Why whites support unqualified blacks

James N. has an intriguing explanation of the sources of the white guilt that, he says, drive whites to vote for a manifestly unqualified black candidate:

Deval Patrick seems to be running into some tough sledding in his first months after his landslide win as governor of Massachusetts. Part of the reason is that he’s not as corrupt as the permanent Democrat majority in the legislature, and they are trying to show him who’s boss. The major reason is, of course, that he is spectacularly unqualified for such extensive executive responsibility. He seems like a smart guy who has spent all his time in affirmative action jobs and thus has never been shaped or developed by criticism.

He shares many features with Barack Obama, the first term Senator from Illinois, who, I agree, stands an excellent chance of being elected President despite HIS spectacular lack of qualification for such a complex administrative and executive position.

What they have in common is that they are black, but they are not “black politicians”. They do not owe their offices to black votes—not even a little bit. Yes, each got a large black turnout, but each won absolute and large white majorities, and each would have been elected even if every black voter had stayed home or even voted for their opponent.

Now, this fact is curious in that it appears to contradict the standard Leftist model of group voting. Any white voter who is not a communist (and there are not many of those) would have had every reason to oppose Patrick, or Obama, on simple self-interest grounds. Both Patrick and Obama are far, far to the left of even their own leftist parties of origin. Both come from, and support, a system which rewards blacks and punishes whites. Both will act, in office, in a way which is inimical to the interests of whites, both individually and collectively.

So, as they say, “whazzup”? What accounts for Patrick’s huge white majorities in a state with a small black population? What does this portend for Obama’s presidential aspirations?

In the Howie Carr column I sent you yesterday, Mr. Carr says, “But everybody wanted to overlook the obvious fact that the guy was utterly unqualified. The electorate just wanted to feel good about itself. The voters, or at least 56 percent of them, figured if Deval got in they would feel less guilty—about what, I have no idea.”

What Mr. Carr means by “I have no idea” is, I assume, that most of the electorate never discriminated against blacks personally, never belonged to the Klan, grew up in a historically anti-slavery state, supports hiring blacks into all sorts of government and other jobs, goes along with “active anti-racism” in their public schools, etc. etc—so what do they have to feel guilty about?

This question—why are whites in 2007, especially young whites, SO guilty that they flock to candidates like these nobodies?

The answer, I believe, is that they are expressing a neurotic conflict. Everything they know from outside of their own heads tells them that blacks and whites are the same—except in professional sports, where blacks are superior. Every black person they are taught about is a hero, or a victim of whites. But their experiences as they grow to voting age and beyond bring them into contact with more than a few actual blacks. This is the first generation for which this is true.

They search everywhere—at school, at work, listening to music, watching the news, and (especially) walking home after dark for the blacks who are just like them. They send their children (when they are very small, at least) into venues where they will be in contact with large numbers of blacks. But as they grow and develop into adulthood, the search for blacks who are like whites becomes to some degree frustrating. What can this mean?

To some of them, it means, “I am a racist”. But most of them have sufficient self-regard to know this is not true. They can’t discuss this among themselves. They can’t talk to their teachers, or their parents, or to their husbands or wives. They can’t read, or see, or hear discussion of this phenomenon. But it’s real. What to do? How can they, as Senator Obama says constantly, “heal”?

Well, they can vote for Deval Patrick or Barack Obama, that’s how. The Boston Globe ran a piece before the November election which revealed much, much more than they intended. Listen to the wife of an out-of-work union plasterer in Massachusetts. She said her husband was unemployed because illegal aliens were doing all the work. Deval Patrick wants to facilitate and to protect from Federal action illegal aliens, But she’s voting for Deval Patrick. Why? “I don’t know. He is so well-spoken”.

Well spoken compared to what? To nigg***, that’s what. She’s voting for Deval Patrick because she thinks blacks don’t speak well, and she feels guilty because she thinks that.

This guilt over one’s own white thoughtcrime is the rocket fuel in Barack Obama’s spaceship. Can it carry him to the White House? Perhaps.

LA replies:

Very interesting. I’m with James 100 percent in his main analysis: it’s not historic racism, but actual, present black inferiority, that is the source of white guilt. I argued for this same view in my article, “Guilty Whites.” I also think there is psychological truth in his explanation of why whites are so hungry for a presentable black for whom they can vote. However, Obama is a highly appealing politician in his own right and to say he has support mainly because of white guilt is not correct I think.

David H. writes:

While I agree with you that many—perhaps even the majority—of Obama’s supporters have embraced him out of other motivations, I wouldn’t discount the racial dimension, particularly among those whose support seems surprising (“moderates,” libertarian types, “conservatives,” et al, many of which normally go full-bore against leftist ideologues). Those individuals are, as you have pointed out (and have, to my eternal gratitude, convinced me), liberals. As liberals who either see little value in the American traditions and culture, or who actively despise them (a glance through your archives gives countless examples), some on the “right” will be motivated by pure racial guilt. I don’t envision a huge percentage, but in a close race such as the ones we have recently suffered through, 1-2 percent could be monumental.

Apropos, this is quite the lively—and stimulating—discussion about Obama taking place on VFR in this post and the prevous posts, and although there are no doubt disagreements this has been both civil and productive. This is how I hoped the SANE debate would have been, but sadly that nasty affair is in stark contrast to this conversation.

Alec H. writes:

James N. is totally right to cast Deval’s win in Massachusetts as a template for a possible Obama win. Deval’s supporters never looked past the man’s skin color. This despite his past membership on the board of directors of a sub-prime mortgage company that preys on blacks, and despite our own history in the Commonwealth with his predecessor, M. Stanley Dukakis. (As Howie Carr said on the radio, “We’ve been through this before.”) [LA wonders: what is this “M. Stanley Dukakis” reference about?]

An Obama presidency is potentially more sinister than a Rodham one. When the real Hillary emerges, people will at least be able to generate some anger and resentment toward her, a white harridan. With Obama, I’m not sure they can, for the same reasons which obtain during the election.

Paul K. writes:

I forwarded the post from James N. to a friend in Massachusetts, who responded:

“I would take exception to the statement that Deval is not as corrupt as the insider Democrat Hack-O-Rama. You probably don’t get to hear many of the small Massachusetts stories but within weeks of being inaugurated Governor DeVille traded in Mitt Romney’s offical Crown Vic sedan for a new Cadillac. He eventually agreed to pay the cost differential. He spent something like $30,000 redecorating his office. He put one of his campaign fund raisers on the state payroll with a $70,000 salary to coordinate interview requests and other press matter for his wife (who is a partner in a Boston law firm). This latter blooper was big even by Massachusetts standards. The latest “mistake” is his phone call on behalf of a former client.

“Mitt Romney may not have been very effective as one of the few Republicans in office in Massachusetts but he was squeaky clean by comparison.”

N. writes:

The current Governor of Massachusetts was once a functionary of the Department of Justice in the Clinton era. He’s the guy who overruled a DOJ panel regarding FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, who shot and killed Vicki Weaver in the door of her cabin as she held a baby…a totally unjustiable killing, even by the un-Constitutional “rules of engagement” that Horiuchi was operating under. Start here.

If I remember correctly, James Bovard covers that case on his website.

James N. writes:

I agree that Obama is an appealing politician - in fact, very much so. It’s my hypothesis, however, that he would be laughed off the Presidential stage were it not for the neo-white guilt I describe.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 10, 2007 09:27 AM | Send