Life After Obama's Election: Where Race Relations In America Go From Here

Barack Obama's election as the next President of the United States is a momentous step forward for black Americans, and for the ongoing struggle to overcome this country's racism. It certainly says a lot about the American people that, just four decades after the Civil Rights Movement, they handed a landslide victory to a black man. This would not have happened several decades ago, or perhaps even several years ago. Yet it would be far too easy to allow this development to make us complacent on the issue of race relations. Indeed, to do so would contradict the unfortunate reality we face - that since Obama's election, the number of race-related hate crimes against black Americans has increased drastically. Moreover, as the Associated Press reports, many of these crimes are directly connected with Mr. Obama's election. Among the reprehensible stories coming to light is a convenient store in Maine that offered a gambling contest, asking people to bet on the date when Obama would be assassinated. Because I like to explore the role played by culture in American politics, the resurgence of racial hate as a result of the election of our first black president has sparked my interest. I think it is important to have a discussion about why this is happening, and how we can overcome the types of bigotry most of us wish could become a thing of the past. Because of this, I explored the blogosphere for relevant entries on what is happening with race relations generally, and Obama-related hate crimes specifically. One blog that really interested me came from Susan Snyder, with the The American Association for Affirmative Action. She also observes the post-election race problems, and specifically notes students at La Salle University who are accused of assaulting other black students because of Obama's election. Another entry that stood out was from Digby at Hullabaloo, a Democratic blog that offers a strong partisan perspective. He goes through a long list of recent racial hate incidents, including hateful words from prominent conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. I have offered comments to each of these blogs, and have included them below in this post for reference.

Hullabaloo - "Losin' It"
Comment:

Digby,

Thanks for tackling such an important issue. While it is easy to see the advances in race relations that have transpired in this election, it is critical that we also consider where race relations in America will go from here. I have read in newspapers that racial hate crimes have increased, but your post was an insightful look into exactly what that means. The examples you gave were both enlightening and disturbing. I appreciate that you gathered these together and brought attention to this subject. I also think that you incorporated them in well with the broader post.

Although I took away a lot of helpful information from your entry, I would have liked to see this post changed in three ways. First, I did not feel as though I got enough of your perspective on this situation. While you clearly demonstrated that you are opposed to such hateful acts, I think exploring why it is happening and how it can be stopped would have been useful. Secondly, I think you could have further developed your criticism of the Secret Service's statements. You mentioned that they "cautioned the public not to assume that any threats against Obama are due to racism. Yet to me, and to anyone who is objectively viewing this situation, there are a number of obvious examples of racism that have transpired since November 4th. Finally, I do not think the inclusion of non-racial attacks were appropriate in the context of this post. It is unfair to lump attacks on liberals with attacks against black Americans - both are despicable, and both are often perpetrated by similar people, but they are very different issues. I understood your point in including the, but it was distracting to the issue of race and its role now that Obama has been elected.

Overall, though, this was the most informative blog post I have read on this issue. The wide array of racial hate crimes you outline should be shocking enough to bring awareness to the racial hatred that persists, even with a black president. I think we can be proud of how far the country has come on race, and we can be optimistic about where we will go from here, but we most always keep in mind that racial bigotry is a reality that cannot be eliminated by an election.

"Hate Crimes up on Campuses, Group Says"
Comment:

Susan,

Thank you for addressing this pressing issue. The surge in racial hatred as a result of the election of the first black president is alarming, and needs to be discussed. In my blog, I try to examine the role played by race, religion, and culture in politics, and this is an example of its most destructive possibilities. Your post was helpful in illuminating a specific instance in which a hate crime has taken place since Barack Obama's election. I was especially surprised to learn that this type of bigotry was happening on college campuses; as a college student myself, I like to think campuses are a safe, progressive, and tolerant place. Yet, as you point out, there has been a "surge of similar acts on campuses and elsewhere around the country."

I wish your post had discussed why this is happening, and what we can do about it. These are difficult questions to answer from an academic point of view. It occurs to me that perhaps this is standard backlash against something that is so new and different that it can seem threatening. What worries me, though, is that it is more than that - that it is, in fact, indicative of a wider sentiment within segments of the white community that think they are on the losing end of a racial conflict. It is that type of mentality that poses a serious, long-term threat. And I wonder, what do you think we can do about it? How do we overcome this hatred? I would love to get your perspective on this. Again, thanks so much for this post. I look forward to reading more from you about race and politics.

Prop 8 and Its Implications: Did the Electorate Break Down Along Cultural Lines?

