Robert L. Terrell

An op-ed piece by Bob Herbert in a recent issue of the New York Times moved me to make the following observations about the racial dynamic in this nation, and the manner in which it is influencing dialogue pertinent to the current presidential campaign. Herbert refers to the issue at hand as “the dog that won’t bite.”  The so-called “dog” in question is the contingent of white Americans who say they will not vote for Barack Obama because of his color—even if this means they end of voting for someone hostile to their best economic interests. 

I find this subject immensely interesting for many reasons, not the least of them being the fact that I am deeply convinced that it provides an important key to understanding what this nation is really all about, domestically and internationally.  I make this assertion even though former President Jimmy Carter asserted a contrary opinion on the subject this morning during a Denver interview for one of the television networks.

 President Carter, whose opinion is widely shared by the mavens who dominate mainstream journalism in this nation, acknowledged that some whites are bitter end racists.  But he claimed they are essentially insignificant, and that their relevance will continue to diminish with the passing of each year.  I don’t disagree completely.  Racist white people are not nearly as common as they were a decade or so ago.  I also agree that their overall influence on civic affairs across the nation is in decline.

 Our first definitive and undeniable proof that this is the case took place on the night Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus.  Given the state’s racial composition, his victory was fueled by a wholly unanticipated groundswell of enthusiastic, infectious white support that surprised and delighted fair-minded people throughout the nation.  Looking back, and considering that moment in light of Barack Obama’s formal nomination to be the Democratic Party’s candidate for the presidency in the upcoming election, it is clear to me that history will find it hard to deny that life in America took on a new and different meaning that night.  

 Moreover, that which started with the faith and commitment represented by Iowa’s virtually all-white Democratic party caucus voters, has morphed before our eyes week by astounding week into a seminal turning point in the history of this nation.  Everything has been different since Iowa, and the ramifications of that beginning began to be manifest in a formal way for U.S. citizens and the rest of the world to see today in Denver at the Democratic Convention.  When Hillary Clinton took the microphone and executed the superbly graceful diplomatic maneuver that made Barack Obama’s improbable quest to become his party’s nominee official, those in attendance roared unanimous approval.  It is now official. 

The cavernous convention hall was filled at that moment with people who shared one notable trait in common:  they had big, wet tears streaming down their faces.  Their tears, and somewhat incredulous smiles on their faces, conveyed the deeply emotional nature of the decision they had made.  However the November election turns out, the United States of America will never be the same.  We should all reflect deeply and take note in whatever ways needed in order to make certain we remember this day.  History was made and all our tomorrows will unfold via a different narrative, and under new social, psychological and political paradigms.

 There will be time and opportunity in the future to comment more broadly on the ramifications of Barack Obama’s selection today.  For now, let it suffice for me to say that the necessary critical mass of people in the United States made the decision today via their vote for Barack Obama which will historically be used to separate the 20^th from the 21^st centuries in this nation’s history.  In other words, I was correct all along, during all those years, when I repeatedly claimed that George W. Bush represented the end of an era.  He is the last of a kind, dated in his perspective, and surprisingly amenable to criminal behavior.

In the spirit of balance and candor, I need also note that Bill Clinton, who spoke eloquently and with admirable dignity this evening, also passed the torch during this convention to the next generation.  He was typically handsome, gracious, smiling broadly and much enjoying his warm reception by he enthusiastic crowd.  Bill Clinton is still a good man, but the man vying for the position he once held currently possesses the youthfulness and popular support that once were his.  Most important, Obama is a different kind of cat, speaking in different cadences with rhetorical flourishes honed to synchronize with the sensibilities of a generation that was possibly starting kindergarten when Bill Clinton took office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  As far as they are concerned, Bill Clinton is a figure from a past, less relevant, era.        

In any event, and getting back to my primary point for this post, I want to note that Obama did in fact win the nomination by garnering more support than any of the persons who vied for the position.  Therefore, it is clear that at least the Democratic party’s segment of white America is prepared to put the issue of race to bed and move on to other more pressing and important matters.  This is historic, and, as I more or less noted, all Americans should take pride in that which has been accomplished, even those who have every intention of voting for John McCain or Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr.

Nonetheless, as Bob Herbert noted in his highly insightful column, a segment of the white community repeatedly identified by the pollsters has no intention of voting for Barack Obama–because he is not white.  One way or another, they will influence the election’s outcome.  Moreover, I should like to note, and here is where I disagree with President Carter, their racism continues to be a severe problem in many sectors of this society.  As a result, many innocent people suffer unnecessarily. And everyone ends of having to share the negative consequences.

Polling data associated with Obama’s candidacy is unprecedented candidacy is shedding unprecedented attention on whites who possess racist attitudes.  As a result, the group is attracting unprecedented.  Heretofore, efforts to engender public dialogue about this group, and the deleterious impact it exerts on many aspects of life in this nation, have tended to be resolutely suppressed in virtually all sectors of society.  Those who have persisted in their attempts to discuss the subject have generally been silenced via methods sufficient to significantly accomplish the task. 

 Since the onset of the highly conservative, retrograde Reagan era, those who have attempted to discuss the existence and operations of this metaphorical “white majority” have commonly been bullied and, all too frequently, silenced by accusations that “the race card” was “being played.”

But Obama’s racial identity is inexorably transforming the national dialogue regarding white America, and the manner in which its most racist segments operate.  As long as all credible candidates for the presidency were white, there was no incentive for those who control and moderate public dialogue to address whiteness as a category.  Nor was there any perceived need to devote anything more than scant attention to the many ways in which whiteness functions as cultural, social, economic and political capital for those fortunate enough to have been born in possession of that particular form of personal and social currency.

Although Barack Obama’s ascendance is the focal point for much of the explosion of anxiety currently underway among whites that have problems with people of color, there are other significant sources of angst out there for members of this group.  They include the deep fear at the root of the near hysterical dialogue currently underway in the nation regarding immigration and undocumented workers.  This particular dialogue, and the attendant sense of rage and powerlessness expressed by those most worked up about the issue, is almost certainly a response to recognition that people of color are on their way to becoming the majority. 

Given all this, the nation is being challenged pressed to address and discuss whiteness in a more forthright and honest manner.  In Bob Hebert’s case, it came up because he was attempting to analyze polling data about voter attitudes.  For now, my modest recommendation is that all of us, including the mainstream press, devote more attention to whites that have problems with people of color. 

We need to better understand them, and the steps that need to be taken to address and resolve their legitimate issues. Their influence and impact on the nation’s domestic and international policies needs to be articulated as clearly as possible.  I am particularly interested in acquiring a better understanding of the reasons why so many of them believe that racial neutrality is dangerous and destabilizing.  This is a serious matter, and it is destined to become critically important during the years immediately ahead as white America makes its quickly accelerating transition from majority to minority status.