Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
Obama, race, religion and Albrechtsen
|
Most Americans might no longer have an hang-up about race, but Janet Albrechtsen sure does. The Australian’s other commentators took the Obama victory in their stride. Paul Kelly wrote “this is more than a vote for change. It is a act of renewal, a turning point in American history and a quest for a better nation.” In a video piece with a moment of quite peculiar editing), he spoke about the immense disappointment of the Bush Presidency in strategic, moral, economic and financial senses. Greg Sheridan was so excited he wrote two pieces, one that began “it is the final tribute to President Bush” and continued in a similar bizarre vein; the other, a far more measured effort that reminded us that once upon a time, many years ago, Sheridan could offer half-decent analysis. Sheridan dealt with the race issue in a most thoughtful way. While needing to poke at the Left for its reflexive anti-Americanism, he noted “of all the exit polls CNN conducted, perhaps the most revealing was the one that found only 20 per cent of Americans believed race was an important factor in how they voted.” For Albrechtsen, however, that 20% is far more important than the other 80%:
I thought for a while that Albrechtsen – never the brightest of News Ltd commentators, sort of like an Emma Tom without the substance — was trying to jujitsu some of the more absurd ravings of the Left about Obama, which would’ve been fair enough. For months, nonsensical drivel has flowed in a torrent from the likes of The Guardian, which warned Americans not to dare vote Republican on pain of being convicted (again) of racism by the rest of the planet. All that was needed was for Robert Fisk to warn that the “Arab street will explode” and the Looney Left picture would have been complete. But no, Albrechsten appears to be suggesting Obama only won because he is African-American, or at least giving voice to some resentment that, somehow, Obama got away with something by virtue of his skin colour. The point that some Americans voted for Obama because of his race is true but facile. People – perhaps a substantial minority of people - vote based on irrelevant, or downright stupid, factors all the time, some of them even more ridiculous than race. How many Australians voted one way or the other last year because “I just don’t like that Howard/Rudd”? But Albrechtsen has a long-term obsession with race issues. Who can forget her sterling efforts in 2002 in relation to “racially-motivated” rapes in Sydney, when she was pinged for misreporting the views of European experts on Islamic youth (her ready confusion of race and religion is another matter). Or her persistent attacks on multiculturalism, or her ever-delicate handling of indigenous issues. Along with “judicial activism” and railing at teachers, race forms a staple of Albrechtsen’s commentary. This is not to suggest she has never made a worthwhile observation on any of those matters, but the preponderance of race as a topic suggests someone with a bit of a hang-up about such matters. Today’s effort let’s that all hang out. Albrechtsen won’t let us forget about Obama’s race, even if the vast majority of Americans thought race was neither here nor there in deciding who will lead them for the next four years. |
|
|
12 Comments
Leave poor emma out of this. Yes, she writes for the Oz, but that doesn’t make her a cultural warrior. Yes, she uses a spontaneous and almost flippant style, but that certainly doesn’t make her an un-bright spark.
But otherwise I can’t help wondering whether Janet really has lost the plot. Her shrill propaganda for the war in Iraq was laughable. Still, it isn’t her kids dying on the battlefields of Iraq.
Well Bernard if you can’t see why someone voting for someone who represents their passage through history is different to someone voting against a candidate simply because they are black - even if they are of the same party - then you’re missing a very important difference.
As to the Monbiot-cultural studies accuations, I’ll leave readers to decide whether that matches the stuff ive written in any important respect. Sounds like the mid-90s mindset we appear to be leaving behind.
As far as I can see, most of your commentary consists of adding ‘…not’, to any positive statement . I suspect a less cynical disposition might generate more illuminating remarks
Don’t worry Guy, Keane just doesn’t get it. Where the rest of the world is inspired by Obama’s election, Keane is still nursing his complete misreading of the campaign and carrying on like Democrats for McCain dead-enders. He still thinks that Obama didn’t beat Hillary fair and square as the superior candidate on merits, in addition to his completely out-campaigning her via Plouffe’s caucus number-crunching and Axelrod’s grand strategy, which took her campaign unaware.
Also see comments here: http://www.crikey.com.au/US-Election/20081103-US08-on-campaigning-and-luck.html
Still waiting for your pants-down around the office Bernand!
As for Albrechsten, I agree with Keane that if Obama was supported purely on the basis of race it would be poor reasoning, but the blog post doesn’t provide any real evidence of that, and nor does it have explanatory value with Obama winning most white and other demographics with overwhelming margins. Her failure is both a conceptual confusion in equating such affirmative race-consciousness with racism, and a refusal to reconcile the charge w/ black support already being uniform for the Democratic ticket.
I’m surprised nobody has made the latter observation already, as it’s the quickest way to giving the lie. Black voters overwhelming support the Democratic ticket regardless, see Gore, Kerry, Clinton et al. It is no bloody mystery. The history of that support is that of the racist Dixiecrats being absorbed into the Republican Party and the GOP’s embrace of the Southern Strategy, in contrast to LBJ’s support of civil rights and enfranchisement legislation. That’s a cliff notes version, but it’s a general trend that has driven ALL minorities from the GOP, including conservative Hispansic, because the party cannot resist its crude nativist instincts.
