I'm White. I'm White. W-H-I-T... E.

Boy, this is going to be a fun year. Now that it's looking more likely that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president, the right has moved away from its entrenched sexism in order to talk more about its entrenched racism. Oh, sometimes they make it a combo platter, like Lisa Schiffren did, when she blew the lid off of the secret Judeo-Communist breeding program that created Barack Obama. But mostly, they just mutter darkly about how that big black buck Obama is coming to take their white women away and force them to integrate the schools and allow actual Negroes into their country clubs.

Today's example of pure, unadulterated racism comes from John Derbyshire. You may remember John Derbyshire as the guy who argued that women were pretty much used up and useless after age 20 and later wrote what Michael Bérubé Amanda Marcotte called "possibly the most defensive book review ever written" about Lolita. Yes, you read that right: Derbyshire wrote a very defensive book review about Lolita.

If you don't remember Derbyshire from his maunderings about illicit lust for prepubescent girls, you may remember him from the time he excoriated the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting for not killing their killer, which was not only an incredibly douchey thing to say, but also ignored the fact that several of the victims had indeed fought back.

So yes, John Derbyshire is a massive wankstain, but he writes for The Corner, so I repeat myself.

Today, Derbyshire considers Barack Obama who is, at last report, non-white. This leads Derbyshire to conclude that Obama could be a total disaster for the Democrats because, hey, what if whites and blacks completely turned on each other during his presidency?

Now, you may find that scenario implausible. But you are not, in fact, a faux macho pederast who writes for the National Review, now, are you?
[T]here is one scenario — a possible one, though not of course a certain one — you do not mention that would, if it came to pass, make an Obama presidency live in infamy. That is the possibility that such a presidency would make our racial division (the one that really matters, black v. nonblack) much worse.


Imagine an Obama presidency overwhelmed and floundering, like Carter's. There are enough issues, domestic and foreign, coming down the pike to make this very possible — you know them, I don't need to enumerate.

Oh, I think we can all imagine. After all, Bush has broken the country pretty badly, and whomever is in the White House in 2009 is going to have a lot of repair work to do.
Black Americans will of course go on voting for the party of a black president regardless. Nonblacks will flee from the Democrats in droves, though. A Republican landslide in the 2010 midterms (think 1994); a clear GOP victory in 2012 (think 1980). By that point the Democratic Party might be nothing other than the party of black Americans.

This is evidently because white people are sooooo smart that they'd understand that it was all Obama's fault, while African-Americans are just childlike and vote for anyone who looks like them. This is why you can see so many African-American presidents in our nation's history -- because surely, white folk would never vote based on race!

But if you think that's genius, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
To the degree that black and nonblack Americans get on with each other at all, it is largely thanks to the coalition of black citizens and nonblack liberals and interest groups represented in the national political life by the Democratic Party. A permanent sundering of that coalition would be greatly to America's peril. Black Americans would be shut out of our political life.

This brings up many questions:

⁂ Democrats are the reason that African-Americans and everyone else manage to get along? Really? Not because we're, you know, all human beings with similar goals and aspirations, but simply because the Democrats force African-Americans to get along with the other groups in the party?

⁂ Did Derb just admit that Republicans would, in fact, favor segregation if they could get away with it? I mean, they would, but did he just admit it?

⁂ Why, by the way, does Derbyshire assume that every single white voter would permanently desert the Democratic party, especially by 2010?

I'd like to say Derbyshire doesn't continue. He does.
The cruel fact is, that black Americans need the Democratic Party much more than it needs them.

That's not what Tweety says, every time he and his pundit cohort chirp about how Democrats would lose if not for the African-American vote. The pundits usually do so while explaining that the Democrats aren't really the party of America, so much.

But of course, there is truth in this: the Democratic party would be a minority party if not for the African-American voters who support it. This is not a bad thing -- because last I checked, the 3/5 compromise was no longer operative. African-American votes actually count the same as white votes! Shocking, I know, but it's true. And because of that, the fact that African-American voters overwhelmingly favor the not-(very)-racist party over the racist party is unsurprising, and good for the mostly non-racists.
If a black president, with solid and unwavering black support, looks like he is dragging the Democrats down, then one solution for the Dems — only one, of course — would be to unhitch itself from black America.

Indeed. We can all remember in 1979, when the Democrats unhitched themselves from white America, after the Jimmy Carter experience.*

What, you can't remember that? You mean, the Democrats had a leader who wasn't very good, and yet we did not immediately sever all ties, not just with the candidate, but with his entire racial group? Why, that's crazy! I mean, I can't understand why John Derbyshire thinks this is "only one" option! Surely, if Barack Obama turns out to be a disaster, the Democrats would never just try to ride out the bad times and run someone else down the road.

(We'd have to distance ourselves, though. I mean, if a president turned out to be a lying, incompetent fool, there's no way any major political party would rally into lockstep behind him. That would be crazy.)
I should be thrilled to see a black American become president, but only if he was a conservative Republican.

Mr. Derbyshire, I give you your new candidate.
A black president with ideas all formed by the 1980s-college-radical instruction manual, will surely be a disaster for the U.S.A., and likely for his own party, too — even more so than a white president with the same menu of ideas.

Because when a white guy screws things up, he's just a white guy. When a non-white (or non-guy) screws things up, it screws things up for everyone. This is why it's probably best if we just elect a white guy president again. I mean, who can argue with the track record of the latest white guy to hold the office. Am I right?

*And let me just say, "The Jimmy Carter Experience" would be a great band name.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus