Palin: A Roveian Strategy?

Most commentators believe that by selecting Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Senator John McCain has made either the most brilliant or reckless decision of his political career. Palin certainly carries a lot of obvious risks. She is a first-term, young governor of a thinly populated, non-mainland state. Prior to that she was a mayor of Wasilla, an obscure and tiny town in that same state. Her academic credentials pale in comparison to those of the other candidates and of those who have moved on, like Clinton and Romney. Although web chatter has long suggested that Palin could make the ticket, most reputable political commentators rejected such musings as pure folly.

Well, folly has become reality. McCain's choice has shocked the media and blogsphere, and people are now combing through Palin's limited background to discover who she is. Currently, we have learned that she is a mother of five children, the youngest of which is a few months old and has Down Syndrome. She and her husband, who dropped out of college, eloped because they could not afford a wedding. She was runner-up for Miss Alaska, after winning the Miss Wasilla competition that year. She is pro-life and pro-gun, favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (unlike McCain), opposes having the polar bear on the endangered species list, and is under "investigation" for allegedly pressuring a subordinate to fire a state trooper involved in a nasty divorce and custody battle with her sister. She believes that public schools should teach both evolution and creationism, and she is unsure whether global warming is "manmade." Palin, like McCain, also has a reputation for rooting out corruption, even if it means challenging her own party. In Alaska, she is known as the "Barracuda" for her toughness, a name she first earned playing high school basketball. Like Obama, Biden, and McCain, Palin, a self-proclaimed "hockey mom," opposes same-sex marriage, but she vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. And the information on Palin continues to emerge.

Democrats have generally ridiculed Palin's candidacy. The Obama campaign, for example, said that McCain wishes to put a "former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." The campaign later backpedaled from that statement and issued a new one praising her candidacy as indicating that "old barriers" are falling in politics. Representative Jim Clyburn likened Palin to Dan Quayle, Bush, Sr.'s intellectually challenged Vice President, who was constantly ridiculed during the 1988 campaign and during his term in office. After I learned of the announcement, I immediately emailed friends proclaiming that McCain had just picked "Danielle Quayle" as a running mate. Finally, Newsweek writer Jonathon Alter, who has been openly supportive of Obama, predicts that Palin's candidacy will "belly-flop."

Despite my own serious doubts about Palin's qualifications, I believe that the Democrats will harm their own chances in November if they continue to mock Palin and depict her as a lightweight. According to popular accounts, McCain selected Palin in order to siphon off disgruntled Clinton supporters from the Democratic party. Although Palin's praise of Clinton in her acceptance speech supports this assertion, McCain probably does not believe Palin will attract many of Clinton's supporters. For the most part, pro-choice, pro-glbt, antiwar, public health care-supporting women will not vote for McCain, regardless of their bitterness over Clinton's failure. On the other hand, Palin help McCain lure politically independent white women and conservative Democrats, who are either pro-life or who do not centralize abortion as a political concern. If these women are angry about Clinton,would like to see a woman hold high office, or cannot bring themselves to vote for a black man, then Palin might have even more appeal. A Gallup analysis indicates that while McCain has a large lead over Obama among independent white men, the two are basically tied among independent white women. In a tight contest, a shift of a few points among this latter group could make the difference, particularly in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Missouri, where Obama failed to attract many white voters outside of progressive urban areas.

Furthermore, Palin apparently excites Republican religious conservatives, who have always had a strained relationship with McCain. Although Palin's veto of antigay legislation suggests that she has moderate political leanings, her political record is indisputably conservative. Accordingly, Palin could help shore up support for McCain among evangelicals and other socially conservative voting blocs. This same group helped put Bush over Kerry in 2004 and could potentially work again this year. Early signs indicate that the Republican party's conservative base has responded warmly to Palin, citing her strong opposition to abortion. Furthermore, McCain has reported that he raised a whopping $7 million the day he announced Palin's candidacy. An emboldened conservative base could prove destructive to Obama in November.

