Presidential Politics: Playing the Race Card

As the end of the presidential contest draws near, there has been an increasing amount of rhetoric about race as a factor in the election. Numerous pundits and political figures have postulated that a loss by Barack Obama to John McCain could be attributed to nothing other than racial prejudice.

During the Democratic primary campaign, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell said there were plenty Americans who just weren't ready to vote for an African American. CNN's Jack Cafferty opined last month, "Will race be the factor that keeps Obama from the White House? Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about. The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense...unless it's race."

Time Magazine's Michael Grunwald weighed in as well, calling race in the presidential election the "elephant in the room." More recently, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius said, "I think that the notion that, 'By the way, have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African American?' I think that is for a number of people difficult. I think we need to talk about the fact that that is a real issue." And just a few days ago Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks of New York accused McCain and running mate Sarah Palin of using racial code words at campaign rallies.

Okay, just a short digression. What code words? Is anyone other than me clueless about what Congressman Meeks is referring to? As a white male that grew up in one of the whitest neighborhoods of the deep South, how is it that I missed out on the racial code words? Surely, given where I was raised, the schools I attended, and the demographics of the places I frequented, I would have some idea about what he was referring to. Yet, somehow, I don't. Somehow I missed my indoctrination into the club that uses racial code words.

Now, to get back on track. One more argument about race as a factor has been made. More than a few analysts have speculated about the potential impact of the "Bradley effect." The Bradley effect, very simply, is the phenomenon that occurs when white voters tell pollsters that they are going to vote for an African American candidate, but then change their vote once secluded in the privacy of the voting booth. The Bradley effect gets its name from Tom Bradley, former mayor of Los Angeles, who lost an election despite being ahead in the polls by double digits just days before the votes were cast.

But I don't buy it. Of course there is still racism in this country. There probably always will be. Ignorance is hard to overcome. But if Barack Obama loses his race for the presidency, it will more likely be because tens of millions of voters are wary of his inexperience, are afraid of his tax proposals, disagree with his Iraq stance, and like to see a balance of power in Washington. Barack Obama himself has said that race is not a factor, and a new Gallup poll reinforces the notion that race is not a significant issue for voters.

In poll results released October 9, Gallup reported that 85 percent of respondents said Barack Obama's race makes no difference to them. Only 6 percent of respondents said they were less likely to vote for Obama because of his race, while 9 percent said they would be more likely to vote for him because of his race. These poll results imply that any racial impact on the presidential election is slightly more positive than negative.

My theory is a simple one: some supporters of Barack Obama are consciously executing a strategy of hyping race as an issue so that there is an excuse, other than a public rejection of Obama's policy proposals, if Obama loses. Those accusing McCain - Palin and their supporters of using race in the campaign are the very ones playing the race card.