One of the stranger aspects of Bob Somerby's blogging on race is the degree to which he adopts the "black friends" alibi with regard to racism. So take for example his response to Steve Benen's post on the GOP's love for Herman Cain:
For what it's worth, that crowd estimate may have been quite high, though Benen didn't know that. But please note what Benen said here: According to Benen, Herman Cain “is a favorite of the Tea Party crowd!” This is strange, because Cain is black (a point Steve didn't mention)—and because we liberals are constantly told that this same crowd hates Obama because he is black!
Could it be that they hate him because he's a Democrat? Or would that kill all the fun?
To the extent that racism remains a problem in America, it isn't because, as in the 1960s, there was a segment of the American polity that openly embraced the doctrine of white supremacy. Quite the opposite, really; Americans are fully capable of both indulging in blanket generalizations in matters of race while forming relationships with members of the group they hold broad negative beliefs about. There's nothing particularly new about this sort of cognitive dissonance -- Thomas Jefferson may have loved Sally Hemmings but it didn't stop him from owning slaves.
What this means, though, is that it's really not useful to talk about people being "racist," in the sense of people being committed to white supremacy, but rather the the lingering cognitive dissonance that allows people to reject racism as an idea while still succumbing to prejudice, particularly in anger. No, the Tea Party is not, and never has been the KKK. But that's really irrelevant to the question of how racism factors into opposition to Obama (since, as Somerby points out, any Dem president would be getting the business); more important is how that opposition manifests.
The extent to which Cain and other black conservatives hold appeal to the GOP remains sadly linked to the degree to which they can exonerate Republicans from charges of racism, particularly when it comes to racially charged attacks on Democrats. Take for example, Cain's declaration that he's disliked because Democrats "are doubly scared that a real black man might run against Barack Obama." The implication here is that Obama is "not a real black man," because, well, I have no idea, Cain's dumb critique wasn't as well fleshed out as that of Cornel West. But conservatives really like the idea of challenging Obama on matters of racial authenticity. As Matt Lewis wrote, "Cain — unlike President Obama (a point sure to come up if Cain gains traction) — knows what it’s like to drink from a 'colored' water fountain." Of course, this really just means Cain is older than Obama, but you get the point, you don't have to be a celebrity professor at Princeton to question whether Obama is "really black." Does Somerby believe this isn't racist?
Or what about Cain's remarks that "it may shock you, but some black people can think for themselves," in reference to his political beliefs? Does Somerby think it's not racist to suggest that black people are mindless fools because they aren't voting Republican? What to think about the audiences that applaud this sort of thing?
My favorite example of Cain's rhetoric however, is this one:
“When Herman Cain is president,” he said, wrapping up his announcement speech, “we will finally be able to say, ‘Free at last, free at last, thank god almighty, America is free at last."
When Obama was running for president, conservatives eagerly dismissed white liberal support for him as the product of white guilt. Yet Obama dismissed "wide-eyed liberals seeking racial reconciliation on the cheap," during his campaign. Cain, by contrast, is actively marketing himself to conservatives as an avenue for racial absolution -- and Somerby, by arguing that Tea Party support for Cain indicates that Tea Partiers are incapable of possessing racial animus, seems to think this is appropriate. But it's no less silly than it would be for anyone on the left to think that casting a vote for Obama immunizes them from racial prejudice.
I suspect Somerby's real issue is that he thinks liberals talk about racism too much, that such talk prevents them from forming coalitions with people who would otherwise be open to liberal policies, and that therefore the talk is self-defeating. But you can make that argument without pretending that having black friends means that you can't possibly say or do things out of racial prejudice. Falling to such impulses is unavoidable, the real moral question is how we deal with doing so -- by denying it or confronting it -- not only in others but ourselves. But we can be sure that, regardless of political affiliation, those who seek absolution first aren't interested in doing so.