The fact that black voters didn’t get behind Obama until white voters in Iowa had shown he could actually inspire them and win tells you all you need to know that it is about merit.
Albrechtsen is really skewed. And as far as Obama - he translated as an energised visionary in the prime of his life. McCain offered nothing more than the same ole aged rhetoric supported by a sillier-than-Bush side-kick stuck on platitudes. Heaven help America if the heart beat had expired before his term. And had Australians been offered an Obama-type indigenous candidate endorsing the Labor promises of ending IR workchoices-style he’d have beaten even Rudd to first base. Black, white or brindle there’s a global shortage of inspired and inspiring leaders. Despite the views of Rundle and Albrechtsen.
Well Bernard, my distant colleague I agree with some of what you say, but this tiresome stuff about Robert Fisk and the ‘loony left’ is not critical thinking - it’s the empty cynical centrism of the man who once labelled himself a ‘failed public servant’ and for whom canberraicity has leached into the soul.
Clearing aside the irrelevant stuff first - whatever mad stuff the Guardian does on one page, it does the opposite on another, and it’s all designed to sell newspapers/web ads. Secondly, this stuff about Fisk is asinine. Go back over his writings and you’ll find that few people have been more spot on about the Middle East over the last thirty five years.
But the main thing I disagree with is how you characterise Albrechtsen’s argument about voting by race - for the simple fact is that this is not necessarliy a ‘stupid’ act. It depends on the racial relations. It would not be a ‘stupid’ act for an aboriginal person to vote for another aboriginal person on an inner city sydney seat, even if they disagreed with their politics, or a Roma person in eastern europe, or, i dunno, a black person in america.
Race isn’t a ‘ridiculous’ factor if your race has meant that you still feel excluded from the mainstream of social life, which most black americans - reasonably enough - reasonably feel. It’s ridicullous if you think a centrist chicago law professor/senator is a secret arab terrorist. The situations are not symmetrical.
Bernard, your best stuff is critical and cutting. In your worst stuff I hear the endless afternoons of the failed public servant, the ceiling fan turning slowly as you wait for 4.36pm. Cynicism is not criticism, colleague. It’s the opposite.
At first I laughed at Albrechsten’s thesis but then I began to feel dismay at her lack of understanding of racist attitudes. The lives of millions of black americans have been severely affected by an institutionalsed racism that has affected their education, their social status, their capacity to engage in the white dream of social and economic improvement and, in numerous cases, their physical wellbeing. And yes Bernard that does give them some right to vote based on that historical context.
For Albrechtsen to assume that a decision to vote for someone because they are black in some way equates to reverse racism is both intellectually vapid and morally repugnant.
Staff meetings at Crikey must get interesting…
I thought for a while that Albrechtsen – never the brightest of News Ltd commentators, sort of like an Emma Tom without the substance.
Oh Bernard, brilliant.
Obama is an outstanding man, there is no doubt about that, particularly listening to his speech after the election results were announced. No doubt the fact that he was black would have been an added bonus to many African American voters.(didn’t Jesse Jackson, a black, have an unsuccessful tilt at the presidency?)
But it appears that race is becoming less of an issue with mainstream Americans. There was no race based outcry when Condalezza Rice became Secretary; nor when Colin Powell became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both incidentally Republicans.
Ah I get it Guy, your “passage through history” is my bigotry. ‘Nuff said.
I prefer “sceptical” to “cynical”, but either is preferable to your reflexive spouting of undergrad leftist dogma. A bit like a mirror-image Janet, really, although of course we all prefer the HST ‘omage and the eloquent verbosity and you’d make a way better ABC board member.
Hello Guy I hope I didn’t keep you up with that. Sorry, no, voting by race IS ridiculous, just as voting by facial hair, gender difference or woggy-sounding names is ridiculous. All you’ve explained is why some voters might do it, not how it isn’t ridiculous. White working class voters automatically supporting right-wing Republicans are equally ridiculous, and cognitive dissonance a beloved US politics meme. What’s so different about that? Or can only the Oppressed vote by race?
And no, I don’t think Obama’s a secret arab terrorist, but nice try.
Oh and thanks for the lifestyle tip. Alas, I’ll stick with empty cynical centrism. I can’t quite suspend my credulity long enough to embrace the vibrant vision of socialism, to which, you reckoned, America was bound just a few short weeks ago. But you have definitely replaced George Monbiot as my exemplar for Homo Rightonus, that wonderful species whose natural habitat is the common rooms of Cultural Studies departments, and whose defining characteristic is the sort of Spot-the-Genocide-and-smash-the-state rhetoric that never benefited anyone except Sociology lecturers in their quest to bed First Year students.
Patronising such a commanding journalist - Robert Fisk I mean- puts you on very shaky ground. Time you got out more. As for Janet - I wouldn’t bother there. She still gets a little moist at the very thought of Father Howard, who she once claimed to have made being right wing groovy. Just before she slipped in the knife.