can only speak for ourselves, we absolutely do "want to have an honest conversation." Further, we wish to assert that it is important that progressives allow folks to revise their remarks to the extent that they are being intellectually honest about beliefs that initial reactions or prior positions were improper. We need to acknowledge and not punish public figures when they show signs of growth. Labeling Gingrich a "flip flopper" or otherwise trying to define him by his initial statement only serves to contribute to a culture of rigidity that rewards stubbornness and discourages change where change is appropriate.

It became more clear THIS WEEK that Congressman Artur Davis will seek the governorship of Alabama. If he is to become the first Black governor of a deep South state since Reconstruction (and only the third Black governor elected anywhere), he will have to count on the (private) votes of Whites who have historically not been supportive of civil rights. Those folks will be more inclined to vote for a Black candidate if they get cues from leaders that, to paraphrase John Lynch, our society's views of civil rights are evolving.

It is important to create and maintain space for that discourse to occur, not because Artur Davis should or should not be elected governor of Alabama, but because there should be a context within which his candidacy would not be defined by his race.

We will get there by way of honest, thoughtful, meaningful discourse, not by shouting, name calling and ridicule. Our success or failure will be largely the result of the space we create.

Update: In clarifying his statement about Sotomayor on today's Face the Nation, Newt Gingrich called Sotomayor "a racialist," which is a term that has no distinct meaning as of yet, but that we are starting to encounter more and more frequently. We will address this language in a later post.

Research Assistant Opportunities

The Project on Race in Political Communication (http://RaceProject.org) has a number of volunteer research opportunities for anyone who would like to be involved with the Race Project. While students are a natural constituency in this regard, anyone is welcome to help. We are entering the most labor-intensive phase of a very exciting element of the Project -- one that we have be planning for nearly eight years -- that will have implications far more widespread than the study of race and political communication.

We are compiling data and constructing a database that will be made available to researchers (in the form of a spreadsheet appropriate for quantitative analysis) and the public (in the form of a Web-interfaced search engine) that contains information about candidates for federal office (U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and U.S. president) since 1970, including the candidate's race, gender, party affiliation, number of votes received, amount of money raised and spent, and other variables of interest. Computer programmers are busy at work on the Web-interface, and two Race Project senior research assistants students, Sidra Hamidi and Priscilla Martinez, are prepared to oversee the collection and entering of data over the summer months. Research assistants will be responsible for collecting information from a variety of sources (most of which are online) to compete the dataset. This is an important contribution that has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of elections, as this information is not currently available in one place.

This work requires no prior research experience and can be done from any location and at any time of the day (we can work around work schedules). For students, working as a Race Project research assistant affords the opportunity to gain experience with social science research for the purposes of CV building, instigating an original research project, and/or working toward a better understanding of racial inequality and injustice. Research practicum credit through North Central College (which may transfer to other institutions) can be arranged.

If you are interested, please Facebook message Stephen or Charlton, or send an email to SMCaliendo@RaceProject.org. If you know someone who might be interested (or if you are a faculty member who has students who might be interested), please do not hesitate to pass this information along.