Why should blacks "unite" behind Obama?

An article in Der Spiegel about the purported "end of the Obama revolution" contains a revealing bit of analysis that echoes a disturbing trend I've noticed in various folks' commentaries on the Democratic race: the assumption that we ought to expect black voters to be monolithically united behind Barack Obama, simply because he's a black man. Here's the snippet in question.

[Obama] hasn't managed to attract a strong following among older people and blue-collar workers. The majority of women find him interesting, but they support Hillary Clinton. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics are opposed to Obama, partly because he is black. Even African-Americans are not united in their support for Obama.

What's telling is the way the author, Gabor Steingart, chooses to characterize the various statistical realities that he's discussing. Women, he says, "support Hillary Clinton." Well, according to a CNN poll released on Saturday, Clinton is preferred by 54% of white women and 38% of black women. CNN doesn't give a combined total for all women, but presumably it's just barely above 50%. That's a "majority," true enough. Obama, meanwhile, has the support of 59% of blacks. That's a significantly larger majority than Clinton has among women. But the Steingart doesn't say that. Instead, he imposes on Obama some sort of "interest-group supermajority" rule, whereby getting almost three-fifths of the group in question is somehow a failure. This same rule is not applied to Clinton, however. Steingart doesn't say that "even women are not united in their support for Clinton."

Why not? Because there's no particular reason why they should be -- just as there's no particular reason blacks should be united behind Obama. Voters should choose whoever they believe is the best candidate, not necessarily the candidate who happens to share their skin tone or genitalia. Yet for some reason, there's an expectation that black Democrats ought to be 100% behind Obama, or nearly so, whereas no similar expectation exists for female Democrats and Clinton.

I understand that identity politics exists, and it isn't going away. And I'm not demanding that pollsters or the media ignore it. But there's no need to overemphasize it, or to twist and tweak the data to conform with a preconceived notion that everything is about race. We ought not automatically expect voters to make identity politics their #1 criterion, and act like something is necessarily amiss if they don't. ("Black voters aren't totally united behind Obama! He must be doing something wrong!") Particularly for those whose expectations have the power to help shape reality, i.e. the media, such potentially self-fulfilling assumptions are deeply corrosive to our political discourse.

UPDATE: Condor comments that the German-to-English translation may be to blame for some of the offending phraseology.

Comments

[4-7]

way off topic, but the cite to Der Spiegel reminds me of a movie I rented called "The Lives of Others" which involves the magazine in an aspect of the plot. I highly recommend that movie. I think it will appeal to any American regardless of political persuasion.

[Condor]

I read the German version of that article a few days ago and the Obama point strikes me as the product of a weird translation. I don't think you can really put any blame on the writer, Gabor Steingart here. If anyone, blame the translator. The Hillary point is a literal translation in the English. But the Obama sentence translation is, more literally, "African-Americans, in turn, are in no way behind him as one." There's no sense in the sentence that EVEN African-Americans are not behind him.

[Ed]

How is this appreciably different from the expectation that blacks will support the Democrats to the tune of 85+% in most every election?

Go ask Michael Steele (GOP AA who lost in Maryland) about mindless identity politics.

I am loving every last second of the conundrum that many liberals find themselves in. They have perpetuated identity politics (race and gender) and hammered such against the eeeeeevil GOP for decades. Now, they actually have to choose one against another.

Do you really want to argue, Brendan, that the overwhelming disparity of support amongst whites and blacks/women and men in the HRC/BO race is due to policy concerns?

[Brendan Loy]

Ed, you aren't saying anything I haven't already acknowledged in my last paragraph. ("I understand that identity politics exists, and it isn't going away.") You're just ignoring my point in order to make a different one. So, the answer to your question is, of course not. That doesn't invalidate anything I've said.