Last week the country was asked to select its next President -- and it chose, in overwhelming fashion, Senator Barack Obama. Taken by itself this is a clear sign that Americans were ready for a new direction. And I believe that they were. Yet the ballot in California also asked voters to decide upon the future of same-sex marriage rights, and on this issue, they chose tradition over progress. Proposition 8 was a state constitutional amendment officially defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, thereby denying the institution to gay and lesbian couples. Despite being considered one of the most forward-thinking, liberal states, Californians voted in favor of the amendment by several percentage points. And so it has become law. The obvious question that comes to mind is, how did this happen? The answer may be complicated. I think, though, the cultural-political approach taken in this blog can help to explain which people support Prop 8, and why. Specifically, an examination of the roles of race and religion can help to delineate exactly who made Prop 8 a success -- both in the voting booth, and in the massive campaign effort that spent tens of millions of dollars.

Exit polling tracks how voters cast their ballots on election day, and is extremely helpful in determining the demographic breakdown. Exit polls taken on November 4th reveal that both race and religion were important factors in determining support or non-support for Prop 8. For example, 70 percent of the black electorate supported the ban; slightly less than half of white and Asian voters were in support; and Latinos marginally favored the proposition. Voters who described themselves as Christian, meanwhile, voted percent in favor of the ban, whereas those who said they had no religious affiliation voted 90 percent against Prop 8. These numbers show how varying demographics voted last Tuesday, but to what extent are they evidence of a cultural divide that exists between and within religious and racial groups?

Black voters in California supported Prop 8 at a higher level than any other racial group, and at a staggering 40 point margin in favor, further discussion is certainly warranted. Turnout among black voters was also high, attributable most directly to the candidacy of Barack Obama. Exit polls also indicate that more than 90% of black voters voted for Mr. Obama and other Democrats. Yet, President-elect Obama was vociferously opposed to Prop 8, as was the Democratic Party more generally. In fact, the majority of people who identified as Democrats opposed the marriage ban, according to exit polls. Thus, it must be observed that black voters, as a demographic, cannot be grouped together with Democratic voters more generally, despite their long-standing support of the Party's candidates. Arguably, then, there must be some cultural explanation for why a group that otherwise supports progressive causes would choose not to support this one. Perhaps it is because black voters are far more likely to be church-goers, and as aforementioned, this group is in turn far more likely to support Prop 8. Because black Californians were proportionally a more religious group, the numbers were skewed on a racial level as well. Yet this explanation does not entirely suffice, because absent of race, religious Californians as a group also favored Senator McCain, along with other Republicans. Black voters were, as a racial demographic, the most diametrically opposed group to both McCain and Republicans writ large. The religiosity of black voters in California, therefore, cannot be the only factor in play. Another consideration is the persistence of homophobia within the black community. As President-elect Obama said to a predominantly black church on the campaign trail earlier in 2008, "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them." Indeed, since the passage of Prop 8 many black gays and lesbians have denounced what they see as a troubling level of bigotry among black voters. LaDoris H. Cordell, a retired Superior Court judge, and a black lesbian living in California, said she had fought long and hard for civil rights, and commented, "it never occurred to me that black folks might vote to oppress others in exactly the same way." With these observations in mind, culture arguably played a tremendous role in the outcome of Prop 8.

While black voters largely backed the measure, the religious community was just as strong in its support. Moreover, it was a relatively undiverse group of religious voters, churches and institutions that actively campaigned for the passage of Prop 8. The Mormon church, for example, gave over $20 million to the cause -- a far greater sum than any other faction gave to either the Yes on 8 or No on 8 campaigns.. Other religious organizations, such as the Catholic Knights of Columbus, also gave dollar amounts in the millions. With over 90 percent of self-described non-religious Californians opposing Prop 8, a clear cultural divide between the faithful and non-believers was demonstrated on November 4th. Many advocates for the ban contended that it was a religious, not legal, matter, and that the government should therefore not redefine the institution to include same-sex couples. The Reverand Jim Garlow, an active backer of the measure, argued that "we must fear God more than man -- whatever it costs us." He believes that although we might feel inclined to share equality with all, we must instead follow God's will to not do so. While their taking such a position is not especially surprising, the tens of millions of dollars, and countless volunteer hours put into the Yes on 8 campaign makes me wonder how some religious groups could take their opposition to gay marriage from spiritual conviction to fierce political activism. If the basis for your political involvement is religious faith, are there not more pressing moral issues, like fighting against poverty, violence, and hatred? I suspect that some from the Yes on 8 team would respond by suggesting that they can care about all of those issues, and prop 8; but when was the last time we saw thousands of volunteers and millions of dollars thrown at a bill to help the homeless? When were there ever throngs of religious people throwing victory parties across the country when children achieved greater access to healthcare? The answers to these questions, I think, suggest the extent to which traditional social mores -- and not genuine faith-based concerns -- continue to mobilize some conservative voters and groups.

