Forget Obama and David Brooks -- Because It Is About Race

Race is the never-ending debate of America. In recent days, former President Jimmy Carter said that the intense opposition to President Barack Obama was fueled by racial bigotry. New York Times columnist David Brooks opined that "race is largely beside the point."

He contended that the current attack on Barack Obama was race-free populist rage against the elites in the tradition of Huey Long or Father Coughlin. (He did overlook the inconvenient fact that Coughlin's populism was built on a virulent anti-Semitism.)

At Friday's daily White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to say that race was a factor in criticism of the president. "He just won't go there," one reporter in the room whispered to me as Gibbs ducked the question. Once burned -- the Skip Gates controversy -- twice shy, especially on race. And during his Sunday talkathon, Obama maintained that race was not the main thing, telling CNN: "Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are. That's not the overriding issue here."

Obama may be right that it's not the overriding issue. What's happening is the continuation of a political culture war. But race is certainly a part of this ongoing conflict.


Before I explain, let's review some of the race-related aspects of the latest spate of Obama-bashing. Years before Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted "You lie" at Obama, he was one of the fiercest defenders of flying the Confederate flag over the state capitol of South Carolina. His explanation at the time: "The Confederate heritage is very honorable." What was honorable about fighting for states' rights so an economy based on slavery could be preserved?

Well, we've been through this before. But is it a coincidence that a man enamored of the Confederate heritage would show such disrespect to Obama? Perhaps. But consider Glenn Beck, the cheerleader-in-chief for the Sept.12 Tea Baggers rally. He called Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." That's certainly not something Beck would have said about a white politician with whom he disagreed. There's also Rush Limbaugh. Responding to a story about a fight on a school bus, he echoed Beck's sentiment: "In Obama's America the white kids now get beat up." Hmmm, wonder why that would be?

And at the 9/12 rally in Washington, my colleague Stephanie Mencimer heard protesters yelling, "Obama's on crack" and "String him up." Would they be saying that about a president who was white? Maybe. But I have my doubts. The color of Obama's skin does seem to get under the skin of some of his detractors.

But even if race is not the overriding issue -- as Brooks and Obama appear to agree -- Obama hatred is not about heroic small-town Americans rebelling against detached elites. (George W. Bush had impeccable elitist credentials, and he didn't draw this sort of ire.) This is about a clash between two visions of America that has been underway since the 1960s. One is the culturally conservative view of a country made up mainly of traditional families -- Christian and white -- accepting of traditional values and the perspective of the United States as the center of the universe.

The other is a more secular, dynamic and tolerant society composed of different groups that is part of a changing world with shifting balances of power. At John McCain and Sarah Palin rallies last year, I encountered voters who seemed to believe that their way of life -- or view of reality -- was threatened by Obama. He's a communist, some said -- hurling a loaded term that has been used to demonize people for decades. Obama, they feared, was going to rock their world and deliver America into the hands of its -- meaning, their -- enemies.

Race is not absent from this face-off. The president is always a symbol of the nation, a representation of the country's self-identity. As a biracial (self-identified black) man from a non-traditional, multinational family, Obama sure represents a changing America. The effort to delegitimize him (beyond just opposing him and his policies) does seem connected to his -- shall we say -- heritage. Quite literally. Ask the birthers.

Since the South lost the battle over segregation a few decades ago, it has often been tough to sift out race and derive the precise percentage of its impact on national debates. (How much did race affect the federal and national response to Hurricane Katrina? Who can say? Maybe people across America just didn't care so much about poor people.) Not everything that's significant is measurable. Yet whatever role race plays in the Obama opposition, the people leading this from-the-right dissent can be judged by their willingness to confront the racism that is part of their movement. Otherwise, they will have no credibility when they claim this really isn't about race.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.