Politicians in the United States often invoke race as a ploy to gain votes. It can be viewed as a way to sway the votes of certain ethnic groups. That’s why during almost every U.S. election, race stops being a contentious societal taboo, [and becomes] a legit theme encapsulated in campaign rhetoric that you hear constantly.
Sometimes it feels as if, all of a sudden, the whole country has become a color-blind society, making the subject of race irrelevant to the major issues of our times.
But really, what many people and particularly politicians ignore is that all voters – blacks or whites – have issues that they are steadfastly concerned about. These issues remain unswerving in every voter’s mind to the extent that not even the best historical fact can persuade otherwise. Clearly, American voters always look for some type of renewal of their previous covenant with politicians who don’t belong to their race. In other words, it may not be enough for a politician to tell voters what they did for them some years ago, but what have they done recently, which has an impact on them today.
Another way to think of race during elections in this country is by looking at the metaphorical terms politicians use in their campaign speeches. Their public statements are punctuated with terms such as ‘supporting diversity,’ ‘being an inclusive government,’ or ‘promoting fairness.’ The reason for that is the demographic shift among their constituency in the United States. Rhetoric is designed to captivate the attention of all voters without infuriating any – because nowadays, to win in a local or national election, no politicians can rely solely on the votes of a core group. Blacks have long been an electoral lever in the United States, enabling Democratic candidates to win some elections. In a decade or two, and contingent upon the new immigration law, Latinos may be not just a regional but a national electoral lever. For now, black voters are the tools that candidates from both parties must lure at any cost.
Earlier this month, the race card was used twice in a manner that supports my claim it (race) matters when it must. The first card was played in Connecticut, where two Democratic candidates tackled each other’s stance on issues of diversity. The second race card was played in Maryland.
It is widely known that most African Americans are affiliated with the Democratic Party. This is not to say that Democratic candidates tend to be more receptive and responsive to the need of blacks, nor is it to say that Democratic candidates are all pro-blacks. Being pro-blacks, in my view, is to be supportive of programs that are favorable to the civil, political, and socio-economic advancement of blacks. Nevertheless, black voters are more likely to rely on a Democratic candidate to have a more inclusive version of society than a Republican candidate, who promotes individualism.
What happened in Connecticut? The incumbent Senator Joseph Lieberman was struggling to get his party nomination for the Senate. He watched his popularity slip away because of a novice politician and businessman named Ted Lamont. The senator [Lieberman] quickly derided his opponent’s stand on diversity, citing Lamont’s membership of a Connecticut country club that is not frequented by blacks. Then, the incumbent senator went on the air to remind black voters of his involvement in the civil rights movement in the 1960s. But in the end, Lieberman was defeated.
Weeks before residents of Maryland go to the polls to elect one of two senators to send to Washington, a heated dispute took place between two black candidates, Maryland’s Lt. Governor Michael Steele and NAACP-president Kweisi MFume. Incredibly, the focus of the issue is not on their respective parties but on race relations.
Since the time he was a member of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus to his long tenure as president of the NAACP, MFume has been unwavering about his beliefs that blacks are disproportionately served in this country. He is well loved for that. Meanwhile, Lt. Governor Steele, who is a strong supporter of President Bush on an array of issues, including stem cell research and affirmative action, is not popular among his people. But Steele has also shown some independence by being a leading voice against the Darfur Genocide, which most politicians today are not addressing. His sense of independence was later observed when he declared in an interview to a local paper that his affiliation with the Republican Party feels like a Scarlet letter he is carrying.
But the issue that stands out most with him [Steele] in the black community is on a pivotal declaration that he made about Mfume, which can be ammunition in the hands of MFume’s opponents in the Maryland senatorial Democratic primaries. Mr. Steele told the U.S. News &World Report that “in November, Maryland voters would have to ask who’s going to better serve them, someone who represents all the people (that’s Steele), or just one particular race (that’s MFume)?” Some critics call his comments “race-baiting,” as a way to divide voters in Maryland. For me, it’s American politics at its best, where race always matters.
MFume may never forgive his black Republican opponent for accusing him of being a black candidate whose vision is limited only to the black cause.
