Race, Religion, and the Election (by Romal Tune)
The New Year began with bang. When it comes to presidential politics, we certainly saw some new beginnings. Sen. Barack Obama made history by becoming the first African American to win in Iowa, making him the clear front-runner (well, at least for a week or so). But after Sen. Clinton won New Hampshire, not only did it become clear that this would be one of the most interesting and most-watched presidential races in history, something else rose to the surface. We were reminded that while this may be a year of new beginnings, some things have not changed.
After Sen. Clinton won New Hampshire, pundits and reporters began to raise questions about race and if, in the privacy of the voting booth, white people would not vote for a black man. Now it is clear from the results in Iowa and the support that Sen. Obama has been receiving from people of all races since the beginning of his campaign, that he is perceived by many as a candidate who transcends race. It's clear that for many people, a candidate's race is not their major concern. However, given the media's fascination with race—based on the outcome in New Hampshire and their inability to find a rational answer for the turn of events—some assumed it must be Obama's race. The reality is that we do not live in a colorblind society, because if we did there would have been no need to point out that Sen. Obama made history as the first black man to win in Iowa.
This got me thinking about the role that race plays in religion, the most intimate and personal aspect of our lives. Just yesterday I was asked by a reporter what I thought about how the religious community would respond on Feb. 5. Well, we have all heard it said over and over that church on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America. Churches, like our public schools and neighborhoods are still, in general, very segregated.
Even religious leaders and those aspiring to lead congregations have to deal with the issue of race in their churches. I remember when I was a student at Duke Divinity School, a student said to me that her church welcomes everyone regardless of race and that they wanted more black people to worship with them. My response was that it's one thing to let us worship with you, but another thing to allow us to share power in the pulpit. And I asked her, how would people in your church feel about having a black pastor or blacks on the trustee or deacon board? If we want equality then we have to be willing to share power and leadership. She responded with a question that I'll never forget. "If we let you do all of that then what makes us white?" My answer was simple: your racial identity should not be tied to your ability to control power and access. Would it be fair to think that race wouldn't impact how a person would vote if they believe that their racial identity is linked to their ability to control access and power?
My point is this: People of faith are just like everyone else in our society. If we are not careful, we can allow our biases to impact how we live out our faith even when it comes to our politics. But if we believe that God is in the business of restoring relationships and healing us when we are broken, then we have a responsibility to set that example for society. That's what makes us different - the fact that we are wounded healers guided by our faith in God to be agents of change and healing in a world where hurt people continue to hurt people. Our vote should not be based on gender or race but on our values - looking at candidates through the lens of whether or not he or she has the ability to improve the quality of life for all people so that all of us can live up to our God-given potential.
Is it possible that people of faith, consciously or subconsciously, similar to voters, show up in the pew and allow themselves to be led by the pastor because he or she looks like them and perhaps therefore can identify with their concerns more? Would people who are used to receiving their spiritual guidance from someone who looks like them be as easily led by someone of a different race? If we think they would not, then why would we think that kind of bias wouldn't have an impact on their vote? The same thing can be said for our view of women as faith leaders—and for that matter, leaders of the free world. In many denominations, regardless of race, women are still not allowed to become pastors or even answer a call to ministry. This makes one wonder if people who still hold these beliefs would ever be able to vote for a woman to become our commander in chief. We cannot choose to believe that God does not show favoritism (Acts 10:34) only when it's convenient or fits into our personal agenda. It applies at all times, and that includes the voting booth.
This is why I have to wonder: What are pastors preaching on Sunday morning? I can't recall ever hearing a sermon on healing as it relates to racial reconciliation and the wrongs perpetuated against women, African Americans, or any other race, for that matter. It seems like people are able to walk into church and worship God and then walk about still carrying the burden of gender and racial discrimination. I am also guilty of this sin.
When I spoke to that reporter I mentioned earlier, he asked what I thought was the difference between white voters in Iowa and voters in New Hampshire. Sen. Obama's campaign did some extraordinary organizing in Iowa and also in New Hampshire. But a part of me wonders if - unlike Iowa where during a caucus people have to publicly show their support for a candidate - some people in New Hampshire publicly supported Sen. Obama but in the privacy of the voting booth changed their minds. I'm told by a friend who is a political professional that this notion was "debunked and that people did not lie about voting for Sen. Obama." This is what folks in politics and the media call the Bradley or Wilder affect, and many believe that it did not happen in New Hampshire. However, after speaking with the reporter, I called a friend who is a prominent, well-respected pastor and supporter of Sen. Obama to see if I was being unfair. When I told him about my assertion he said, "that's exactly right, my wife and I had this discussion the other day, white people will support you publicly but not privately." So maybe I wasn't too far off in my answer, or maybe he and I represent a small segment of the African American community and most people feel otherwise. I don't think so. A recent Pew report showed that most African Americans still believe that racism in a factor in their everyday lives, while most white people feel that racism in not a factor in our society. As people of faith we have a responsibility to resist the temptation to allow the pain of our past to impact our future. This presidential cycle will have a tremendous impact on our lives and the lives of our children. All of us, who hold a deep and abiding faith, should pray for the strength to rise above our biases, whatever they are, so that they don't affect us at the voting booth.
