The columnist Michael Kinsley once defined a "gaffe" as an occasion when a politician accidentally tells the truth. In our age of political correctness, some would place Geraldine Ferraro's remarks into this category. Long known for speaking candidly, Ferraro recently remarked that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
There's a molecule of truth in this. Obama's appeal is that he is an African American who doesn't sound one bit like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Blacks are inspired to see one of their own have a serious shot at the presidency. Whites are relieved that Obama doesn't seem to be motivated by the kind of chronic resentment that seems all too prevalent in black America.
Taken this way, Ferraro is stating the obvious. It's equally obvious, by the way, that if Hillary was male--and not married to Bill Clinton--she wouldn't be in her position. Hillary came to national prominence not through her own efforts but through the success of her husband. Virtually all her "experience" prior to being elected Senator is in fact Bill Clinton's experience. She wouldn't even have been elected to the Senate without Bill. So she too owes a great deal to her gender and her "first wife" position.
In a deeper sense, though, Ferraro's insinuation is completely wrong. In reality Obama's political success is due to far more than race. He brings some unique and very attractive qualities at a time when the country wants and needs them. Obama is a man of unquestionable intelligence and grace, and this is why the affirmative action label seems especially unjust when applied to him.
To me Ferraro's comments illustrate two things. First, they show the depths to which Hillary flacks are willing to go. It's typical of the Hillary camp that a sidekick like Ferraro attempts to plunge the knife into Obama while Hillary feigns ignorance and plays nice. Second, Ferraro's attack illustrates how some prominent liberals deep down think that all blacks are only capable of advancing because they are black.
In a way liberal support for racial preferences can be understood as an attempt to cope with this situation. We often hear liberal activists say, "If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be virtually no blacks in top universities." The implication of course is that blacks on their own merits are incapable of getting into Harvard and Berkeley.
The cruel irony of affirmative action is that it reinforces and strengthens liberal perceptions of black inferiority. Athough Obama seems smart enough to have gotten into Harvard, it's quite possible that affirmative action policies were partly responsible for his admission. Consequently policies of racial preference have the effect of placing an invisible question mark alongside the achievements of all persons of color.
When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, it wasn't the Ku Klux Klan or the skinheads who said, "He's just there because he's black." It was the liberal Senators and activist groups that said this. Now Ferraro is saying the same thing about Obama.
Perhaps the day is not far when African Americans will wake up and start asking, "Do these politices of racial preferences actually hurt more than they help?" and "Isn't it time we stopped assuming that liberal Democrats like Ferraro and Hillary are our natural allies?"
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 12)
1. I can't believe I am actually agreeing with you. Usually you are way off the mark and now I see that as probably towing a conservative line. You guys are, after all, a bunch of followers. In this however you make several great points. I don't, however, think Hillary and liberal should be in the same sentence. She is just as poisonous as the right wing hacks you fervently support. Obama is different as you point out. While his "experience" is not that of a John McCain, he is a uniquely exciting candidate and his immense smarts and passion is significant on its own. Race is unavoidable but Hilary putting Ferraro out there to do her dirty work is obvious and disgusting.
George at 10:17AM on Mar 14th 2008
2. Dinesh; you hit the nail on the head. Affirmative Action hurts blacks more than it helps. It reenforces the belief that blacks are an inferior race and need help from their generous white liberal counterparts and seems to strengthen the "kind of chronic resentment that seems all too prevalent in black America."
jonathan at 10:18AM on Mar 14th 2008
3. The Dems have created a serious internal problem for themselves. At first I thought the party would implode by a sheer lack of numbers. If you allow your constituency to be aborted on demand at some point you run out of voters. But now the current leadership finds itself facing cannabilism for its survival and the minority base of the Dem party is about to have a V-8 moment. I think this is the beginning of the third party for politics in America. Dumbstruck white liberals will turn to the only thing they cannot offend, the environment, and become the new green party and the rubble of what they leave will become the new Dem party.
fred at 11:14AM on Mar 14th 2008
4. Dinesh,
Good job on this one. Great article. I can see that you have respect for Obama, and that is something coming from you.
Botts at 11:16AM on Mar 14th 2008
5. During the Viet Nam war the sentence 'We had to destroy the village in order to save it.' was met with laughter. But those who support Affirmative Action, racial preferences, & racial set asides don't see that the policy using race as a foundation as opposite to the idea of racial neutrality. In other words --> we had to be racist to fight racism is the same joke.
Van at 11:27AM on Mar 14th 2008
6. I agree with your comment about Affirmative Action and that Ferraro's comments are actually correct. Obama is where he is now because the media by most part have played him up as the new "Kennedy" with liberal change as his policy. But where are his acutally plans in reality? He doesn't talk about them much. I would like to add to Ferraro's statement that Obama wouldn't be where he is without the mostly free media exposure prior to the election. Also, aiding his popularity is America's disgust for Bill Clinton. Hillary would be better off without his baggage. She has always been the brains behind him. I am saying this as a true Republican that is voting for John McCain.
Sheila at 11:35AM on Mar 14th 2008
7. I think you're pretty close to the mark Dinesh. My only disagreement is that I don't believe Hillary put Geraldine Ferraro up to it. I'm not so sure I see the benefit to Hillary's campaign.
Look at the two comments Obama's people said, the one about NAFTA and the other about calling Hillary a monster. I don't think Obama had anything to do with those comments. I'd be willing to bet they caught him by surprise.
The same with Geraldine Ferraro and her comment. I think it caught Hillary by surprise. And just like Obama, she found herself back-peddling over the comments of campaign staffers and supporters.