Prop 8 will come to define the intersection between culture and politics. It was a referendum on the degree to which American culture, as exemplified in California, at least, had become open to progress in marriage equality. Ultimately, the outcome indicated that cultural barriers were still too great to allow for such progress. Yet, for same-sex couples the future is far more promising. In addition to strong, ongoing legal arguments against the validity of Prop 8, the exit polls offered one final bit of information: young people support extending full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. The same polls that found many black and religious voters are still culturally opposed to the idea, also showed that more than 62% of Californians under 30 voted against the ban. These numbers were even higher in voters under 25. Change came with Obama in this election, and I am as convinced as ever that changes in cultural attitudes regarding marriage equality will come next.

Injecting God into Politics: How Religious Bigotry Persists into the 21st Century

Today, the American people will vote on whether or not to take this country in a new direction. The results that come in tonight will be a reflection of the extent to which cultural politics were able to influence voters. I have spent a great deal of time in this blog discussin the Presidential election and the omnipresence of a cultural undertone, or at times overtone, to the political discussion going on there. It has been my conclusion that Senator McCain has gone out of his way to refocus the election from tangible issues like the economy, to cultural issues like which candidate is more American than the other. Certainly, this cannot be healthy for the fostering and debating of ideas in civil society. Thus, the election of Senator Obama would suggest that the Amerian people determined issues and the candidates' stances on those issues to be most important; the election of Senator McCain, who over the last several weeks has almost exclusively campaigned on culturics, would suggest that his approach was more effective.

Yet lost in all of this discussion about Presidential politics have been the state-by-state races, some of which have gone above and beyond the McCain-Obama competition in terms of intentional divisions along cultural lines. This week I searched the blogosphere to find out about these races, and one stood out: The Senatorial race in North Carolina between Elizabeth Dole and Kay Hagan. I found that Senator Dole has attempted to win this election by casting Hagan as Godless. Literally. Two great blog posts, one on the Huffington Post, and one by an understandable offended atheist, are effective at helping to shed light on this race. I also offered comments to each of them, and have included those along with links to their blog entries below.

"Dole Ad Fabricates Audio of Opponent Yelling 'There is no God!'"
Comment:

Seth,

Thanks for bringing attention to this type of politicking. Sometimes there is a tendency to just accept the worst kinds of political mudslinging as "part of tne game," but you've done an excellent job outlining why this goes beyond the realm of what can be tolerated. The North Carolina Senate race between Republican Elizabeth Dole and Democrat Kay Hagan has turned extremely ugly in the weeks leading up to election day, and the example you observe in your post is perhaps the most significant. In my blog, I attempt to look at the role being played by culture in American politics. At times it is difficult to pass a normative judgment on this role. Yet, it often takes form in a particularly nasty, and simultaneously irrelevant attack that causes political discussion to devolve into one candidate pointing fingers at the other for being "Godless" (and for associating with other Godless people).

The structure of your post was very helpful for me in coming to understand the facts of these circumstances. Although you clearly took a heavily opinionated approach in describing Mrs. Dole's campaign tactics, you were able to back everything up with facts, and more directly, actual video. I also appreciated that the title of your post drew attention to the fact that the very premise of Mrs. Dole's television advertisement is a lie. To watch an advertisement that ends with the picture of the opposing candidate, and a voiceover that is clearly supposed to be that candidate saying "there is no God..." is truly shocking. To then find out that the voiceover is, in point of fact, someone else's voice entirely, is really unbelievable.

Despite everything that is good about this post, I would have liked to see you address the broader significance of this debate. Yes, Senator Dole's campaign is clearly dispicable. But what does it say about our country when a candidate thinks this kind of thing would work? I am interested in hearing your opinion on why being a non-religious candidate should even matter in the first place, or why associating with constituents who are non-believers would be a bad thing. The only other drawback to this post is the polls chart. While it is important to your argument that Senator Dole's actions have been out of desperation because she is falling behind in the polls, I think you could have made that case with numbers. The chart is distracting, especially in the midst of several other interactive videos already included in the post. That said, however, this blog entry is important and should fuel further dialogue over the role of religion and culture in political campaigns.

