Ralph Nader made a fool of himself today in a not-so-well-thought-out attempt to look like a halfway reasonable presidential candidate. Just look at this:
“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”
(Hat tips to Ben Smith of Politico.com and Reason: Hit & Run for pointing out the story.) When I read this, I knew I wanted to write something here, but I was too sickened to think clearly about it. After a few hours my mind has cleared a bit. Let’s make a list of the outrageous things in this episode:
- Nader thinks that African-Americans should put “ghetto” issues above all.
- Nader thinks that if a black man doesn’t talk about poverty all the time, he’s “talking white.”
- Nader thinks that the public would like Obama more if he acted more stereotypically black.
- Nader really wants Obama to spend a lot of time talking specifically about … asbestos?
- Nader believes there is no meaningful difference between the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.
#3 is just silly. Even Nader couldn’t honestly believe that Obama is losing votes because he’s not black enough. A few choice moments with West Virginia voters should be enough to convince anyone the opposite is true. Even if there are some voters who think that Obama’s not “black enough” (whatever that means) and who make their political decisions solely by where candidates fall on some weird racial spectrum, they’re not going to favor McCain (or Nader, for that matter) over Obama. They surely aren’t blacker than him.
#4 is, I suppose, just a special case of #1, so I’ll deal with them together. In order to truly respect every person as a complete individual, we have to be able to deal with the fact that sometimes people don’t identify primarily by whatever characteristic we as society isolate and stereotype them with. The example that comes immediately to mind is the Log Cabin Republicans. While it surprises me that there are GLBT folks willing to join the party of politicians who believe their sexual orientation to be entirely sinful and deserving of scorn, I realize that there are of course some people who place a higher priority on having more agressive foreign policy and less agressive taxation than on having the most tolerant laws regarding their sexuality. It’s inappropriate to assume that if someone is a member of a minority group, their primary political concerns ought to be the issues that define that minority. So yes, it’s true that there’s a disproportionately large number of homes in low-income neighborhoods that still have asbestos ceilings and shingles. It’s also true that median income levels are lower in black households than white households. But it’s insulting to imply that Obama ought to, by virtue of his ethnic background, spend so much time campaigning on “ghetto”-related issues that his stance on asbestos in particular is well-known.
Incidentally, Obama has worked and campaigned against all these problems Nader tries to call him out on: predatory lending practices, asbestos, lead, and so on. But who cares about facts when you can be ignorant and racist?
That brings me to #2 on my list. I cannot stand phrases like “acting black” or “talking white.” When someone characterizes behavior in those terms, they are making a sweeping generalization that is both socially damaging and flat-out wrong. I understand that when a white teenager wears sagging pants, listens to hip-hop, and uses street slang, he’s becoming (or attempting to become) part of a culture that is largely populated by black teenagers. However, that does not mean that all black teenagers are part of that culture, and it certainly does not mean that all black people are. It’s impossible to accurately describe someone as “acting black” when different black people act in every possible different way, and when white people are just as capable of acting in those same ways. Similarly, it makes no sense for Nader to claim that Obama is “talking white.” In what way — perhaps by discussing the Federal Reserve, climate change, and public health policy rather than simply what it’s like to live in the ghetto? It appears that Nader thinks black people are not allowed to talk about these things; these topics are for white people to discuss, and he won’t tolerate any black people pretending to be white by discussing them. This is beyond absurd!
Finally, I’m baffled by Nader’s intention to run for president in the first place, and his insistence that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can do right by the country because they are both too involved with corporate interests and thus equally bad (#5 on the list). You can make the case that two political parties are not enough to accommodate the range of political perspectives Americans hold. You can certainly make the case that there are flaws common to both major political parties. However, it’s simply ludicrous for Nader to pick out one aspect he identifies as a flaw and ignore all other facets of the party platforms.
Nader already has no chance of winning the election, and it’s stupid to cast a vote for him even if you think he’s the best candidate. Your vote will make much more of an impact in deciding which of the mainstream candidates wins the presidency. The fact that Nader dismisses both major parties so flippantly shows that he couldn’t be a good president — one of the most important job requirements is an ability to compromise and form coalitions among the extreme variety of views in this huge country. But more importantly, this incident illustrates that Nader is completely out of touch with American society. Maybe, deep down, he’s running not to win but to set the agenda for national debate. If he was a very skilled campaigner he might be able to pique the public’s interest and at least achieve that goal, but if this is any indication of his abilities, he’s not going to manage even that.
Tags: barack obama, culture, politics, race, ralph nader