Hillary Clinton Has a Palmore v. Sidoti Problem, and Now We Do Too

[enough]

This essay is the best thing I've seen on the race situation in the primary and general election (with a lot of historical perspective). It appeared on TPM the day before yesterday and so got less attention than it should in the excitement.

I hope every Democrat will read this rather long essay by articleman at TPM Cafe.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/hillary-clinton-has-a-palmore.php


Hillary Clinton Has a Palmore v. Sidoti Problem, and Now We Do Too
By articleman - May 5, 2008, 8:31PM

Hillary Clinton's campaign has a serious race problem -- specifically, a Palmore v. Sidoti problem, that is coming to infect the way we look at race in the Democratic Party. This piece explains the danger, and what we should do about it.

Palmore is the 1982 Supreme Court case in which two white parents separated, and the white mother began cohabiting with a black man. Florida took primary custody from her because a social worker opined that being a child in an interracial household could injure the child, because of societal prejudices. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, because, it held, it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution to give effect to the racial prejudices of persons outside the family. By giving effect to the racial prejudices of certain whites, the Clinton campaign has a Palmore v. Sidoti problem. Decent people should recoil from it.

My argument is simple: there is a huge moral distinction between passively accepting the votes of whites reluctant or unwilling to vote for a black man (which cannot, in practice, be avoided by a white candidate running against a black candidate), and encouraging that vote, or privileging those reluctant and unwilling voters. The Clinton campaign jumped this shark months ago, has indeed produced a coherent Democratic "white vote," and responsible people, or people who want the Democratic Party to comprise a lasting majority in our politics cannot support it.

snip> much more

[BayouBengal07]

1. Ok this is fucking creepy....

I was JUST entering Palmore v. Sidoti into my Constitutional Law outline for my exam Friday, and then I switch to DU and this is the FIRST thing I see.

Not trying to hijack; I was just taken aback.

[enough]

2. The name of the case was new to me (not a lawyer), but the idea really rings true.

[scarletwoman]

3. k&r (nt)

[speedoo]

4. K&R. Thanks for posting this.

Hillary has conducted a despicable campaign, there is just no question about it. What she has done completely offsets anything positive she has done in the domestic arena. And her foreign policy has been a disaster, so she is now completely worthless.

[vixengrl]

5. "giving effect to the real or imagined racism of others is simply, and equally, racist"

This sums it up, for me. The best candidate, or the ideal situation, or what is fair, is simply not changed by what other people think. It's not enough to say, "Well, there's nothing wrong with being African-American," if you also give in to, "Well, some people are racists, and that's how it is." It may be true that some people are racist, but it's like saying, "And they can just be racist. We'll concede that."

Well, I'm not happy conceding that. (I know very little depends on my happiness, but me, but still...) To me, it makes a difference when I say, "I have chosen because I think this is the better person for the job." It's neutral. I did not choose based on race. I make my choices on foreign policy, the economy, and character, among other things. If others are unable or unwilling to make their determination in a race-neutral way--this is not just offensive to the excluded group, but to people like me, and it's harmful to the system because people are not laying out the qualitative merits of who is better. It just doesn't seem rational. Our president simply will not perform well based on his ancestry. He or she will do well based on who they are and what they believe in.

Acknowledging that one has "nothing against Obama" but "He can't win", seems to be saying, "I will play along with others' prejudices." I have a hard time making the moral distinction in the overall effect--it's still discriminating. Whether it's your own racism or somebody else's, your choice is still based on it.

I have another thing to wonder about, where pointing out Obama's "difficulty capturing the white vote versus Clinton" is concerned. It could be argued some people may vote for Clinton over Obama based on race "all things being equal". That they have seen and heard both, viewed their policies, decided, race was the deal-breaker. But if that's the case being made, then that isn't really a great qualitative case for the non-racist voter. Is it impossible to discern, from the white vote, exactly which portion of the people are actually voting Clinton because they feel she is the superior candidate regardless of race? It would speak better of both Clinton and her supporters if the case were made that, having looked at all available evidence, they simply thought she was better. It says more for her qualities, and it would imply that she is not dependent upon the *charity* of the discriminating kind.