"Elizabeth Dole: Campaigning on Bigotry"
Comment:

VJack,

This post represents a very important discussion that needs to happen about this issue in America. Clearly, the bigotry against non-Christians, and worse, non-believers and atheists, persists with strength well into the 21st century. Senator Dole's television advertisement truly is dispicable, not to mention misleading. The truth is that Kay Hagan is, and has always been, an actively religious Christian. After reading your post, and reading about her life, anyone can see that she has led a religious life - indeed, if one were to pass any judgment, it would be that she has led an unusually religious life.

Yet I appreciate the approach you took in your post. Instead of focusing on how untrue and unfair Mrs. Dole's attacks are, you have elevated the discussion to a level where we ask ourselves, why would it even matter if Kay Hagan did not share the same Christian faith as Elizabeth Dole? And how can Senator Dole possibly be, as you put it, "attacking Hagan for daring to meet with atheist constituents?" You also raise an important question about what impact the result of this race could have on the future of atheist rights. I agree that her actions, and this election, could make political leaders afraid of standing up for, or even sitting down with, non-believers.If the guilty-by-association is taken so far that to be an atheist is bad, and to even know an atheist is bad, and it may even make you be an atheist yourself, then the risk certainly exists that atheists could fall into the category of Bill Ayers - people you should avoid at all costs if you want to win an election.

I hope this will not be the case. I hope Senator Dole loses today as badly as anyone else. And I genuinely hope we can turn the page on this type of politics, and look to a new direction for America. Your post has these hopes too, I think. Yet it also contains phrasing and condescending statements that threaten to undermine its purposes. When you sarcastically refer to Jesus Christ, and suggest that it is ridiculous to believe in Him, you are guilty of the same kind of negative attacks as Senator Dole - albeit to a lesser degree. I think that to call someone "Godless" as if she is therefore a bad person is an example of a real setback for a society that is becoming increasingly more open and accepting. Yet to criticize someone for having faith, too, is a setback. So I would encourage you to continue posting on this important subject. It is for the betterment of humankind that you do so. But I know that you can do it without resorting to cheap attacks.

Us and Them: How the McCain Campaign is Using Culture to Create Division

Over the course of the last several weeks, John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin have made their strategy clear: Do everything possible to make Barack Obama appear different from the rest of us. This "he's not one of us" approach has become apparent in their campaign rally speeches, advertisements, and newest range of attacks that attempt to associate the Senator from Illinois with Marxism, elitism, and anti-Americanism.

In these final days leading up to the election, the Republican ticket and their surrogates have made this argument on countless occasions. First, using the John Edwards approach (albeit less thoughtfully and with different goals in mind) they began to allege that there were two Americas. Sarah Palin stated last week that, "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation." The implication here is clear. There is the "Real America", where traditional, white, pro-America Republicans live, and then there is what could only be called "Fake America", where non-traditional, non-white, elitist, anti-American liberals live. The amount of forced cultural division that exists in this rhetoric cannot be overstated. It attempts to meld together every aspect of the undercurrent of cultural divide that persists in America, and use it against Senator Obama by insisting that he is so different, so unlike the rest of us, that he cannot be our President.


Meanwhile, this argument has been fostered by others, as well. The Huffington Post, for example, reported earlier this month that Senator McCain's brother, Joe McCain, had referred to northern Virginia - the more liberal, less rural area of the state - as "Communist country". He made these statements at a campaign rally for his brother. If it stood alone, such a remark might seem like harmless, light-hearted joking. Instead, it comes amidst a firestorm of attacks perpetrated by the McCain campaign that is seeking to align Barack Obama with socialism, communism, and even Karl Marx himself. In a radio interview last week, McCain said that Obama was a socialist who is lying every time he says he is anything else. He observed that, "at least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives." The cultural punch packed in this statement reminds one of, well, the multitude of other cultural punches landed by members of the campaign in recent days. It is intensely negative and ridden with divisiveness. This one sentence alone, when unpacked for analysis, contains three central attacks. First, that Senator Obama is a socialist, the same kind of socialist that took so many countries down the path to communism during the 20th century. Everyone recalls the "us and them" dichotomy that existed then - it was the West versus the Communists. Senator McCain would have you believe that Obama's intetions lie closer with them than us. Second, his statement links Obama with European socialist leaders "who so admire" him. In this instance, Mr. McCain is trying to play up the pro-American, anti-European nationalistic sentiments in America by claiming that Obama really belongs in their politics, not ours. There is a strong cultural argument being made here: Americans are just culturally different than the elitist, socialists in Europe. But is Senator Obama? The third and final attack that exists in this one quote contends that despite the realities of the first two attacks, Obama is lying to cover it all up. That, even worse than a socialist, he is an untrustworthy man who will do unknowable harm to the country.