Willet at 11:35AM on Mar 14th 2008
8. Here is an excerpt of today's SomethingAwful article:
"Ferraro's comment outraged Obama's surrogates, supporters, and 105% of all black people who viewed it as belittling Obama and assuming all of his success was due to his race, a "lucky" coincidence. It's not really all that upsetting when viewed objectively, not because it makes some sort of sense, but because it is so completely nonsensical it defies categorization. When you start by framing your argument around alternate reality scenarios where Barack Obama is a white woman you're not really on sound footing."
Mokele-Mobembe at 11:42AM on Mar 14th 2008
9. Ferraro remarks are an insult to every one who has voted for Obama implying we all voted for a fad rather than the man. The greatest reason Obama is doing so well is the back lash to G W Bush, and his neo-con ideas. Hillary might have risen to the heights by other means so your assumptions about her are questionable. If Obama was white, and all else equal, Farraro is right about his position as he would have left Hillary in the dust long ago.
Jerry Brown at 11:45AM on Mar 14th 2008
10. I find it interesting that you, just like all the other bloggers, choose to only include part of Geraldine Ferraro's remarks, what about the first part where she says that she would never have been picked to be a running mate to Mondale if she had not been a white woman. If she is, as you say, just stating the obvious why did you not include that? What exactly are you saying in your blog? Everyone with eyes can see that Obama is black and that being black has helped him in his quest to be the democratic candidate. I agree that Hillary owes some of her success to being Bill Clinton's white wife but what I disagree with is that you discount the fact that Obama is where he is because of his skin color. Obama is smart, I agree, but people are not just supporting him for that reason, it is also that he is black. Hillary has had it easier at some points because of her husband but he has also been a detriment to her career as well. Heh, not everyone was in love with his presidency. I can see you are blinded by your own prejudices when it comes to your blog. Let's just hope the rest of the US isn't.
Melanie at 11:57AM on Mar 14th 2008
11. DD: The most telling and valid point in your blog can be found in your remark that Ferraro's statement contained "a molecule of truth". Obama is where he is for A NUMBER of reasons, the smallest of which is his ethnicity.
If Ferraro had spoken of Obama's many fine qualities, this matter would have barely survived one 24 hour news cycle. But,she engaged in a polemic and has, justifiably, been skewered for doing so. Her comment is the latest of too many coming from one or another part of Clinton's campaign. It is impossible to know is these sorts of slanders are part of an orchestrated effort. But, the more they happen, the more tempting it is to believe that that is exactly what is going on.
Marty Adams at 12:02PM on Mar 14th 2008
12. As a black man I have never had the advantage of affirmative action, I've worked my way up to a management position in my field but it hasn't been easy. It's a career mark by great interviews with no call backs... only later to see the hire and know I was the more qualified applicant. My current position although management is with a smaller firm at the lower end of the pay schedule but my boss respects me and my effort so I remain, picking up part time jobs (non management) to make ends meet.
After we purchased our second home we endured three years of harassment from our neighbor. Several times after I called the Police, I had to stand there and suffer verbal, racial attacks in their presence as they stood by, not doing anything to stop the attacks. Because of this the harassment eventually escalated into a physical attack. Even then it took the threat of a law suit to force any action.
Is this "chronic resentment"?
If the Police are willing to allow me to be verbally and physically attacked should I turn around and trust that an Ivy League school to take the best candidate for a position with no apparatus in place to ensure they are not discriminating.
"If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be virtually no blacks in top universities." The implication of course is that blacks on their own merits are incapable of getting into Harvard and Berkeley.
This is the most ludicris statement I have ever seen!!! The implication is that the predominated white major Universities, many of which if you go outside of their athletic departments, can be and have been historically devoid of diversity. This is obviously an agenda statement on your part DD, and not an accurate summary of the situation.
Affirmative action may not be perfect but my personal experiences leave me with no doubt some system of checks and balances needs to be there to ensure fairness. So instead of crafting mis-leading blog to sway opinion to a mis-guided conclusion why don't you use that big brain you always brag about to actually come up with a solution... something to help. You're just a Conservative version of Al Sharpton, all talk, no substance, without the perm... Geo
Geo at 12:03PM on Mar 14th 2008
13. Sorry, my error..oops, I mean YOUR error, dinesh:
Hillary IS white!
Must have been a typo on my, oops, I mean, dinesh's part, considering how scholarly and shmart he is, and not given to mistakes of any kind.
Tsar Nicholas II at 12:45PM on Mar 14th 2008
14. Many valid points are made in the posts prior to this one, and luckily we've been spared the juvenile antics that I expected to see when I scrolled down. Although there is much discussion nedded about race in America, most of it is not r elevant to Ferraro's remarks. What she said only becomes a scandal if you "read between the lines", if you make assumptions about what she "really meant." Her exact words were based on facts. Obama is trouncing Clinton in the all of these States because of unprecedented numbers of black turnout at the polls. Blacks are making the difference here. And it is ok to state that. It's not racist to state the truth. I've watched the same commentators that condemn her immediately follow by verifying her statements accuracy with statistics! Kind of funny. Also, admitting that gender played a role in her own political past, confirming is an important context. shouldn't be omitted when talking about her comments. It shows that she is simply discussing facts, not showing a bias. We cannot be so afraid of being un-PC, that we can no longer speak about facts. Remember the story about the Emperor's New Clothes? It's become reality in many ways.
mike at 12:36PM on Mar 14th 2008
15. By the way, my book, which makes no mention of Ferraro, or Obama or Clinton, does in fact deconstruct racial issues (and New York City) to the point where they just can't be put back together.
(I have decided that whenever dd does NOT plug one of his gottdamned books, I will plug mine).
America's Most Gangsta at 12:46PM on Mar 14th 2008