Rev. Romal Tune is the CEO of Clergy Strategic Alliances, a graduate of Howard University and Duke University School of Divinity, and a member of the Red Letter Christians.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Polls vs. Votes?
"There is no doubt that the op-scans were manipulated in the New Hampshire primary, as Hillary won by six points where the votes were counted by those gadgets, while Obama won by six points where the ballots were hand-counted–and, contrary to a lot of comfy punditry, there was actually no demographic factor that explains the difference. (I suspect that Republicans manipulated the machines, to ensure that Hillary will be the candidate they run against.) The startling outcome in New Hampshire also helped to wake some people up: Bill Maher spoke very powerfully about it on his show, along with Catherine Crier and Mark Cuban; and when Tony Snow, predictably, attempted to make all of them sound crazy, he only made himself look ludicrous. The audience was clearly on the other side. It marked a real breakthrough, as Maher had never yet dared to touch the subject of election fraud." (From an interview of author Mark C Miller by Scott Horton which appeared in Harper's Magazine Blog)
Posted by: jonabark | January 25, 2008 7:03 PM
Actually, I think it far more likely that some people will support a "non-white" candidate privately but not publicly. In other words, people will be for you when they speak privately to you, but will fail under peer pressure or what they perceive.
Now obviously this depends upon who your peers are.
Democratic primary voters are not Republican primary voters (in most cases.) So what they do isn't predictive of a general election result with a wider array of independents, republicans and yellow-dog-cum-republican voters.
We have to realize that while the vast majority of Republicns aren't racist (befitting the origins of the party of Lincoln) that in any general election, the portion of the population who is racist and votes is mostly going to be voting Republican, more so if the Democratic candidate is not "white."
With the narrow gap between victory and defeat in recent Presidential elections, racism will be a factor, until someone figures out a way to either completely eliminate racism among voters, or a way to disqualify racists from voting. Needless to say, democracy doesn't have anything to say about the population or any portion thereof making immoral decisions or rejecting the tally on that basis.
Thus, the Presidency could well be lost by a party with racism being the deciding factor, all other things being equal. In order to prevail, the "non-white" candidate would have to be so outstandingly compelling, and the opposing party's "white" candiudate so repugnant, that the majority would vote for the more qualified person, if indeed they are so, even if "non-white."
I am so personally tired of the tired old status quo, and that includes racism - whether against black, Indian or Latino - that I, as a "white" person am sorely tempted to vote for a reasonable "non-white" candidate just to break the logjam that America and the world now find themselves in. Anything to get away from this "us vs. them" mentality, for it is my belief that "race" and other divisions are nothing but a faux constructs made up in order to try to soothe conscience in order to dominate through materialism and militarism the strong against the weak.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | January 25, 2008 10:03 PM
The race question is made all the more nuanced and ironic when one considers that Martin Luther King III has encouraged John Edwards candidacy, most recently in a letter sent to Edwards the day before the January 21 National Holiday honoring his father.
King didn't send such a letter to Obama or to Clinton, in large part because they have largely ignored the deep structural issues of poverty in this country.
Justice on racial and gender issues won't come automatically by voting for a black or female candidate unless that same candidate makes an irrevocable commitment to economic justice. From his letter, it would appear that King thinks the only candidate to make such a commitment is Edwards.
What does that say about the other candidates?
What does that say about Sojourners failure to raise this very same question?
Posted by: Kevin | January 26, 2008 10:18 AM
Jonabark -- Republicans manipulated the machines? That is just plain dumb! How about some evidence? It is Democrats who have the long term reputation of voter fraud.
Posted by: decal | January 26, 2008 4:07 PM
Good questions from Kevin. Edwards is the only candidate remaining who stands positively for justice and with some clear and realistic focus on what is circumventing a more just society in America.
I like Obama. He has a far better record than Hill &Bill. I wish he was taking more risk in opposing the militarism and xenophobia that, As N.M. Rod observes grips our society. He may be the most viable candidate and there will be a profound symbolic Joy associated with victory by either Obama or Hillary. I deeply hope and deeply doubt that there will be substance to match the symbolism.
The questions about voting machines are no joke despite the efforts of the MSM to trivialize them, and they have not been fixed yet. I honestly think Obama won and that the Republicans will continue to do anything they can to face Hillary rather than Edwards or Obama. ( Look at Mark C Miller and Congressman John Conyers on voting in Ohio election, Palast on Florida 2000 and national 2004) I do not believe the problems with Diebold or other machines is errors. There is no nationwide spate of errors in handing out cash or keeping records via ATM machines.
I am really troubled by Sojourner's failure to take a hard look at the Clinton's real record. Comparing them to W is pathetic. They should be compared to FDR on economics and social reform, or Johnson on civil rights, or Carter on post presidential leadership. The negative effects and corporate compliance involved in G.A.T. and NAFTA alone are enough to make anyone concerned with justice or environmental stewardship blush. Nixon had more positive and substantive impact on environmental Law than Clinton.