This last claim has been bolstered by other attacks from the McCain camp that make two assertions. First, that we do not really know who Barack Obama is. And second, that we have good reason to believe that he is anti-American. He is not part of the aforementioned "Real America". We saw the first signs that Senator McCain would take this route early in October, when he began asking, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" Alex Koppelman, blogger for the salon.com, observes that the point of McCain asking such a statement is "to use the scurrilous rumors and fears about Obama for his own political advantage." That is, he hopes that Senator Obama's differentness factor can be raised as high as possible, thereby causing voters to go with someone safer, someone more like them. Yet this approach did not end with the question "who is Barack Obama?" Instead, the campaign and their surrogates have sought to answer that question for us. While Governor Palin has asserted that he's not a real American, and Senator McCain has asserted that he's an untrustworthy, unknowable, closet European socialist, others have gone even further by stating that he is anti-Amiercan. Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann, for example, stated last week that Obama and his wife hold "very anti-American views." She even went on to say that there should be investigations into the patriotism of other elected officialis, to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America."

She is not the only Republican who is trying to answer John McCain's question with allegations of anti-Americanism. Virginia Republican Party Chairman Jeff Frederick, while telling volunteers what to say when going door-to-door, instructed them to make "the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden." This incited other volunteers to offer up additional talking points, such as, "we don't even know where Senator Obama was really born." Both statements are not only factually untrue, they intentionally seek to answer the "who is he?" question with someone altogether un-American, someone who should never be President of the United States. By every measure, the McCain campaign's strategy for winning has devolved into an incoherent array of divisive, untruthful, culturally antagonistic attacks. It is 100% negative according to ad-buying estimates. It is as if any campaign theme or central message has been replaced with increasingly absurd lines, ranging from communism to elitism to anti-Americanism to Osama Bin Laden himself. Yet, I do not think it has to end this way. With one week to go, Senator McCain has an opportunity to end with positive reasons for why he should be elected our next President. If, on the other hand, he continues down this road, political analysts, and eventually historians, will look back upon the campaign he waged with disappointment. They will conclude appropriately that it was a campaign of cultural warfare, designed desperately to pit voters of different backgrounds against each other on the basis of who is real and fake, who is pro and anti, who is good and bad. I hope for his sake, and our country's, that these seven days can be a time of healing. But don't count on it.

Political News and Opinion: Searching the Web for Useful Resources

In my previous posts, I have attempted to academically assess the role of culture in politics. This has required an intensive search of the web for both sites that offer political news, and those that offer opinion through editorials or within the blogosphere. Because of the importance of these materials to my analysis, I decided to find and link a number of useful sites. It is additionally important to critique these cites, and I will do so in this post using evaluation criteria from IMSA and Webby Awards.

The New York Times Politics page was an essential part of my linkroll. The site provides in-depth, highly credible political news that presents both investigatory work and expert analysis and opinion. The site iteslf is highly interactive and engaging; yet this too is part of its downside, because while it offers almost limitless possibilities, it is all forced onto a single webpage without a lot of distinction between its different aspects, thus at times making it difficult to navigate. The Washington Post, on the other hand, exemplifies the opposite: it is well structured, separating different topics with colored borders and font changes. At the same time, the Post offers a similar level of ethos and sophistication. An aesthetic drawback to the site is that an entire quarter of the page - the bottom right quadrant - is entirely empty, so empty that it is almost distracting in its own right. Somehow, The Drudge Report manages to accomplish the worst of both of the aforementioned sites. It is both way overloaded with site material on a single page, and yet finds the space to leave a significant portion of the page completely blank (again, see: bottom right). Drudge is one of the least functional, least interactive, and least visually stimulating sites I have found. With all that said, however, the site still scores high marks for great content that often explores topics beyond coverage of the mainstream media, and that references some of the most credible news and facts on the web.

