We must face down smears, not accommodate them
We’ve all heard the argument by now: “I’m not a racist, but I’m afraid to vote for Obama because I don’t think other Americans will vote for a black guy.” There are many good reasons not to vote for Obama, this is not one of them. It is precisely this reasoning that has made Democrats weak for a generation.
The “I’m afraid others won’t support a black candidate” point was recently made by. Charles Karel Bouley on Huffington Post. His argument is well articulated and does not stray much from the formula. Yes, many white people say they would vote for Obama, but that is because they are either embarrassed of or unaware of their latent racism. But once the Republican attack machine frames their racism in a legitimate way, they will feel comfortable indulging their “real,” base feelings.
This logic is faulty for two reasons. First, it suggests that Democrats can strengthen their political position by accomodating racists. This is false and will not work. Whether Senator Obama is elected or not, our party and our ability to realize its ideals is weakened when we compromise our principles. Second, this logic rests on the belief that the effectiveness of the attack machine is based on the substance of the attacks. It is not. It is based on our response to the attacks. When we respond with weakness and calumny, they are effective. If we stand strong they will not be.
Principles are power. In a democracy voters understand that they are not voting for policies. They are voting for logics — ways of thinking. People supported George W. Bush because they liked the way he thought and they believed he would be true to it. They were not comfortable with John Kerry because they could not get a clear sense of his thinking. People intuitively understand that once policy making begins specific campaign promises are out the window, but if you understand how a person thinks and makes decisions you can infer the kinds of decisions they will ultimately make. If you do not understand their thinking you become suspicious of their motives. Without clear guiding principles, they can make almost any decision or almost any compromise. Unprincipled candidates thus appear to be “power hungry” — they wish to wield influence without restriction or committment to anyone or anything.
This suspicion is especially prevalent in independent voters and those who cross party lines. Power seeking, as opposed to principled leadership, is far more damaging to these voters than to party loyalists who may at least bask in the glory of ill-gained victory. Thus, it is extremely difficult to appeal to voters from outside the party with unprincipled candidates.
What does this have to do with racism? Well, the calculation that says we should support a white candidate for fear of racism is not consistent with any liberal principle I know. It is, on the contrary, a rather crass attempt to game the system in order to grab power by appealing to people’s baser instincts — precisely what independents and moderate Republicans are on the lookout for. By accomodating racists we show a lack of conviction in our own principles that drives away swing voters.
Perhaps as importantly, this lack of conviction weakens the party’s internal sense of mission and idealism. Yes, some quasi-racists will vote for McCain instead of Obama. But no, these quasi-racists will not vote for a Democratic party that shares their quasi-racism. Why bother? What is to be gained by supporting Hillary Clinton over John McCain given that the Democrats have no soul?
Just as importantly, if Democrats boldly put forward Obama, some quasi-racists will vote for him because his very candidacy challenges the validity of that racism and appeals to their greater sense of duty to the country. Voting for Hillary over Obama to placate subconscious racists says “we understand that this would be hard for you.” Voting for Obama says “yes, he’s black, but do you have a good reason not to vote for him?”
The second premise is a more specific manifestation of the first. It is the idea that the best way to defeat, or avoid the damage done by, the Republican attack machine is by choosing a “safe” target. The idea is that if we give them someone who is not so juicy, or partly stale (as in the case of Senator Clinton), they won’t be as vigorous or effective. Sadly, this is wishful thinking. The attack machine has successfully derailed or undermined Democratic leaders with a broad range of attacks, some mildly substantive, some bordering on the absurd. They attacked, with equal shrillness and pompous outrage: Bill Clinton (for getting a bj in the Oval Office), Al Gore (for intimating he was proud to have contributed to America’s technology sector), and John Kerry (for saying that he was in Vietnam, which he was). And they will attack either Hillary or Obama with this very same shrillness and pompous outrage. They will do everything in their power to make it seem like, whomever we choose, it was a wrong choice that “played into their hands.”
But the attack machine doesn’t work because of anything they say or anything the electorate believes based on what they say. It works, or fails to work, because of how we respond. It challenges our principles in the hope of exposing them as a fraud and thus discouraging swing voters from defecting.
Conservatives believe that the world is a dangerous, hateful place where principles are false disguises for hypocrites. The game of the attack machine is simple: get the opponent to show that, deep down, s/he either agrees with them or can’t handle them. This is done by playing “unfair.” The challenge to our candidate is thus always as follows. When faced with devious and sleazy smears and lies, how do you respond? There are three options available: attack back and endorse their principles, ignore them/plea for mercy and appear weak, or correct them and ask them to step up or become irrelevant.
Only the third strategy brings us any power. This is the strategy that Lincoln used, that both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt used, and it is Obama’s strategy. You point out that their accusations are false and irrelevant and that their reliance on these falsehoods is evidence of their refusal to deal with reality. Then you emphasize that, here in reality, we need a leader who can get things done, so if they have something of use or value to say, they should say it, otherwise follow or get out of the way.
We have a lot of work to do in this country. We need the best leader we can get. Smears just waste everyone’s time. If you have a substantive criticism of Senator Obama, let’s hear it. But if you are going to smear we can only assume it is because you have nothing better to say — that, in fact, you do think Barack Obama is the best candidate on all relevant and important fronts. And if Barack Obama is the best candidate, it is ridiculous to go with second best while wait around for racists to get comfortable with the idea of a black president.
Drew
