When David Letterman asked Barack Obama the other night whether he shared Jimmy Carter’s view that much of the venom directed at him could be explained by racism, the president replied with his best applause line of the show: “First of all, it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election” — meaning, of course, that racism couldn’t be all that important. (Letterman shot back, “How long have you been a black man?”)
But Obama’s answer, cute though it was, doesn’t really help. For a majority of those who voted, Obama’s color was incidental or, in more than a few cases, a positive incentive. But among the substantial minority who voted for McCain-Palin, there were surely those for whom Obama’s color was a fatal flaw.
Now Obama, along with David Brooks and Frank Rich and David Gergen and just about everyone else who has had something to say on the matter have opined that while race is somewhere in the mix of the vitriolic attacks on the president, it is not at their center. In one version or another, the commentators make reference to the long-standing American tradition of angry protest. Obama cites the epithets hurled at Franklin Roosevelt and also at Ronald Reagan; others cite different precedents. All agree that decorum has not been a constant — far from it — in America’s political history.
True enough, but my own hunch is that Jimmy Carter is more nearly correct. There is an undercurrent of such profound loathing of Obama that cannot adequately be explained away by reference to our more boorish traditions. One surely understands why Obama himself is dead set against falling back on race, why he instead blames the media for exaggerating the ugliness, observes that rudeness makes good copy for journalists. One can understand why the nation’s pundits do not want us to get dragged into a sterile debate on the centrality of race: We may not yet be the “post-racial” society the election seemed to affirm, but for sure we are moving in a healthy direction.
Yet most of the people I know, as I myself, see race as very much the key to the ugly puzzle. For all the contempt many of us felt toward George W. Bush, there was little of the over-the-top malice of the tea parties. Sure, there are other things at play now. There’s the phenomenon of right-wing populism, curiously combined with a solid streak of libertarianism, all embracing an attitude toward government that goes beyond suspicion, that comes very close to hatred. For that, we may blame not only the dislocations of the Great Recession, the scandals that have led people to disdain those who govern, the evidence of government not only by spin but also by lies; for that we may blame a tradition that dates back, of all people, to Jimmy Carter, who based his campaign for the presidency on a denunciation of Washington. Carter chose to do that, presumably, because he’d been a governor and had to explain how a governor was qualified to lead the country. And the explanation he offered was that the people who’d been managing the government were themselves not qualified. Throw the rascals out. Since Carter’s time, just about every candidate for the presidency has seen fit to run against the government: Government’s the problem.
And now that besmirched government is led by — well, by a stranger. By, you should excuse the expression, an uppity stranger. I keep replaying in my head an episode from my high school years. I lived then in Baltimore, which was a segregated city, by which I mean segregation was the law. In my senior year in high school, I was vice president of the student body, and a month or so before Brotherhood Day — there was such a day — I came to the principal of my school and suggested that we might invite the choir from Dunbar High, the leading public high school for Negroes, to sing on our stage to mark the day. The principal looked up at me from behind his desk and replied, “Don’t you think that would be going a little too far?”
And when I visited South Africa during the height of the apartheid system, I learned that according to law, no black could ever be in a position of authority over a white. That meant, for example, that taxi dispatchers had to be white, since it would have been against the law for a black dispatcher to give instructions to a white driver.
In Baltimore, in America, in South Africa, we have climbed out of the cesspool of formal bigotry. No more back of the bus. But to suppose that we are now free of all stench is absurd. Where is the Republican leadership that is willing to denounce Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the fringe — or is it the base? The most recent poll results of the Pew Research Center show that Obama remains wildly popular among Democrats, solidly popular among independents and powerfully opposed by Republicans. A majority of Republicans (61%) feel Obama is not trustworthy, 41% feel he is not well-informed and 51% feel “he does not care about people like me.” (Among Democrats, the answers go the other way; Obama scores 91%, 89% and 91% approval on those three assessments. Among independents, the approvals decline to 63%, 70% and 71%.)
We are in the midst of a wrenching debate on health care reform, and, given the posture of the Republican Party regarding the proposed reforms, it makes sense that most Republicans take a dim view of the president. But not trustworthy? Not well-informed? Read: Not legitimate. That is the Obama-specific core of the current matter. And that, impure and simple, is racism.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Is Steven Hawking’s Decision To Boycott Israel a Boon to BDS?