In addition to news, I found a plethora of bloggers who love to regularly share the political insights and opinions. I have predominantly linked to those that I found especially interesting and compelling, but I have also decided to include a couple that I normally would not read because of their relevance to cultural influences on politics. One of these is a blog called Christianity Today, a blog that primarily examines the Presidential election through the lens of Christian beliefs. It is an extremely well put together site, with easy navigation and an efficient, vertically designed structure that allows you to go from recent posts to older entries. The color palette can be distracting with an overuse of the color blue. Additionally, there are some questions as to the academic credability of the writers, about whom there is little information. A highly credible (and highly opinionated blog) is the Huffington Post, which offers readers an almost endless amount of constantly updated information on politics at all levels in the United States. It is sufficiently interactive and links are almost always live, and take you where you expect to go. At the same time, however, the structure is not at all conducive to easy navigation, with three vertical columns presenting information that visually all melds together. In my search I found that a number of sites were structured poorly, and that's why I especially appreciated Think Progress, a blog that looks more like Christianity Today but offers similar content to the Huffington Post. Moreover, almost every entry includes a video clip that makes the site interactive and informative. One criticism I might have for the site is an overuse of coloquial language like "Digg it!" that tends to lessen its academic authority. I included Townhall blog - which offers analysis and opinion from a conservative point of view - because I think it is important to examine the culturics debate from all sides. This site has a prolific amount of content and is relatively easy to navigate. yet the inclusion of so much information (including recent comments, old archive links and advertisements) to the right of the blog entries is highly distracting. Hullabaloo, on the other hand, is the perfect example of a blog that eliminates almost all distracting material and keeps almost all of the focus on its content. At the same time, however, this causes it to be visually boring. Another problem is that it seems almost impossible to gather any information about the writers, his background or any point of view or bias of which we should be aware. National Public Radio's blog is hardly lacking for credability, and it is structured beautifully. It is rich in content, updated regularly, and insightful. It is, arguably, perfect. The same cannot be said for Talking Points Memo's blog! While it also offers interesting and opinionated blog entries, the structure again resembles something closer to the Huffington Post, with not three but four vertical columns of information to choose from (though, in fairness, they are at least separated by light grey lines). The end result, however, is a site that is difficult to navigate and often distracting to read. The Democratic Daily is a blog that eliminates all distraction by utilizing a color palette that warms the heart. Between tones of white and grey, light green and dark green, and light blue and dark blue, the site manages to capture a reader's attention and direct it to points of emphasis. If your eyes do wander from this color scheme, however, the confusion provided by the recent comments section and the tag cloud might make you rethink my previous description. The final blog I included was Politico. It is especially good at detailing who its writers are, their qualifications and their points of view. Like the New York Times page, however, it again suffers from trying to force too many modes of interactivity onto a single page - surely it could link this much action out on to different pages!

I also found useful news sites, in addition to the major ones listed earlier, that contain information that will be critical to my future posts. CNN Politics is a great source for news, especially in the "Top Stories" section that offers highly credible, content-rich information. The rest of the politics page, however, suffers from low interactivity and neglect, as it is rarely updated. Rough & Tumble is an excellent resource for California state political news. It has the same great attributes of CNN Politics, but is extremely boring, has no interactivity whatsoever, and offers a distracting color scheme of shades of purple and blue. Reuters is a classic and reliable news source, and their political coverage is no different. The site is effective visually and is easy to navigate. Perhaps because they want to appear to be straight news sites, this one again lacks in interesting links or interactivity on the page. Newsweek, however, manages to maintain a political site that is regularly updated and always entertaining. It also provides ample information with regard to the ethos of its writers. A drawback might be the overuse of visual images - both video and still frame pictures - that take away any centralized focus of the page. Finally, I also decided to include the Daily Trojan as a local, student-run source of news. As a student at the University of Southern California, I think it will be helpful to see how news is being reported by my peers. The site is content-rich in the style of Rough & Tumble, yet it suffers from the same article-after-article listing that makes it come off as boring.

I really enjoyed my search of the internet this week. I am confident that these resources will be critical to the development of future posts. I encourage my readers to check them out as well.

Old Versus New: A Presidential Collision of Traditionalism and a New Way

The infusion of culture into politics took place long ago, and has played a role in every election (both presidential and down-ticket) to varying degrees. Yet in this election, it threatens to not only be a factor in the outcome of the election, but more significantly, the deciding factor in an extremely important decision about the future of the country. I think that this is especially the case for a number of reasons: the difference in age between the candidates, and the difference of race. John McCain would be the oldest first-term President ever elected. Barack Obama would be the first black President. Both campaigns have sought to subtly play identity politics to their advantage. The Obama team, for example, recently released an advertisement targeting McCain's inability to use the internet or email (hint: he is old and out of touch). Some have defended McCain, saying that Obama was out of line to use this type of attack, and that the only reason he needs help using the internet is because "his severe war injuries prevent him from doing many things many of us take for granted." The McCain campaign, meanwhile, has attacked Obama's former role as a community organizer; many analysts, including pundit Chris Matthews, has suggested that this plays into racial differences (or at the very least, urban vs. small town differences) by insinuating that "they're urban, they're ethnic, they're African-American. They're community organizers," in the same way that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are. Because of these complex cultural relationships and their effect on the election, I sought out information about the topic in the blogosphere. I found two really good posts that take on each issue: age and race. Derek Shearer from the Huffington Post discusses how the age of the candidates comes across in the election, and how their age might affect policy-making. Meanwhile, another post from wordpress examines how Obama's race force him to balance his behavior between passionate and cool, a brand new change and traditional. I have posted a response to each of their articles, which can be found below.

