The hidden GOP codebook in 'post-racial America'

Racism, and America's past and present complicity in perpetuating it, is central in the 2008 presidential campaign. With the Democratic Party poised to nominate Barack Obama as its candidate, both Obama and McCain have to decide how to use or ignore race in their campaigns.

For Obama's part, it is not necessary to play the race card. By virtue of the fact that he is black, the race card is played. For him, the issue is not being perceived as being "too black" or "not black enough." That is, racialized thinking and the articulation of race in America has shown us that white Americans may accept a black man for president who does not remind them of the much maligned Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It is the choice between the acceptable Negro (Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) or Malcolm X the Maddening Negro.

What Obama is realizing is that there is a limit to acceptability. Karl Rove and others have labeled him "arrogant" and "elitist." What this election has taught us about the new and more virulent form of racism is that it is no longer acceptable to use naked vitriol to talk about race. In fact, it would be political suicide for a candidate or his or her surrogates to raise race in such an open and notorious manner. This is because white liberals and independents (who are a major force in this election) will reject it partly out of their revulsion to it and partly out of their own guilt about America's racial milieu. Thus, it is necessary to accomplish the same task by reference to code. Thus these code words require examination.

Is Rove saying that Obama is elitist and arrogant because he attended Columbia and Harvard? This would be a curious statement for at least three reasons. First, America has crafted the Ivy League as the standard of excellence and the fertile ground for cultivating the best and brightest minds. Thus, Obama's Ivy League pedigree is very much in the hegemonic paradigm set up by white men and subscribed to by many as success. So, is Obama now to be punished for succeeding? 

Second, American politics is by nature arrogant. It is the kind of arrogance that allowed President Bush, Texas swagger and all, to commute Scooter Libby's sentence after he had been sentenced to prison for a crime that he did commit. Why did Rove not question that arrogance? Is it because he is complicit in such arrogance? Or is it because he is an Obama and not a Bush or Clinton? Or is it because the racialized thinking that is endemic to American political logic has been carefully crafted to avoid entrance to "uppity Negroes"?

Third, those of us who study the continuing significance of race in American have learned a very important lesson from how the 2008 election has played out so far. That is, in a country as polarized along racial lines as ours is, using race still has currency. The arrogant and elitist code is directed squarely at poor, working class whites who are asked to think whether Obama has their racial interest at heart. It conflates deliberately the issue of race and economic self-interest. Translation: you may be poor, you may be struggling, and the jobs may have left your town; however, you have something more valuable than that: your whiteness. Since race and economics are linked; it is in your best interest to vote for John McCain to protect your whiteness and thus your economic survival. John McCain, the logic goes is your Caesar Chavez.

As Obama has already discovered, his race is both an asset and a liability in this election. There are those who praise the historic nature of his presumptive nomination. However, he cannot, for example fully embrace affirmative action nor can he call for reparations for slavery. He has to be careful about how he talks about race and he has to "talk responsibility" to the black community. These are the things that an acceptable "post-racial" candidate is expected to do. Expectations aside, the question for Obama is how black can one be and still win election as President of the United States. What are the limits of the "post-racial" paradigm and how far can he push them?

The media has latched on to the term "post-racial" to describe Obama's success in all but securing the nomination. Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News wrote, "The era of what we called "post-racial politics" in America only lasted about a year. It ended this morning. Maybe Barack Obama's powerful vision of where America is at in 2008, with regard to race and politics, should be called "post-post racial politics," or, to invoke a popular cliché, Post-Racial Politics 2.0." Bunch and so many in the media simply miss the point.

First, there cannot be post racial politics in a country that is till steeped in racial thinking. Second, the term "post-racial" was devised so that whites could avoid talking about race and simply move on to talk about how well Obama has done "for a black candidate."

The issue of race and racism in America is a central tenant in this election whether Obama and McCain want to admit it or not. Each man must navigate it with precision.