On 'Readiness'

(Photo: CA)

In his column on Sunday, Otis Sanford talks about America's readiness to vote for a black man for president. The way he writes the column, though, raises questions about whether he himself is ready to talk about it fully.

For starters, here is how he describes his own confrontation with people who are 'not ready':

But Northwest also was where I first tasted rejection based on the premise that the school's white majority was "not ready" for a black editor of the campus newspaper.

The weekly Ranger Rocket was a feisty, award-winning tabloid that allowed student journalists to excel in reporting, photography, copy editing, layout and headline writing. We did it all and, thanks to great advisers, we did it well.

I wanted desperately to be appointed editor-in-chief my sophomore year. I had the required grades, a good work ethic and a year's worth of experience.

I believed I was ready. But, I learned, the campus was not.

I tell that story not to provoke any ill will against Northwest. Or to whine or elicit pity. Sure, I was disappointed, but that was the glass-ceiling era in which we lived.

And I had a choice. Either suck it up or quit. So I sucked it up and continued working at the paper as the No. 2 editor. Heck, I even landed a journalism scholarship to Ole Miss from the experience.

Notice that he completely skips the part where someone tells him he wasn't going to get the position because of his race. Sanford lets you draw that conclusion because he points you in that direction, but he doesn't actually tell you that's the reason. Was it?

He was a sophomore wanting to be the editor. Most school activities like this, as I recall, reserved such offices to seniors so they could fill out their resumes for their entry into the work world. Did his sophomore standing play a role?

I'm sorry, but if he wants to address a difficult topic like whether white America will vote for a black man, such delicate tiptoing as the above doesn't bode well for the discussion.

Then, in moving to the topic of Obama's chances, Sanford pulls an obscure comment by Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell as his hook. And then he goes to the Republicans.

But a closer, more relevant and more widely discussed example is at hand. During the South Carolina primary, former president Bill Clinton made remarks that were widely seen as derogatory of Obama's accomplishment and a thinly veiled racial remark.

When Sanford writes:

Before Iowa, many black voters also were skeptical of Obama's chances with the majority white electorate. Since Iowa, things have changed.

it seems to me, that South Carolina is again the better example. It was the first state, after Obama's wins in nearly-all-white states, where a significant black voting bloc went to him. It was that win, which also surprised the Clinton campaign, that seems to have put the stamp of black approval on Obama and, if you will, 'cleared' him as an acceptable choice for black voters.

But really, hanging the stigma of not voting for a black man on the Republicans is unfair. It is Obama's positions -- raising taxes, more and larger government programs, universal health care -- that make him anathema to them before you even need to look anywhere else.

It is the independents, moderates, Reagan Democrats, swing voters, etc., who should be looked at. It is their unwillingness to vote for an African-American that will be the deciding factor. They are the ones who need their attitudes examined.

I'm not entirely surprised by Sanford's strange reflexive assumptions. It's reflected in so much of the editorial comment from the larger CA. They constantly act as though race problems in this country were solved in the Sixties, as though the racists and revanchists whose comments show up on Thaddeus Matthews' blog and the CA's comments feature were some archaic remnant of a discarded past and not the still-burning fires of modern people.

No, the racists of the Sixties had children, and many of them are themselves still alive today. The battle that has been fought since the birth of this country is still being fought today.

So, yes, there are still quite a few people who would never, ever vote for a black man, no matter how much they agreed with him or his positions, simply because of his skin color. Why not be honest about it and face that truth head on? Face it down, instead of hoping that dancing around it will somehow do the job?

Remember, this is just the primary season. The people who are voting for Obama right now are folks already committed to voting for a Democrat. It's only after the Democrats and the Republicans lock in their nominees that surveys on voting patterns will begin to take on meaning. I'll be curious to see what we learn then. Right now? Not so much.

After two election cycles of close losses, the Democrats want victory like a piranha wants flesh. They are motivated as never before. In the last two cycles, they had a Clinton hold-over and a Sixties hold-over. With Hillary Clinton, they have both in one. Many seem to think that's a recipe for another loss. And thanks to Clinton's careful work, she's managed to clear the field of any potentially strong challengers. Leaving Obama.

And it's also important to note that probably the biggest engine of Obama's victories has been a heretofore legendary and unseen crypto-voter: the young. Under-thirties and new voters are showing up in literal droves in Democratic primaries to vote Obama. Records are being set in state after state by enormous margins, Tennessee included. They are a sign of a very strong desire for change.

The big and unknowable question, one that bears close scrutiny through the Fall, is whether these folks will show up on Election Day. Will this miracle surge stay in the game until then? Or will it slowly erode as the near-religious aura of Obama's campaign is ground down by the ugliness of a modern presidential campaign?

For that matter, he has to survive between now and March 4th, the Texas and Ohio primaries. Clinton knows those are the final break point for her; if she loses them she cannot win. We've already seen her change tactics in recent days, bringing the ugly. She is the one harping the 'code word' of "inexperienced." Her husband is the one who threw out the race baiting.

Sanford must, if you'll pardon the expression, be able to call a spade a spade if he hopes to have the discussion he wants and thereby put an end to the one he fears will take its place. If he lets his delicate sensibilities block his ability to do so, then he'll get nowhere.