"What's at Stake: The Future vs The Past"
Comment:
I appreciate your insightful post on the increasingly distinct roles each candidate has taken in this election. Your examination of their approach to and behavior during the debate Friday night reflects what many Americans are discussing: Is John McCain too old and too out of touch to understand what’s happening today, and where the country needs to be taken? At face value, answering this question may have more to do with basic identity politics, yet in your analysis you offer the compelling argument that such a difference in this case – young versus old, past versus future – has genuine policy-making ramifications. While I am generally hesitant to encourage discussion of otherwise unrelated facts, such as age, I think you make a good point in arguing that McCain’s performance at the debate was somewhat indicative of someone whose mindset is largely focused on past events. I like that you addressed specific instances in which he turned the conversation away from today, to topics including Eisenhower, Vietnam and Henry Kissinger. I especially appreciated your discussion the idea that “in some ways, he is simply refighting the Vietnam War in a different setting.” At the debate he made statements comparing Iraq with Vietnam, suggesting that unlike the first war, we must not return home in defeat this time. Accordingly, it raises the question of, to what extent has Senator McCain let personal experience play a role in his decision making? Finally, you contrast the appearace of McCain with Senator Obama, who came off as the “fresh face” who can restore America’s standing in the world. You observe how he can become the face of change, and of the future, not only with regard to his policies, but as the first black President, he would “signal that the US has finally moved beyond its racial past.”

While I found this post extremely intriguing, well-structured and convincing, I would still offer the caveat to Mr. Shearer, and other Obama supporters, that perhaps we sometimes go too far in stressing matters unrelated to public policy. It seems to me that Obama can win on the issues alone. So, perhaps your post could have focused entirely on how McCain’s outlook on the issues is backward-looking and outdated, instead of gettind muddled in some of the distractions about age. Pointing out that McCain “looks like the old guy in the race” and that he looks “really, really old in High Definition” does not have much to do with why he should or should not be the next President. I think that the same points could be made, including the “past versus the future” thesis, simply through an examination of where they stand on the most serious challenges facing the United States and the world. In doing so we can improve the quality of political discourse, and focus on what really matters – and that’s everything Barack Obama can do to help this country, regardless of age.

"Why Obama Stays Cool All the Time"
Comment:
I think this post effectively, albeit somewhat pessimistically, discusses the complexities of race relations in this election. The constant battle between traditional and the new way is embodied in the Presidential race this year, and undoubtedly many voters will make up their minds according to their own cultural attitudes and belief sets. Senator Obama undoubtedly is forced, as you say, to constantly avoid being labeled “the angry black man”. I tend to agree with the intentions of the rest of your entry that seem to indicate that this information is playing an important role in the election. I especially appreciated your discussion of the number of people who think Obama’s election would shakeup the racial status quo, and how whites tend to be less optimistic about this. It raises questions about the extent to which white in America want to see a shakeup take place at all, or if they’re content with how things have always been. Perhaps, as you write, they would be scared away from voting for Obama if he showed too much passion. Indeed, I think how voters internalize this question – the scope of their prejudices, and familiarity with traditionalism, while at the same time for many, a desire for some kind of change, will decide this election. In a June poll, only 38% of whites say Obama’s candidacy “will do more to help race relations,” and this shows that there may be a majority of whites who still feel that a new, fresh, forward-looking black candidate’s election may not be a good thing for them. I am glad that you took on this difficult and controversial topic in your post. I think your final conclusion – which says that Obama and his supporters must find out how to reach across to those people who are inherently opposed to change, while maintaining a balance between passion and coolness – is one of the central questions that Democrats will need to answer before election day, because this truly is an election between forces of the past, and the desire for a new direction.

The Elitism Debate: How More Cars Can Mean Fewer Votes

On the campaign trail this week, presidential politics has once again found a way to avoid substance in favor of divisive personality-based attacks. Despite being a two-week period that the Wall Street Journal has declared the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, coverage of the candidates has focused on a debate over who is more reminiscent of a familiar, everyday American. The Obama campaign Monday launched attacks on John McCain for owning thirteen cars -- many of which are not American-made. They argue that McCain is out of touch with everyday Americans, and even that he has failed to respect the American workforce by buying foreign. His team points out that, among others, the senator owns a Volkswagen, Honda and Toyota. Compare this to Senator Obama, who owns only one car: a Ford, and a hybrid. The real American quickly becomes clear. Liberal bloggers have jumped on this opportunity to attack McCain as a rich elitist; and worse for McCain, it comes just weeks after he was unable to answer a reporter who questioned how many homes he owned. The number turned out to be seven.