Democrats should also retire their suicidal belief that the public wants a president (or vice president) with great intellectual depth. The last two elections refute that notion. And despite the parallels between Palin and Quayle, Democrats must remember that Bush and Quayle won -- and they might have won again if Ross Perot had not run. If Palin comes across in the debates and on the stump as competent and charming, then she may pass the bar set by the United States electorate. To the extent that Democrats construct Palin as a lightweight ex-beauty queen, an "adequate" performance could actually make her look impressive.

Finally, Democrats must avoid portraying Palin in sexist terms, or they risk angering and driving away women voters. Lingering bad feelings over Clinton make this particularly important. Some male television commentators and bloggers have already asked whether Palin, a mother of five, will have enough time to raise her family and serve as Vice President. I do not recall ever hearing a male candidate asked a question like this. Others have queried whether Biden will have to treat Palin softly in their debate in order to prevent being perceived as too tough on a young woman ("girl"?). Would the same question apply if McCain had selected a young man? Should McCain go soft with Obama because who is only two years older than Palin? Democrats must even address Palin's experience issue - which is a real concern - with sensitivity, because they rejected Clinton's critique of Obama's thin resume, and because Democrat John Edwards had only two years of Senate experience (his only political position) when he ran for Vice President with John Kerry in 2004. If Democrats can accept the limited political experience of Edwards and Obama, then why not Palin? On the experience question, McCain has clearly ceded this as a point of attack. Palin neutralizes Obama's weakness in this area, and McCain's latest ads have asserted that Obama lacks substance, not experience.

Perhaps McCain's attack on Obama's experience was really a Roveian ruse, designed to deter Obama from selecting a young, change-oriented Democrat as a running mate. Rove himself argued in June that Governor Kaine of Virginia was too inexperienced to serve as vice president, even though he has about the same political experience as Palin, whose candidacy Rove has now praised. By pressuring Obama to go for a more senior and "safe" Democrat, Rove and the Republicans could ensure that McCain would grab attention by picking a younger, charismatic, reform-minded female upstart. Furthermore, by picking Biden, Obama has neutralized a key component of his campaign: that voting for "Bush's war" demonstrates a lack of "judgment." Biden, like Clinton and McCain, voted for the war. Now, the campaigns will likely focus on who can end the war. The fact that one of Palin's sons will soon go to Iraq as a soldier will help blunt Obama's arguments that McCain will keep the war going for "100 years." It's easy to imagine Palin in a debate saying something like "As a mother of a son in Iraq, I want that war to end as soon as possible and will do whatever it takes to make that happen."

The Democrats had a surprisingly unified convention, and according to most pollsters, Obama enjoyed a nice post-convention bounce. McCain has grabbed the attention with his shocking selection, and we will soon figure out whether his gamble will work for him. As the public continues to scrutinize and debate Palin, the Democrats must decide to take her candidacy seriously, for she brings more to the Republican ticket than a vagina. McCain picked Palin to accomplish a complex set of political goals, including mobilizing the conservative wing of the Republican party, attracting moderate and conservative women, helping to put the maverick status back in McCain's brand, energizing his dull campaign, and re-awakening the beleaguered Republican party. Palin now faces the difficult, if not impossible, task of convincing voters in a very short amount of time that they should place her within a heartbeat of the presidency. She will have very little room for error. And while Palin's candidacy looks, at first glance, like a nice gift for the Democrats, Obama and company must take Palin seriously, or they risk squandering their opportunity to win. Whatever happens, the next two months will likely present many other surprises and moments of excitement.

Update: A new CNN poll shows that the race is a dead heat again. Presumably, Palin has helped neutralize Obama's bounce. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/31/cnn-poll-obama-49-mccain-48/

FORTHCOMING ARTICLE: "RACIAL EXHAUSTION"

Abstract

Racial Exhaustion

Professor Darren Lenard Hutchson

Washington University Law Review (vol. 86, 2008)