All things would not be equal between Obama and McCain. Knowing what Obama stands for, and what his policies are, and having gotten a feel for his approach to dealing with issues and realizing his awareness of situations and temperment are--qualitatively, many, many points are in Obama's favor. Is it not possible there are some "all things being equal" discriminators who would balk at being "white over right" discriminators? Or who are in the pool of "Obama can't win" *right now*--but will remain true to their values when it counts? I think this is very possible.

As to Obama's success with the African-American vote, I agree with Effie Black's post to the extent that an African-American voting for another is "race-neutral"--discrimination is more likely to be taken out of that decision. I also think that, where racial (not even necessarily racist, per se, but involving race, even if not intentionally prejudicial regarding race) language is used, there may be a sensitivity regarding that language, as an understanding that by pointing it out, it is partially conceding to that discrimination and that it isn't fair. If race does not matter to you--it does not matter. Period.

One feels a bit like a tennis judge. Is this on the line--or outside? An innocent statement? A thing that needs to be said at all?

[vixengrl]

6. Kicking post--interesting content. n/t

:) Yep, no text

[calmblueocean]

7. Great article.

I think it's a shame that Hillary has pandered to the racial divisions and fears of our party and the general electorate.

But whenever you bring it up, you get a class of Hillary defenders who claim that they are victims of political correctness run amok; that they can't even support their own (white) candidate without being demonized as racists.

[OHdem10]

8. Are you assuming that all white people who do not want to vote

for Obama are racists. People can have many reasons for not wanting
to vote for Obama and none of the reason have a racial basis.

Making assumptions like this can bejust as racist in the other direction.

Sure there are racists in this country. Most of them would not show
up for a Democratic Town Hall.

[enough]

10. Ohdem, I don't think the writer is saying that people who don't vote for Obama are racist,

but rather that the Democratic party should not be using racism as a way to include or exclude certain candidates from being chosen. We shouldn't be saying that because there are people who chose according to racism, we should never have a black candidate.

I agree with you that there are plenty of reasons why someone would chose to vote for someone other than Obama that are not because of racism. I've heard many of those reasons from my own family and life-long friends. I don't assume they are racist. But I do reject the idea that we "can't" have Obama as a candidate because there are people out there who won't vote for a black person.

[vixengrl]

11. I don't think that's it--the test would be the General.

The vote in the primary could be a statement that you have voted for a candidate who is better than Obama. You like your candidate better, and that is fine. Neutral.

In the general, however, it is hard to discern how Obama is not better than McCain. The idea is that just by itself, whether you think he can win if racists won't wote for him, is the point. You can still decide that he's a little green, a little light on substance, think his Rezko issue is shady (Whitewater--boondoggle--no more, thanks! This is a nice way it can be framed)--but in the general, he is still better than McCain--experience is experience at being wrong, in McCain's case, and substance is as substance does--it will not be up to Obama alone. He will pick a running mate and a cabinet, and I see no reason why we will not have a congressional majority. Things will need doing, and they better be done. I'll allow that more racial discriminators probably are more GOP-oriented, anyway.

[KSinTX]

9. Appealing to the white vote is fine

There were two candidates from which to choose. One was white - many white voters selected the one who "looks like me" since the positions weren't that far apart. The same held for black voters. At the end of the day, they all voted for a Democrat. I can't see that this constitutes racism. I know we'll find out the reality in the fall but right now it's one or the other.

[AspenRose]

15. That's not entirely true

Clinton had the majority of black voters before South Carolina.

[enough]

12. Morning kick (nt)

[Coexist]

13. kick!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

14. Kick! This is THE most clarifying thread on a thorny issue I've ever found on DU.

[Spazito]

16. Very interesting read...

thanks for posting this.

Recommended.