Alas, Poor GOP: 3 D.C. Scandals That Weren't
Forced Out by Nazis, Grandmother Returns With Family to German Hometown 
Cigarette Smugglers Tied to Notorious Jewish Murder on Brooklyn Bridge 
You've successfully signed up!
It's not race unless we are going to redefine racism as opposition to any Obama policy. Racism used to stand for something.
you have to be kidding me. People are against the complete take over of all private industry, the largest deficit and spending spree in history, bail outs of huge banks and corporations while the average worker suffers and loses his home .. and you say none of those things is what angers them at all .. they are all just racist .
wake up!
Everything in America ist about race. Everything. If you don't see that then you're not seeing the forest because of too many trees. At the Bloomberg campaign I have see sigsn "Irish for Bloomber", "Italians for Bloomberg", "Jews for Bloomberg" — excuse me, aren't we all supposed to be Americans?
Yes, blacks vote for blacks, Puertoricans for Puertoricans and Chinese for Chinese. Arab-Americans are monitored for being Arabs. In Minnesota, people still identify themselves as Norwegians. Native American tribes have actually government protection for keeping their tribe pure. And just look at the neocon-led campaign against John Kerry who supposedly had a "French hooked nose?" What else is that than ethnic bigotry?
Fein must have missed the movie that was made depicting the murder of Bush. He also must have missed the Bush=Hitler signs at the antiwar rallies. Aside from the ones interposing a swastika on a star of david.
"...Fein must have missed the movie that was made depicting the murder of Bush."
Murder Bush? Why bother? Leave a few banana peels lying about and eventually he'd of broken his own neck.
"...He also must have missed the Bush=Hitler signs at the antiwar rallies"
Bush was'nt smart enough to be hitler, so your discomfiture re. the analogy is understandable.
While I believe it's wrong to compare Bush to Hitler on so many levels, the reason those two were compared to each was most certainly not that Bush is white, or ethnic German.
So, this was not about race.
I guess that Leonard Fine and Jimmy Carter would say that everyone opposed to BO' s policies are racists.
Jimmy Carter..... the worst President of the 20th Century- and even a worse ex- President.
Actually, Carter had a profound political impact on me back in the 70's. As a proud American Jew and a fierce Zionist I had always voted Democrat for President. After Jimmy Carter, I never voted for a Democrat for President again. At first 3rd party and then for Reagan, but never again for a Dem president.
As Reagan said, " I didn't leave the Democrat party.... the Democrat party left me!"
Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, the Black Panthers, Louis Farrakhan, Mahmoud Abbas, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Jimmy Carter. Yes, racism is bad.
The next thing we will hear from Fein and Carter is that Jews who recognize that Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history, and who know that the U.S. must bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in order to save Israel, the Middle East, and world peace are "racist".
It is interesting to compare Jack Wertheimer's article about assimilation ("Time for Straight-Talk About Assimilation") with Leonard Fein's article ("It's Race"). Obviously, the two writers are dealing with totally different topics that ordinarily would not deserved to be compared. However, for some unexplained reason, I happened to read these two articles one after the other - and I couldn't help but notice the use of the pronoun "we". With Jack Wertheimer, "we" always refers to the Jewish community. With Leonard Fein, "we" always refers to American society. Both articles, ironically, present the problems of assimilation. The one article raises the issue of assimilation openly, speaking in terms of a crisis that must be addressed. The other article, the one on this page, is an expression of that very crisis of assimilation. Not a single aspect of the Jewish experience - not one insight of Jewish wisdom, not a single hint of the distinct Jewish world, not a word about the position of Jews in the topic chosen - has appeared herein. Jack Wertheimer's "we" is about continuing Jewish identity. Leonard Fein's "we" reminds us that there is another overwhelming identity that has cast a shadow over the apparently lesser identity, totally vetoing it. Indeed, it's a time of crisis in the Jewish world.
Excellent point by Frank about Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, the Black Panthers, Louis Farrakhan, Mahmoud Abbas, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Jimmy Carter - and let me add one more: Malik Zulu Shabazz.