Joe Klein was Right: To Beat Romney, Barack Obama and the Democrats Cannot Appear to be "Kissing the Butt" of Negro Equality

A white man who extended a Sunday-school class in to a two-day school for poor children was called on by irate Klan members. He was taken out, blindfolded, and forced to kiss the private parts of several assembled blacks:

Well, they made me kiss the negro man's posterior, and held it open and made me kiss it, and as well as I remember a negro woman's too, and also her private parts, and then told me to have sexual connection with her. I told them they knew, of course, I could not do that. They struck me, and some them begged for me. They asked me how I liked that for nigger equality. I told them it was pretty tough.

According to a white eyewitness, "I think that was the cause, or one cause, of his being whipped. That was what they professed, that he was equalizing himself too much, and that was the reason they made him take that kissing negro equality."

History echoes. This account from the 19th century can just as easily describe the white racial anxieties and resentment that Mitt Romney's campaign is playing to almost a century and a half later, and which Obama and the Democrats must neutralize this week.

Pundits, journalists, academics, and others have spent a good amount of energy dissecting the race-baiting go for broke white right-wing populism of Mitt Romney and the Tea Party GOP. The Republican Convention in Tampa tried to balance the "read meat" for the base with an open-arms appeal for the Independents and undecideds who were watching the event at home--and not checking out the white trash adventures of Honey Boo Boo. 

This week, the Democrats have a similar challenge: they need to mobilize their base; but Obama and company must also convince undecideds that they are in fact better off now than they would be under a continuation of Bush the Younger's failed economic policies under Romney-Ryan, and to tout the successes of President Obama in the face of rabid Tea Party GOP obstructionism.

The Democrats also have a particularly fine line to walk, one that is the converse of the Tea Party GOP's "mobilize the angry white men" strategy.

The novelty of having a black president has worn off. Moreover, how can the Democrats appeal to white Independents who are unhappy about the economy, somewhat "persuadable" by Romney's racial dog whistles, and yet do not feel particularly comfortable with either the latter's personality or the Tea Party GOP's policies?

These right-leaning Independents, undecideds, and low information voters are vulnerable to the white identity politics that are the foundational premise of Mitt Romney's Southern Strategy 2.0. However, with the correct prodding, some of them could perhaps be won over by the Democrats.

Ultimately, the big tent is already present in the convention hall. The practical politics involve figuring out how the Democrats can get the votes of these white fence sitters.

Joe Klein comments on this political puzzle and observes:

But let me afflict the comfortable. The Democrats have a serious problem. It is a problem that stems from the party's greatest strength: its long-term support for inclusion and equal rights for all, its support of racial integration and equal rights for women and homosexuals and its humane stand on immigration reform.

Those heroic positions, which I celebrate, cost the Democrats more than a few elections in the past. And they caused an understandable, if misguided, overreaction within the party--a drift toward identity politics, toward special pleading. Inclusion became exclusive. The Democratic National Committee officially recognizes 14 caucuses or "communities," most having to do with race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

The diversity of the Democratic Party is integral to their brand name and a strength. As such, it should not be squandered away, run away from, or misappropriated. But, it will be tweaked and shaped for maximum gain through a carefully choreographed exercise in perception management.

Nevertheless, Klein's instincts are more or less correct in terms of how white identity politics are central to the social and cultural terrain of post Civil Rights America. These politics cut both ways as voters ask, "what have you done for me lately?"

He continues:

But if I'm a plain old white insurance salesman, I look at the Democratic Party and say, What's in it for me? These feelings are clearly intensifying in this presidential campaign. They are bound to increase, perhaps dangerously, as the white electoral majority (currently about 70%) diminishes over time.

If the Democratic Party truly wants to be a party of inclusion, it must reach out to those who are currently excluded from its identity politics. It needs to disband its caucuses. It needs to say, We are proud of our racial and ethnic backgrounds, our different religions, our lifestyle differences. But the things that unite us are more important than the things that divide us. We have only one caucus--the American caucus.

At this week's convention in North Carolina, Barack Obama and the Democrats will deploy safe and empty rhetoric about America as a country of immigrants, opportunity, and upward mobility. They will also talk about the strengths of inclusion, tolerance, and diversity as civic virtues. What Obama and his surrogates cannot do is directly engage the open racism of the Republicans, talk about race in a transparent way, or call out Romney for his bigotry. Such a "teachable moment" would play into the hands of the Tea Party GOP.

Here, the Democrats have already "lost" the battle over the visuals and optics of the convention--it will be far more diverse than the Republicans', and the party's nominee is a black man. They can still win the battle over language and policy.

Mitt Romney's subtle racial dog whistles, and his recent descent into overt racism, are predicated on a careful calculation that there are enough white voters who are just generally disaffected and upset. These voters cannot give you any specifics beyond the economy being bad, nor are they policy wonks, but they feel that something is just broken in America, and it needs to be fixed.

In turn, this confusion and energy can be directed back towards the psychic wages of whiteness and the symbolic power of voting for a white person to be President. These white undecideds will be worse of economically--and many of them know it--but at least that black guy, he who is a proxy for all that is wrong in a country where good white folks like them can't get ahead anymore, will be out of office.

Romney is gambling, in a smart bet, that these white undecideds and Independents can be moved by their racial resentment: the prospect that that they will no longer have to kiss a negro's ass is more important than their material self-interest.

These fears about social equality, and white domination by black Americans are not new. Romney has simply refined the manipulation of these anxieties about white peril into a precise science in the Age of Obama, and through a "post-truth" strategy that is aided and abetted by a criminally negligent media which has abandoned all journalistic integrity.
 
The question remains, will such sentiments be sufficient to drive enough white Independents and right-leaning undecideds over to Romney's column in November? The Democratic Convention is a chance to speak directly to some of these voters--and one that Barack Obama had best not squander.