Presidential Politics and Race: Have Things Changed?

Have three years with our first black president helped us move past the issue of race in presidential elections or, at least, in regard to Barrack Obama?  Prior to Obama’s bid for the presidency, many Americans were convinced that race was such a disqualifying factor that they would never live to see an African American president.  Happily, they were wrong, but many remain convinced that race will still negatively affect Obama’s reelection bid.  Perhaps I’m cynical, but I too think race will play a role in the 2012 election.  But I am no longer so sure that race will be significant; race may only play a minimal role this time around.

My intuition comes from reflecting on an article I wrote that examined the public’s response to the cartoon below.  The New York Post ran this cartoon by Sean Delonas in the first month of Obama's presidency, just a few days before

 he signed the stimulus bill, and a controversy immediately ensued over whether it was racist.  The central finding in my study was that a majority thought this cartoon was racist or offensive, even if its creator did not intentionally direct it at President Obama.   

At the time, I was surprised by my own finding because I had assumed that the general public would be as wedded as the Supreme Court to the notion that discrimination requires intent.  While I have argued elsewhere that actions can be discriminatory without conscious intent, I am not sure a majority firmly agrees.  Reflecting back, I now wonder whether the public’s willingness to label something racist was momentarily heightened, and it characterized the cartoon as racist not because it believed in unintentional discrimination, but because it was hyper-protective of its new President.  Thus, it was willing to interpret racism where it otherwise would not.  If so, the public’s strong reaction to the cartoon is more likely attributable to a confluence of circumstances, one of which was Obama’s race, but the most important of which was a desire to defend Obama at ever corner.    

This explanation seems even more plausible given that presidential events with similar racial undertones haven’t regularly arisen as of late or, at least, the public hasn’t noticed them as such. (e.g., public seemed to dismiss Trump’s hunt for Obama birth certificate more than it castigated it).  Have we grown less racist? Have we grown less sensitive? I suspect we have grown less sensitive, at least, in regard to Obama.  Obama is now simply “The President” and isn’t perceived to be in need of others’ defense (or his popularity has been so low that no one wanted to defend him). I also suspect there have simply been fewer racial undertones because there is less of an upside to attacking a well established President based on race. The potential upside will surely change as the chance of removing Obama from office becomes more immediate, but I doubt there will be the same upside this election cycle as last because Obama is now a president rather than a candidate.  Would this mean we have made racial progress or that presidents are special? 

Comments

[John]

Cain was a GOP frontrunner at one time. Once is chance but twice is a trend:)

[Howard Wasserman]

Alternatively, have cartoonists and commentators stopped using arguably racialized imagery while referencing to the president? And were they more likely to do so in the first month of the presidency, when his race was novel and heightened. After all, the issue that led to thoughts of racism is not only the monkey, but the depiction of violence against the person writing the bill.

[smith]

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+cartoons+as+monkey&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=r65GT_WbCaSMiAKnqLjdDQ&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1065&bih=535

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

I'm far to the Left of Obama, extremely disappointed by his foreign policy and his deference to the National Security State in a way that trumps the principles and values of our Constitution. Nevertheless, I think racism with respect to the President is ubiquitous and racism generally is a recalcitrant problem in our country. One has only to register the vociferous and angry vitriol directed against Obama from the right side of Mirabeaus' "geography of the assembly" to see this. Listen to the voices of those who oppose Obama and their reasoning is often utterly irrational and emotional, vindictive really, displaying an animus and anger that reeks of racism, however disguised, or lurking just beneath the surface sentiment. Just the fact tha Obama is blamed for our economic woes is evidence of this irrational sentiment and scarcely latent racism. Social norms are fairly entrenched against honest or blatant expressions of racism, so most folks are reluctant to express their feelings forthrightly, but how else can one account for the wildly absurd and completely nonsensical things said about Obama (e.g., blaming him for the economic mess we're in and failing to credit the Administration for keeping us afloat if not beginning to turn things around). It's quite dispiriting if not depressing. So, yes, RACISM is alive and well in this country, if not flourishing, and I, for one, am utterly fed up, at wit's end, and don't see signs of anything changing anytime soon.

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

erratum: Mirabeau's

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

For further evidence of this racism, look closely at the workings of the criminal (in)justice system.

[Derek black]

Smith,
Thanks for the link to the images of Bush. When the controversy arose, a frequent argument against racism in the Obama cartoon was Bush had been caricatured as a monkey often. This complicates the inference, but I am not sure it necessarily changes it. Context matters and there is no historical context comparing whites as a race to apes and almost less than human. Likewise, it is offensive to ask people to attend separate bathrooms based on race, but the same isn't true with gender. In short, race is culturally contingent. The most poignant example was the fact that elementary and high school students didn't even understand the cartoon because they lacked knowledge of the historical context.