Yet it is unfair to lay all the blame for the refocusing of our national political debate on Obama, his campaign, or liberal bloggers. Indeed, the blame may rest with McCain himself, or perhaps even with the system that seems to be so conducive to these types of attacks. For months now the McCain campaign has sought to define Obama as an out of touch, "big-city" liberal who went to Harvard. Ever since Obama made remarks concerning why he struggles with rural voters -- saying they cling to guns and religion in times of uncertainty, instead of looking at the bigger economic picture -- McCain and Republicans throughout the country have labeled him arrogant, aloof and disrespectful of the small-town lifestyle. We saw this at Sarah Palin's first major speech to the country at the Republican convention, in which she immediately went after Obama for being a community organizer from Chicago who thinks he is better than Americans living outside of major metropolitan areas. The BBC accurately describes this type of campaigning as "setting up a small-town girl versus big-city boy dichotomy." In her speech Palin boasted, "I have the privilege of living most of my life in a small town," and noted that these towns "grow good people." I suppose the implication must be that there are places where good people do not grow. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has released a television advertisement entitled The One -- it alleges that Obama believes himself to be the Messiah, here to save us because he is above us. And de facto campaign spokespeople like Karl Rove have used their media access to recreate Obama in this way, making statements like, he is "the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini, and making snide comments about everyone who passes by." Apparently either Mr. Rove is in the unique position of knowing the inner-character of Senator Obama, or else he and Senator McCain's party are intentionally refocusing this election on cultural differences between candidates -- even made-up ones.

I might understand how the political discussion could devolve into this if the news cycle had run dry. Maybe, if the country were not at war, there was not an energy crisis, everyone had health insurance, we had finally balanced the budget and Wall Street was well regulated and thriving, the takeover of culturics could be disregarded as sad but unimportant. Instead, with each of these major issues, compounded by a failing financial system, we cannot afford for our candidates to still be caught up in identity politics. In fairness, both presidential hopefuls have outlined their plans for dealing with these issues. Moreover, because of enhanced communication technology such as the internet, there is probably more information available about these candidates and their substantive policy plans than in any other presidential race in history. But in reality, many voters will still largely make up their minds with limited information. And the campaigns know this; consider the words of Hillary Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn, who during the primaries warned that Americans had “very limited information” about Obama, which he argued would cost him the general election. The New York Times reports that Penn "tried to point the way to negative information on Obama, just to show that Obama wouldn’t be able to survive Republicans pointing the way to negative information." The basis of the Clinton campaign's argument became that, in the absence of knowledge, negative personal attacks can fill all the empty space. This idea continues to prevail in the general. Both political teams have concluded that if perhaps voters will not remember detailed financial plans, they will at least remember who is more like them. Maybe the electorate will remember how many cars and homes John McCain owns. Or that Obama went to Harvard, and has a tendency to criticize people from small towns. Any doubt that the campaigns were taking this route was eliminated when, earlier in September, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis confidently stated, "this election is not about issues,” and suggested that it was more akin to a personality game.

This week the controversy is over who owns more cars, and whose cars were made in the United States. Next week there might be a quote from Obama in high school saying that he prefers the city life, or maybe we will learn about some new extravagant McCain spending habit. I said before that it would be hard to blame Obama for any of this; most experts agree that the more the election is about substantive issues, Obama is favored, and the more it is about character and culture, McCain is favored. Last month former presidential advisor David Gergen observed that "there has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream" and as "uppity." He argued that the McCain campaign has deliberately sought to highlight the cultural differences of the two men, even by playing into racial differences. Since Gergen's remarks in August, both campaigns have made identity politics their primary focus -- McCain's in order to distract voters from challenging issues and his unpopular party, and Obama's as a reactionary measure to fight back. The recent market meltdown should help Obama to refocus the discussion on issues, and most analysis suggests that doing so will be to his benefit. Unfortunately, the campaign has continued down the path of class warfare (i.e., whoever owns more cars is more out of touch) and yet again the media becomes consumed with what Chris Matthews might call another "political sideshow". It is understandable that Senator Obama and his team would go after McCain for his prolific car ownership, especially after everything we have seen from McCain's side. But the best way to become president might just be to take on this financial crisis with leadership, and sound judgment.