Several outfits have polled the question raised by former President Carter: are those who oppose Obama’s policies motivated by racism? Fox News did a version of this, with the following question:
Thinking about Barack Obama’s policies, some people say [A:those who oppose Obama’s policies are mostly motivated by racism], while others say [B: opposition to Obama’s policies is based on honest disagreements] — which comes closer to your view?
The results showed that 65 percent think the disagreements are honest, and 20 percent* think they are borne out of racism (9 percent some of both, 5 percent not sure). That sounds good – a 40 percent spread.
But consider that in the same poll, 48 percent of those polled opposed Obama’s handling of health care, and 44 percent supported it. Since we can reasonably assume that the 48 percent who oppose Obamacare didn’t call themselves and their fellow travelers racists, that means of the 52 percent who either support Obamacare or aren’t sure, THIRTY-EIGHT PERCENT of them think that Americans are MOSTLY motivated by race when they oppose Obama’s policies.
Consider also that African-American respondents polled almost opposite to the country — 65 percent said race was the primary motivator for opponents, while 27 percent said opponents had honest disagreements. That’s a shocking total — and evidence that the election of a black President did not result in a sea change in the way black Americans view the political landscape overall. Sadly, we’re a long way from a post-racial America, folks.
Polls are never meant to inform. Polls are meant to influence.
The way that a question is framed can do a lot to control the responses. Interpretation of the data is generally skewed by the prejudices of those who are viewing it and the wording of the presentation itself can influence the viewer’s perception.
Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said, “There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics”?
It is truly unfortunate that the “progressives” are the ones most insistent on identity politics, so determined to categorize by race, sex, income, locality, social status or any of the other myriad labels that they favor.
It is a tactic, designed to fragment the opposition rather than risk people finding common ground to resist those lusting for power.
Certainly agree, Maine, that the race card is intended to stop debate rather than foster it. It’s so cavalierly thrown about now that the accusation itself is creating a new racial divide between those who almost never buy it (most white Americans) and those who often do (as seen in this poll, a majority of black Americans).
Of course, one might argue that black Americans are far more likely to feel the brunt of racism, but I’m not so sure anymore. If a black American sees me, a white American, holding an anti-Obamacare sign and thinks to himself, “What a racist,” is he not imputing to me his own prejudicial assumptions based on my race? I live in a predominantly black neighborhood, and the way my black neighbors throw around racial stereotypes – about all races – as if they are ironclad truths astounds me.
Regardless, we would all do well to move beyond stereotypes, accusations, and prejudices and just talk about how to make our country better. Unfortunately, race still has power, and power attracts.
This is a very interesting topic that is being discussed on several blogs. I think that the word “racism” has been so over used that its meaning has become diluted. Certainly racism still exists in pockets, and alway will, but almost no one below the age of 40 in this country really understands wide-spread institutionalized racism. It simply no longer exists at the levels that inspired the American civil rights movement.
The problem is that the label still elicits the same reaction but means something entirely different now. Its new diluted meaning, I presume, may actually makes it easier to use in many ways.
The reality is, one thing most young white Americans have in common with most young black Americans is that neither of them will ever know what it was like to be like to be “colored” in 1967 Selma, AL.
And thank God for that, Chuck. Thanks for the comment.
God I hate typos….sorry.
Marque, both you and Chuck continue with excellent points. Chuck offers an accurate perspective in observing that the “wide-spread institutionalized racism” that galvanized the civil rights movement half a century ago has been defeated – one only has to count the number of leadership and other high-priority positions held by minorities to verify this.
Indeed, “racism” is now utilized as a verbal bludgeon covering any situation producing disagreement between individuals of varying ethnic backgrounds.