Was it ever about race anyway?

In the days following the election, several interesting trends have begun to manifest themselves, according to my (admitedly non-scientific) observations. First, staunch Obama supporters seem reluctant to admit to themselves that its over, they won, and the man who billed himself as a grass-roots, hip and alternative "movement" must now assume the mantle of mere earthly politician. I've noticed a surprising number of people around New York City still wearing Obama buttons; not simply on bags or attached to some accessory where its presence could be forgotten, but displayed prominently pinned to the front of their clothing. At the Knicks game on Sunday, several people brought signs referencing the president-elect, and someone held up a full-sized newspaper declaring Obama's victory. That this election was an education in the cult of personality is no new observation, but this is a bit much.

Second, Obama's administration is already being hailed as a success, the primary criteria being that it will happen at all, and one group is actually lobbying for a national holiday to recognize his election (!).

Most fascinating of all, and perhaps somewhat responsible for the previous two, is the renewed discussion of the future role of race in politics now that America has elected a black president. In today's Wall Street journal, Juan Williams writes a lengthy editorial, detailing the sad history of racial politics in America, ending with the hopeful prognosis that peddlers of racial tension will be marginalized by the landmark election:

"The market has irrevocably shrunk for Sharpton-style tirades against "the man" and "the system." The emphasis on racial threats and extortion-like demands -- all aimed at maximizing white guilt as leverage for getting government and corporate money -- has lost its moment. How does anyone waste time on racial fantasies like reparations for slavery when there is a black man who earned his way into the White House?"

Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan declared the election a success, but warned that the (apparently ingrained) racism in America would continue, and perhaps even worsen as a result of Obama's victory(!) What this discussion (if you can call Farrakhan's comments part of a dialog) ignores, or takes as a foregone conclusion, is the role of race in this election. Ironically, I believe that the latter concludes the former, in so far as this election was never, primarily, about race at all. What's more, to the extent it was a factor, it probably helped.

In retrospect, 2008 was a year that was all but tailor made for Democrats to begin with, given the President's approval ratings, the shaky economy, and a sticky public opinion of the Iraq war (despite recent gains). From that perspective, the more important race was really the Democratic primary. While Clinton and Obama struggled to diffrentiate themselves, they were both selling a similar product - bigger, more involved government, an exit from Iraq, and an end to Bush fatigue. Much has been said about the achievement of electing a black man to the Presidency, but I think the fact that Obama was able to defeat Hillary is the more telling indicator of the state of race relations in America, primarily because so little seperated the candidates other than their arbitrary racial differences. By prevailing in a contest where most all else was equal, Obama suceeded on the basis of his skills as a politician (principaly an orator, given the dearth of specifics that has marked his campaign), and proved that race was no longer a factor in seeking the presidency. Choosing amongst apparent equals, voters had no problem selecting a minority. Being able to choose whether or not to elect Barack Obama based on his policies and differences from John McCain, not the outcome of that choice, was the truly historical moment.

Evaluating the results of the general election on the basis of race seems largely irrelevant, given the incredible downturn in the economy, the vastly improved (and underreported) situation in Iraq, and the myriad philosophical and practical differences seperating McCain and Obama. There are simply too many other differences between the candidates, and confounding political variables, to claim that Americans cared much at all about race. True, I imagine there may have been some fleeting number of potential Hillary supporters who couldn't stomach pulling the lever for a black candidate. They would likely have been outnumbered by those who were motivated by the desire to achieve a historic election, merely for the superficial satisfaction of it having been done. Voting for Obama in a way even became the perfect form of progressive bona fides for some ("I'm race blind, except when overtly making note of race proves how race blind I am"). These effects were probably marginal, at best, however. Most of Obama's supporters were probably going to vote for him anyway, and likely would have voted for Hilary instead given the option. And that's just the point - Obama won, in the end, because he ran a better campaign, in a more sympathetic environment, against an opponent who never had it all together. Its that simple. His sucess in the general election tells us much about the dissatisfied American electorate, and the marketability of outdated, populist nonsense in shiny packages, but little about race at all. And more importantly, his defeat (despite the dire prognostications) would have told us equally little.

Either way, as Williams' editorial notes, it appears we have at last transcended the era of race as a limiting factor in politics. Maybe now we can stop hearing about it.