Contemporary political and legal discourse on questions of race unveils a tremendous perceptual gap among persons of color and whites. Opinion polls consistently demonstrate that persons of color commonly view race and racial discrimination as important factors shaping their opportunities for economic and social advancement. Whites, on the other hand, often discount race as a pertinent factor in contemporary United States society. Consequently, polling data show that whites typically reject racial explanations for acute disparities in important socio-economic indicators, such as education, criminal justice, employment, wealth, and health care. Echoing this public sentiment, social movement actors, politicians, and the Supreme Court have all taken a skeptical stance towards claims of racial injustice by persons of color and have resisted demands for tougher civil rights laws and race-based remedies. They have viewed these policies as: (1) unnecessary, given the eradication of racism and the prior implementation of formal equality measures; (2) excessive in terms of substance or duration; (3) futile because the law cannot alter racial inequality; (4) misguided because nonracial factors explain racial disparities; and (5) unfair to whites and a special benefit for persons of color. Adhering to these beliefs, a majority of the public has reached a point of racial exhaustion.

This Article argues that the public's racial exhaustion did not recently emerge, and it is a product of a hard-fought and successful battle against racial subjugation. Instead, throughout history, opponents of racial justice measures have invoked this discourse to contest equality measures and to portray the United States as a post-racist society, even when efforts to combat racial hierarchy were in an embryonic state and persons of color lived in extremely vulnerable political, social and economic conditions. To elaborate this claim, this Article examines political resistance to civil rights legislation and remedies immediately following the Civil War and during Reconstruction, after World War II and through the Cold War era, and in contemporary political and legal discourse in order to demonstrate the persistence of racial exhaustion rhetoric. This Article then considers how social movement actors, civil rights lawyers and theorists, and scholars interested in the interaction of law and rhetoric could respond to the persistent portrayal of racial egalitarianism as redundant and unfair by dissecting the premise of these claims, placing them in an historical context, and, if necessary, by strategically modifying their arguments to focus on class and other structural barriers that correlate or intersect with racial inequality. Despite the presumptive constitutionality of class-based remedies, political opposition to social welfare policies and the depiction of these programs as handouts to undeserving individuals - including persons of color - might limit the efficacy of economic approaches to racial inequality. Moreover, the intersection of race and poverty suggests that class-based remedies alone might not adequately address racially identifiable material inequity.

DOWNLOAD HERE: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113563

Sinister Minister? Race, Wright and Obama

Many liberal pundits have begun to analyze the racial issues involved in Wright-Gate. Frank Rich of the N.Y. Times has a very extensive analysis that represents the general racial critique among mainstream liberals. Here's my take......
_______________


Rich, I agree that race has shaped the public's response to Wright, but I have a few comments on your essay. First, you dismiss the 20-year association, but it matters. And it's more than a mere association. He performed the Obamas' wedding, baptized the kids, was a spiritual advisor, etc. That makes a huge difference (but race still matters).

Second, Obama has subtly manipulated race himself, which makes the Wright situation more explosive for him. Obama has run as a "post-racial" candidate (i.e., not Sharpton or Jackson). He has distanced himself from blacks in terms of politics and policy; he is a "safe" black. At the same time, Obama has "dabbled" in blackness to win black support. According to many accounts, he attended Wright's church in order to establish black, upper-class liberal credentials. With respect to his campaign, he describes it as "historic" (translation: I am black). In black churches he speaks in a folksy diction in order to appear "authentic" (a very problematic concept). His surrogates prepare "racism" talking points to agitate black and white-progressive opposition to the Clintons and to shut down any critique of him. But to remain "balanced," he peppers his speeches in front of black audiences with "personal responsibility" statements.

Given Obama's own manipulation of race, Wright presents a bigger problem for him than we have seen with other ministers. Wright proves that the post-racial, "I don't think of you as black," candidate associates with the "stuck in the past" black "racial victim" minister. He has congregated with Jesse and Sharpton's "brother." Whites are now questioning and reconsidering their support for him. Although the need to run as a post-racial black derives from racism, Obama has to stick with it or risk coming across as a "typical" politician.