[Brendan Loy]

Oh, that was the answer to your second question. As to your first question ("How is this appreciably different..."), it's different because this is a Democratic primary, not a general election, and whereas there is solid statistical data to support the proposition that blacks generally vote overwhelmingly Democratic, there is no such data to support the proposition that blacks generally vote overwhelmingly in favor of a black mainstream presidential primary contender over a former first lady with the last name Clinton. The latter proposition is supported only by pure assumption, not data. And here, where the data does not support it, the writer, instead of concluding that maybe the assumption is wrong, concludes that Obama must be failing to do something that he should be doing. That's taking the concept of identity politics and unnecessarily expanding it without a factual justification for doing so.

[Brendan Loy]

Put another way, it is generally understood that most blacks -- rightly or wrongly -- believe that Democrats are better aligned with their interests, and therefore blacks generally vote Democratic. That's not much different from saying that old people generally vote a certain way, rich people generally vote a certain way, etc., non-college-educated people generally vote a certain way. But this is quite different than that. This is like saying that rich people should unite behind another rich person, old people should united behind another old person, etc., just because they share that same arbitrary characteristic.

It's one thing to assume that an overwhelming majority of blacks will vote for a Democrat over a Republican -- that almost always happens, so it's not an unfair statement. It's another thing entirely to assume that blacks will overwhelmingly vote for someone just because they're black, even when choosing between two candidates both of whom have the policy preferences that black voters statistically tend to prefer.

[HUSKER]

As an american negro not aligned with the democrats I find this whole thing real funny and have to agree with the poster who noted that the dems have to make a choice that could fracture the party for a long time. I find that a large number of woman have lined up behind just because she is a woman and they are not being asked to justify that choice the way blacks who support Obama are. See the Oprah message boards for proof of that. Obama has very strong support among you black people but its the older black people that he is trying to win over and I believe he will in due time. Some of what I have from people like my mother and father are that they do not want to see him killed not that they think he does not have enough expierience. To me the political process is already screwed up and backing someone because they 'look' like you will not happen for the 1st time in this election and it will not be the last. Hillary is no more ready to assume the role of president on the 1st day anymore than Obama or Edwards she seems to not realize that Bill will not be able to make those tough calls and then answer to the press for her and she won't be able to cry when the press gets tough or don't care about her feelings

[Andrew]

I have to be honest, I am rooting for the MSM and the liberal punditry to continue dragging out this formulaic storyline of black vs. female identity politics. The more voters are patronized, the more they will revolt against such belittling identity politics. This is not a problem for the GOP, but the Democratic Party is still under this spell, and it needs to be broken.

[Sandy Underpants]

Ummmm.... The Republicans don't need to worry about it because only old white men run for the Republican nomination.

Yet for some reason, there's an expectation that black Democrats ought to be 100% behind Obama, or nearly so, whereas no similar expectation exists for female Democrats and Clinton.

Really? Ask Oprah about that.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4167650&page=1

[Ed]

BL - ALL the exit polling so far demonstrates the schism I outlined.

IIRC, blacks went for Obama in Nevada 70-30. White women went HRC 63-37. This has been very consistent since NH. The one group who would assumedly be linked with the blacks in terms of economic priorities, the latinos, went 60-40 for HRC!

If it isn't race, what is it? What policy? It ain't immigration - not among the lock-step/monolithic Dems.

I so enjoy petard hoisting.

[Joe Loy]

Brendan, you are as usual (and very Commendably) stationing yourself stoutly on the "Ought" rim of the yawning Is-Ought Chasm. / The day will come when your Reasoning will be Vindicated. Unfortunately, it is still not coming quite as Fast as you may hope.

"I understand that identity politics exists, and it isn't going away. "

Good. "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. The next step is to take stock of Reality." ~ WFB Jr.

;>

[Judith]

Thanks for your analysis. I read Steingarts article when it came out and I appreciate your response.
I am UMD, College Park graduate where I studied Government and Politics. I really appreciate when I read blog pieces such as this because the American people are so much more intelligent that the media gives them credit for.

FYI - I am a young black woman