................fighting the bad fight since 135 BC................

Friday, October 22, 2010

The Economist plays the race card, badly

Every once in a while The Economist deals with the issue of race in America, as they have done in this recent column about Barack Obama's issues with "working-class whites". In nearly every case, they blunder badly. Their discomfort with the topic can be seen in how they present it -- the commentary they provide is weighed down with statistic after statistic. It's as if any comment they make has to be backed up with a myriad of numbers so that they aren't accused of taking a biased position. In the end, however, the numbers they present are given sufficient context, and therefore the statement they back up don't hold up.

First off, the column never states exactly what a "working-class white" is. Are we talking about people whose income is below a certain level? Are we talking about people who work blue-collar jobs? Are they unionized or not? Such questions are important. The "working-class whites" that work the auto plants in Detroit lean strongly Democratic because they are members of the UAW. "Working-class whites" from, say, Texas, will like vote Republican since Texas is a strongly Republican state. So right off the bat we have problems.

The column then shifts its focus to West Virignia, and states the following:
For more than half a century, the Mountain State sent the late Robert Byrd, a Democrat, to represent it in the Senate. Now the state’s popular governor, Joe Manchin, also a Democrat, is hoping to take his place. But this year everything is different. Despite Mr Manchin’s relentless efforts to distance himself from that fellow in the White House, the race is a toss-up.
What it fails to point out here is that Mr. Byrd was the last of the old time Democrats from the says when the party could count on the Solid South block of voters. Most of them flocked to the Republican party in the 60s and 70s. Mr. Byrd may not have been a Republican, but he was probably close enough that many right-leaning voters could still support him. It is his absence that is making this race tight for Democrats.

Anyway, we move from there to more general statements about race and the midterm elections:
Their ["working-class whites"] votes will matter less in the future, as their educational attainment rises and their share of the electorate continues to fall. Minority voters, who cast a mere 14% of voters in 1994, cast more than a quarter of them in 2008, and this share will grow.

...

Between now and the long run, however, come the mid-terms. And the prospect of a Democratic rout prompts an inevitable question. Have such voters turned on the Democrats because Mr Obama is black? His election was hailed as proof that America had moved beyond race. And yet voting in the mid-terms will be polarised by race. Most whites will pull the Republican lever. Almost all blacks and most Hispanics will vote Democrat.

Race was a factor in 2008, and still is. Why else would blacks alone have stuck so staunchly by their man? As for working-class whites, they did not much care for Mr Obama even in 2008, preferring John McCain by a margin of 18%.
Seriously? Blacks "stuck" by "their man"? Yes, more African-American voters turned up in 2008, excited by the prospect of a black President. But, as the article also points out, many of are Democratic supporters anyway. As for the "working-class whites" supporting McCain, again, what are the real numbers here? Who are these voters, exactly? What was the breakdown state-by-state? Was there a statistically significant shift in votes away from Obama in areas that normally enjoy Democratic support? Without more details, these judgments about race and voting patterns are hopelessly rash.

Yet at the end of all of this, the column tries to circle back around this issue with the following conclusion:
The electorate may be divided by race, but no longer mainly because of race. Some of Mr Obama’s enemies have tried to harness pockets of bigotry by painting him in various ways as un-American. But outright racism in politics is now beyond the pale and will probably have little to do with the coming rejection of the Democrats by the white working class. A wrecked economy and the feeling that their president is out of touch are reason enough. It has, after all, happened before. In two short years from 1992 to 1994, when Bill Clinton was president, white working-class support for the Republicans soared like a rocket from 47% to 61%. Nobody blamed that on skin colour.
So wait, now we're saying that race is not an issue? Racism is "beyond the pale"? We're all good now? Then why all the talk earlier about why African-Americans vote one way and "working-class whites" the other? What was the point of all this, anyway?

You get the feeling that The Economist was trying to say something here, but that the race issue is touchy that they couldn't speak clearly. Better just to leave it alone, then.

No comments:

Post a Comment