Finally, Republican ministers are not political liabilities to Republicans because the party caters to racists, sexists, and homophobes. Its members do not disagree in spirit with the wild comments of neocon ministers. Although most elite Republican would never speak in crude language as Hagee, they are united in their social conservatism. They differ only in degree and rhetoric. Democrats, however, are not really committed to leftwing race politics. The difference is not simply one of degree and rhetoric. Obama's recently declining support means that white Democrats are equally as responsible as white Republicans for the existence of his racial bind. Because virtually all of Obama's white support was educated and upper-class, participants in this "white flight" are not necessarily poor and rural. Instead, they are likely include members of Obama's core base of middle-to-upper-class white liberals. Although upper-class whites have accused poor whites of opposing Obama due to racism, it is clear that white Democrats, regardless of class, want a safe post-racial candidate and are concerned about Obama's connection to Wright. So, even though the Wright "problem" stems from racism, white Democratic elites helped create it, not just rabidly racist Republicans and Reagan Democrats.

On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton

Apparently, the New York Times grew uncomfortable watching other media outlets attack Obama’s critics. Although the newspaper endorsed Clinton, it has now joined a barrage of pundits who have launched a full scale assault on ABC's debate in advance of the Pennsylvania primary.

Media's Summary: Clinton = Witch; Obama = Saint
The media's outrage demonstrates (yet again) that Clinton provokes the wrath of journalists who seemingly believe that their ethical and professional duties involve: (1) constructing and enforcing a de facto rule that prohibits any public criticism of Obama; (2) smearing Clinton and portraying her as a pathological liar, closeted-neoconservative, cold and conniving Tonya Harding in pantsuits, and as a threat to the Democratic Party; (3) denying and obscuring Obama's own weaknesses, deceit, shifting positions, and subtly negative campaigning; and (4) offering constant praise for Obama and anyone who supports him. New York Times columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have spent almost an entire year writing opinion pieces that scrutinize and condemn every dimension of Clinton or praise Obama’s character, ideas, and campaign. Content with the monotony of their own repetitive and predictable Clinton-Bashing, Dowd and Rich reach the same weekly conclusions. Clinton is a mean, deceitful, selfish, and heartless witch. Obama is an inspiring, smart, honest, and ethical leader.


Obama Can Appear "Positive" Because Media Does His Attacking
Obama benefits from a mainstream media and blogsphere that do his "dirty work" for him, which allows him to remain above the fray. Whatever Clinton says or does, a host of media outlets will seek and find or even invent fault. The New York Times, for example, recently rushed to discredit a story Clinton tells on the campaign trail concerning a young woman who lacked health insurance and money to pay for a doctor visit. This rather innocuous story -- which describes the plight of far too many poor people -- became headline news because it purportedly documented "yet another" Clinton "lie." News of Clinton’s "deceit" spread quickly. There was one problem: The story was true.

If the media had simply investigated the issue, rather than rushing to portray everything Clinton says as something unseemly, they would have discovered the veracity of her account. That did not matter. Smearing Clinton legitimizes media professionals among their colleagues, especially the white men. Media professionals can obtain street credibility if they uncover the newest reason why Clinton would melt if you heaved a bucket of water on her.

Obama, on the other hand, does not have to answer difficult questions or face relentless scrutiny. The toughest moment in his campaign surrounded the Reverend Wright controversy. The media held their collective breath searching for a way to spin this low point into triumph. The next day, Obama’s staff released a statement announcing that he would give two "major policy speeches" on race and the economy. The media reported exactly this: "Obama will give two major policy speeches in Philadelphia this week."

This is the only time I can recall seeing the media describe campaign speeches as "major" based solely on a candidate’s description of them. But it helped shape the mood for Obama's valiant return. The atmosphere was solemn and hopeful. Fittingly, change was also on the horizon. Soon the race speech would rise above mere "major" status and morph into a courageous, crucial, historic, and brilliant dissertation on race. Commentators passionately and uniformly praised the speech. Many of them compared Obama to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But Dr. King never wore the safe "post-racial" label, and he died as a result of his sustained, courageous and organized efforts to combat racial injustice. Obama, by contrast, addressed racial justice in one fleeting moment solely to overcome a serious threat to his political campaign. Yet, his opportunistic usage of race was completely off-limits as a topic of serious inquiry. Only marginalized commentators like Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell could even explore these questions. Good "liberals" could only offer effusive praise or (worse) silence.


