Ferraro's comments

I feel a sense of obligation to comment on the Geraldine Ferraro remarks of last week, as it pertains to all things race and gender.

However, I am not sure what to say. On one hand, I think the comments she made are very worthy of an examination and have been too easily dismissed as racist or patently absurd by people who are already hyper-sensitive about the Clinton campaign's handling of race.

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign has consistently botched any attempt at commenting on race, and Ferraro's response to criticism about her claims as a form of reverse discrimination are patently absurd.

I get what the campaign was doing - as an intelligent blogger points out, the comments she made were aimed at getting a few people to think about Obama's race and shift their votes to her. In typical Clinton fashion, they were blunt enough to get a lot of people angered, but most likely only African Americans and upper-middle-class pseudo-liberal whites. But strategy aside, was it an ethical comment?

Is it appropriate to remind white-skinned blue-collared Obama supporters that they should fear Obama's race? No, it is not. Invoking reverse discrimination in hopes that the blue collar workers in question are reminded about all the times they feel a black person has been given more favorable treatment than them is absolutely absurd, and is really deplorable behavior.

Her original comment, that Obama would not be where he is today if he were not black, is what was seen as offensive. Many can interpret this remark, along with her reference to his luck, as a suggestion that he benefited from his blackness in a way that a white man could not. It is entirely understandable why people would be reticent to agree, as it suggests reverse discrimination. However, you can also interpret her comment as an analysis on modern day culture. Part of Obama's appeal is because he is black and therefore different. His inspiration is surely connected to his race. He reminds people of Martin Luther King (people conflate MLK into feelings of innocence and inspiration, and do so with Obama as well). To many, he is not a person, he is a phenomenon unlike the Democratic party has seen in a while. As I have said before, he benefits greatly from the circular logic of modern culture. People love him because everyone loves him; he is inspirational because everyone talks about how inspirational he is.

For whites, Barak Obama is a guilt free alternative to mainstream American politics. Pseudo-liberal whites can support him without having to worry about his baggage. He doesn't put anyone off and he won't pit black against white, which is the age-old pseudo-liberal dilemma - how to call yourself a liberal without feeling guilty because you don't support someone who actually gives a damn about race relations (ie Kerry over Dean, Gore over Bradley, anyone over Nader). Thus, making a comment that suggests his popularity can be attributed to his race is not over the top, and is not necessarily racist. I also think that a small portion of his success among whites is because it is harder to dislike him without being seen as racist. Say what you will about the structures of power, for a white man, it is easier to be openly sexist than to be openly racist. The abated argument is, if a white man is racist it could potentially pose a physical threat to his safety, but if a white man is sexist, who is going to beat him up? I do not think many white men are put into a position where they support Obama because they are afraid of being racist (most of these men belong to the Republican party, I'd imagine), but it is still worth a mention.

The accuracy of Ferraro's next line is more clear. She states that if Obama were a woman of any color, he would not be as successful - aka his success is in part due to his gender. This critique on the structural sexism within society needs no elaboration. A male candidate can get away with a lot more than a female candidate, and most of the hatred that surrounds Clinton can be attributed, at least in part, to her gender. People feel that she should not have stuck by her husband in the Lewinsky scandal - if the situation were reversed, and he stuck by her, he would have been revered for his sincerity and lovingness. People questioned her motives when running for Senate - when was the last time you heard about a male candidate who's motives were questioned? All politician's motives should be questioned, so why was her Senatorial candidacy so much more controversial (to non the New Yorkers who are always on about it) than
any other Senatorial race. Surely she isn't the first Senator in modern times who moved to an area and ran for office, and even if she is, so what? She campaigned and won. People claim is is manipulative with a contempt that is rarely applied to a male candidate (women aren't supposed to be political, they are supposed to be nurturing and caring). When she is masculine, we hear endlessly about her pantsuits. No one comments on McCain's masculine behavior. When she is feminine, we hear that she is faking it for politics. No one comments on Laura Bush's contrived role as a the perfect wife. She's thought of as weak because she is feminine, and too masculine because she is strong (talk about strange, circular logic)! We abhor her laugh. We detest her lack of emotion in her speeches. This list could continue on forever.

All that to say, the points Ferraro made are worth some examination. What she said is true, but the reasons she said it are, at the very least, questionable.