I say this as one who firmly believes that Obama is self-consciously running for War-Criminal-in-Chief.
Let me connect the two issues of white supremacy and U.S. imperialism in this way. McCain has no idea that he is a war criminal. The very fact that Obama has been associated with people such as Rev. Wright leaves me with no doubt that Obama is quite cynical and self-consciously hypocritical, and knows that the institutional role of U.S. president will inevitably lead him to commit war crimes to maintain U.S. dominance.
This wraps around to the question of racism in relation to Obama's candidacy. I think for whites who hold on to their shreds of white supremacy and privilege their is an accurate perception that all African-American's have suffered some form of oppression that is related to white dominance and imperial dominance. This in itself looks suspects to them. The suspicion of racists (open and in the closet) is that no black American can run the U.S. imperial (and white supremacist) enterprise and not undermine some aspect of it. I think is the unarticulated perception among many white supremacists who say things like "A black will take care of his own and hurt white people." I think that this perception is wrong. I think that this perception is wrong in the long run in the same way that it was wrong about Irish and Catholic Americans. African-Americans can be "good" imperialists also.
But I also think that there is an ironic conclusion that can be drawn about Obama from all of this. He refuses to directly confront racism. This is smart from the point of view of bourgeois politics but disgusting as a matter of principle. And he knows that this kind of white supremacy is deep in U.S. society, so I can only conclude that his campaign's refusal to confront it is a conscious hypocritical choice. This is one more reason for my conclusion that Obama is consciously hypocritical (in a way that a self-righteous participant in war crimes such as McCain is not) in his relation to U.S. imperialism and economic dominance.
Jerry Monaco
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> <>
>
> <http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/05/obama-and-worki.html>
>
> Obama and Working-Class Whites
> Gary Langer
>
> May 13, 2008 12:42 PM
>
> The anticipated outcome of today's contest in West Virginia is
> prompting a fresh review of Barack Obama's difficulties winning
> support from working-class white voters in this year's Democratic
> primaries. One question: The extent to which it does or doesn't
> predict problems for Obama if he's the party's nominee in November.
>
> The effect, which we started reporting back in February, has been
> clear in the primaries: Whites who don't have a college degree have
> voted for Hillary Clinton by a 2-1 margin, 62-31 percent, while those
> who've gone through college have divided evenly, 48-47 percent.
>
> It seems that the effect stems in part from the thematic positioning
> of the two, with Clinton's more nuts-and-bolts approach better
> attuned to the working class, Obama's inspirational pitch for a new
> politics resounding better among more upscale Democrats. Obama's been
> helped by the fact that better-educated voters are disproportionately
> likely to turn out – especially in primaries.
>
> But primaries only tell us so much about general elections. In our
> latest ABC/Post poll, testing each of the Democrats against John
> McCain, there's a shortfall among less-educated whites for both:
> McCain leads Obama by 12 points in this group, Clinton by 8.
>
> Obama, with his upscale appeal, does better among better-educated
> whites: McCain's just +3 vs. Obama, compared with McCain's 12-point
> advantage against Clinton among college-educated whites. That
> accounts for Obama's better showing against McCain overall, 51-44
> percent in our poll, vs. 49-46 percent in a Clinton-McCain matchup.
>
> Obama McCain Clinton McCain
> Whites, no college 40% 52 44% 52
> Whites, college grads 47 50 42 54
>
> There are other potential impacts of race and socioeconomic status.
> As we noted in our poll analysis yesterday, 17 percent of less-
> educated whites say they're at least somewhat uncomfortable with the
> idea of an African-American president; among better-educated whites
> that declines to 4 percent. As noted, there's a similar effect on
> comfort with a woman president – and McCain's age is a far bigger
> negative than either of these. Each of the candidates has room for
> some consciousness-raising on these concerns.
>
> It's also worth noting that the latte-vs.-lunch bucket effect has not
> been entirely consistent in all primaries this year. Obama won less-
> educated whites in the Vermont and Wisconsin primaries, was +2 in
> Utah and came within 4 points in his home state of Illinois (although
> in each he again did better with upscale whites).
>
> It's fair for the Obama camp to point out that he doesn't do
> significantly worse against McCain among working-class whites than
> Clinton does, and that he does better with their upscale
> counterparts. And Obama's numbers are nothing like John Kerry's and
> Al Gore's; they lost working-class whites to George W. Bush by 24
> points and 17 points, respectively.
>
> But working-class whites nonetheless are a group with which Obama
> might well like to improve. If he loses today's primary, and next
> week's in Kentucky, they'll be the first place to look. And less-
> educated voters account for a greater share of the turnout in general
> elections than in primaries. While Obama could win a general election
> without them – just as he leads McCain today – it's also true that
> the last Democrat to capture the White House, Bill Clinton, ran
> evenly among working-class whites as he did so.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>