Hutchinson's Summary: Clinton = Obama = Typical Politician
For the record, I do not endorse all of Clinton's political tactics, nor do I believe that moments like Wright-gate should derail a candidate. But Obama's response to the situation is just as "political" as Clinton's efforts to show her superiority and question her opponent's readiness for the presidency. They are both typical politicians. According to Obama's campaign narrative, however, he offers a new, kinder and gentler politics, even though "change," "hope" "unity," and "Washington-outsider" rhetoric have framed many previous campaigns.

Successful candidates must construct personal narratives that resonate with the public and inspire trust; Obama has accomplished this important task. But most media have uncritically accepted and have even strained to validate his campaign narrative in their reporting. This constitutes a terrible abdication of their important social function.

The Media and the "Isms" Factor
The blatant media bias also conflicts with liberal and progressive commitment to racial and gender justice. When liberal egalitarians spew endlessly about the inherent evil of Clinton and the unquestionable sincerity and rightfulness of Obama, this smacks of hypocrisy and disparate treatment. Their coddling of Obama also suggests that liberals, especially white liberals constantly yearning to prove how "post-racist" they are, suffer from the "bigotry of low expectations." This stereotype discounts the intellectual capacity of blacks, which could cause Obama’s supporters unconsciously to question his ability to take on a strong competitor, despite his frequently touted academic achievement and eloquence. The unprecedented efforts to insulate Obama from any measure of media or political scrutiny could stem from the operation of this stereotype.

Obama’s surrogates and the media have utilized a variety of responses to vilify his critics. Early on, his surrogates called them racists. Then they dismissed them as being "more of the same." Then they brushed them aside for wasting Obama’s time with "business as usual." Then they demanded that Clinton leave the race, which would undoubtedly reduce the opportunity to critique and raise questions concerning his relative fitness for office. His supporters have also dramatically described fairly standard campaign tactics as "knifing," "kneecapping" and tossing the "kitchen sink" at the first viable black presidential candidate (an argument which, ironically, validates Ferraro's statements). Obama’s guardians have predicted that Clinton's allegedly "divisive" campaigning will destroy the Democratic Party and weaken its nominee, an argument that requires the listener to forget that the Democrats have only managed to produce one two-term President since FDR.

But the New York Times exceeds the melodrama of many Obama protectors when its editorial asserts that Clinton has called out "the dogs" for Obama. The imagery used to describe Clinton and Obama consistently portray her as a conniving, ruthlessly violent old hag and Obama as a defenseless, frail, and effete "Negro" (also known as "boy"). The media’s blatant efforts to prop up Obama and demonize Clinton smack of a racial paternalism that is as rooted in white supremacy as segregation. Their disparate coverage also relies extensively on gender stereotypes, which should trouble all individuals who are truly committed to the advancement of civil rights. Yet many self-proclaimed progressives have condemned feminists who critique the media’s treatment of Clinton as being knee-jerk activists engaged in vulgar identity politics. Anti-feminism now joins post-racial (but still enough qualify as "real") blackness as newly minted leftist ideologies. Blacks have acquiesced in and legitimated this disturbing occurrence with their almost unanimous support for Obama.

This entire election has caused me to grow even more suspicious and cynical of liberals. It also confirms how utterly unhelpful media have become. A short time ago, the most powerful among these companies were "embedded" in military tanks in order to stream U.S. war propaganda domestically and throughout the world. Some, including the New York Times, later admitted to suppressing antiwar coverage or confining it to "second-page" status, but their apologies only came after popular support for the invasion dissipated, and the precious opportunity to educate the pre-war public opinion had long passed.

With respect to this campaign, the opportunistic New York Times endorsed Clinton, but now that everyone else is ready to burn her at the stake, they view her as the Democrats' worst nightmare. Similarly, the New York Times endorsed Senator McCain, but once he secured his party's nomination, it suddenly unveiled 25-year-old, unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and conflicts of interests surrounding McCain. The paper sat on the story and released it soon after its ability to influence the Republican contest had expired. Media actors have contributed heavily to the venomous atmosphere of this election. The media’s pernicious bias against Clinton and its uncritical stance toward Obama undermine the credibility of their efforts to police the tone of any candidate's campaign.