O'Bama, Race and Luck

Around the country today, shirts and banners bearing the words “the luck of the Irish” are being folded up and tucked away for their annual slumber with an all-too-common disregard for the origins of the phrase. In light of Geraldine Ferraro’s comments about Barack Obama, the country would do well to remember that the “luck of the Irish” is a uniquely American invention, having no roots in Ireland itself (although, as with many badges of Irishness, it has experienced a reverse migration.) It was a phrase popularized in the society of the Boston Brahmins to explain any successes in the Irish community – that, since the Irish obviously couldn’t succeed on their own, any of their achievements must be attributable to their “luck.” And like the foolishness and ignorance that belied the term’s original meaning, with his speech on race in the United States, Barack Obama has proven that attributing his rise to “luck” is a fundamentally flawed endeavor.

Ferraro claimed, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." After Obama called her comments “ridiculous” and “wrongheaded” – but importantly never saying that either the comment or she was racist – Ferraro further ignited the fire by saying “they are attacking me because I’m white.” To evaluate her comments is something of a fool’s errand, for she does not say why he would not be in his position if he were a white man. But based on her comments and the fundamental thrust of the Clinton-Obama argument over experience versus change, there are two implicit points – namely, that people want to elect a black man president so badly, they are willing to overlook his lack of experience.

First, there is the desire to elect a black man president argument, the notion that the electorate – or some sections of it, namely black voters and white, educated liberal voters – want to elect a black president. Is it true? Yes, this sentiment exists. There are those who see it as the prospect of electing one of their own (for some black voters) or as a prospect of finally transcending the injustices of the past and proving that we can overcome race (perhaps both groups). The one-of-their-own vote is one that appears from time to time to help explain the support of certain candidates in certain sectors – JFK with (particularly Irish) Catholic voters, Romney with Mormons (see the Utah results) and, yes, Hillary Clinton with women. However, this one-of-our-own desire – along with the transcendent desire – is not enough to explain the Obama phenomenon. It is true that Jesse Jackson rode a wave of black support to primary wins in South Carolina in both 1984 and 1988, but not to the same extent that Barack Obama did. Nor did he or Al Sharpton (who won no primary contests) win in states as diverse as Iowa, Illinois, Maine, and Kansas. (Likewise, Carol Moseley Braun did not see the support among women or African Americans that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama has.) The desire, real though it may be, to see a black president is not enough to translate into votes for any black candidate.

Furthermore, even as aspirational voting must be recognized (but put in context), there is the undercurrent that cuts against it. Friends and family from across the country tell me that they worry about whether Obama could really win; supporters I know from Chicago to Florida have expressed concerns as to whether the rest of the country is ready to elect a black president, and their concerns are real and grounded in the realities they know. The idea of zero-sum politics lies like a heavy weight around the electorate’s neck and there is no doubt that it plays into Clinton’s support among Latinos and “white ethnics.” As the images of Clinton shrouded in a shamrock-infused scarf still linger on the television, people from various (real or perceived) out-groups – ones without great economic and/or political power – worry that if someone from one of the other groups takes the helm, his or her group will suffer as a result. Better to stay with the balanced status quo of a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant candidate (even if she is a woman), than risk further alienation; all the better if she can tout having helped register voters along the Texas-Mexico border or having had a hand (however small) in the Irish peace process.

And, of course, there are those flat-out racists and/or those who think the rest of the country is flat-out racist. Obama’s blackness isn’t getting their votes.

Finally, Clinton’s campaign bubbles with bitterness, a feeling that her experience is not getting the respect it should. To best understand this, it is helpful to also look at the other presidential runners-up. It should be noted that besides Clinton, the two candidates to make it the farthest in the contest are the ones with the least Washington experience – Obama and Edwards. What the two had, however, were clear narratives to their campaigns and a warm, human way with voters. If experience were the only requirement, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson would have wiped the floor with Edwards, Obama, and Clinton – each had a longer and more distinguished record in Washington’s public life. If the Clinton campaign is indignant that her experience is not being given its fair shake, the Biden and Richardson campaigns should be offended, enraged, and excruciatingly hurt. The truth is that the campaign is much more complex than a simple refrain – it involves the public’s perception about positions – and among Democratic primary voters, whether fairly or not, the Iraq position weighs heavily against Hillary Clinton – and is about a host of personal qualities.

Today in Philadelphia, Obama’s strongest personal qualities were on display. In the face of great criticism, he refused to completely disown a friend and confidant who has been dearly important in his life. Instead, he showed a willingness to give the electorate the benefit of the doubt, delivering a thoughtful and insightful speech on race. For nearly forty minutes, he distilled the problems and pathologies of racial tension in America in a way politicians rarely do. While he often does compare poorly to Hillary Clinton in his ability to recite facts and statistics, today Obama showed an honesty and depth of thought that not only surpasses hers, but also outstrips that of any politician in recent memory. In doing so, he proved that while his candidacy is about many things, it is not at all about luck.