Right now the biggest block to reform in the USA is the corruption of the people's government by the non-accountable profit driven entities called corporations, and closely related, what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex. When does Sojourners, Obama, or anyone in leadership show the courage of the prophets in confronting these forces. Only when a prophet is willing to be driven into he wilderness does he or she have some claim to that role.
Posted by: jonabark | January 26, 2008 4:50 PM
Jonabark -- Republicans manipulated the machines? That is just plain dumb! How about some evidence? It is Democrats who have the long term reputation of voter fraud. decal
Miller presents this Republican influence as speculation and suspicion, but his suspicions are not without an extensive basis of documented research.
As far as your assertion that " It is Democrats who have the long term reputation of voter fraud", I don't know what you are talking about with the long term and I despise all vote manipulation by anyone from poll taxes and literacy tests to the purging of voters in Florida 2000. Fraud of this kind is truly evil and I despise i in any innstance but in the last 2 elections you are quite wrong about voter fraud, the evidence for Republican fraud vastly outnumbers Democratic fraud, from the White House intimidation and firing of federal prosecutors to specific incidents in Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Nevada and Oregon. Just the millions that the RNC paid out to firms caught in illegal vote fraud activities is pretty staggering and completely unparalleled on the Democratic side.
Also the RNC under Rove openly celebrates a culture of what they call "dirty tricks" when it come to winning elections, as though they were schoolboy pranks and not serious crimes.
Neither party is taking a firm stand for reform. We need to get rid of the electoral college and move to instant runoff system that might move us away from a lesser of 2 evils system and invite fresh leaders from outside the 2 party system which is obviously broke when major campaign contributors "donate " to both sides. Win win for them , lose lose for the citizens.
Posted by: jonabark | January 26, 2008 5:30 PM
Thanks for the article.
One thing that always strikes me is the level of expectation placed on Presidents (and candidates).
I think one of the best gifts Christians could give to the political process would be a 100% fulfillment of our civic responsibility while having a realistic and principled understanding of the limits of government and the presidency.
The President is the short-term political chief executive of one branch of the most static and massive bureacracy on Earth. This is a very limited job.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 26, 2008 7:54 PM
Twenty years ago Jesse Jackson's support in Iowa was about 75% white voters. I have long thought the populace is far less frozen in its racial views than the media assume. And the world moves.
There are something like 70,000,000 eligible voters that were not voters in 1988. Obama was 6 yrs old when Jesse knealt at the side of Dr. King's dying body. He was 22 at time of Jesse's first presidential campaign. The generation of conservative white voters that left the Democratic Party is mostly dead.
Today's college students have no memory of Ronald Reagen. Only Bushes and Clintons have resided at 1600 Pennsylvania.
I think Baby Boomers (I was born at the peak) have been a fraud. We espoused so much idealism and reform; and walked the nation across the threshold of a new millenium with a vision barely beyond our own navel. This may be the last election we have opportunity to assume adult responsibility and govern with vision.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 26, 2008 8:25 PM
"I can't recall ever hearing a sermon on healing as it relates to racial reconciliation and the wrongs perpetuated against women, African Americans, or any other race, for that matter." You should come to Chalice Christian Church in Gilbert, AZ. Rev. Linda Miller has challenged us on more than one occassion to read the gospel in just such a fashion. Indeed, I've heard her challenge us to seak justice, in addition to charity. Noting that the difference is that one gives up power in the pursuit of justice.
JimII
http://www.propheticprogress.blogspot.com/
Posted by: JimII | January 26, 2008 11:24 PM
"as a "white" person am sorely tempted to vote for a reasonable "non-white" candidate just to break the logjam that America"
The only problem with that is its based in a racist thought pattern .
This may be the last election we have opportunity to assume adult responsibility and govern with vision.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown
Glad to see you have lept some of your idealism my friend , because down deep I really think we have blown it . My thoughts are basically in this example ,Government is coming up with solutions to obesisty.
Remember many of us who I guess were spoiled , but we did not know it . I had three brothers in my bedroom . But I remember going to the store , walking myself and filling up a bag with penny candy . I was a skinny kid , But we were always outside , We would leave home in the morning , if we had a bike we would be on it , When the street lights came on it was our sign to come home . Our kids can't do that anymore , in the best or worse neigborhoods . We hide our kids in our neigborhoods now .
If we did not get to play on our little league all star team , we figured we were not good enough , we got over it . Lot of good things happened along the way in our generation , but its not that so many took our eyes off what was really important , its that so many of us now will even mock it now or those concerned about it .
Posted by: Mick | January 27, 2008 3:36 PM
Jonabark --Democrats have a record of voter fraud going back at least to 1960 when Daley stole the election for Kennedy to 2000 when they stole another from John Ashcroft. I think it's odd the Democrats scream "voter fraud" whenever they lose, as if it's their birthright to win. And isn't it odd too that the problems seem to be in Democratic controlled counties? What happened to all the pre-election Democratic allegations in 2006? The Dems won (how did that happen if R's fix the elections?), so I guess everything is fine. Liberals are sore losers. As to the the Florida 2000 election, it was closer than the margin of error for the machines used. Whoever "lost" was going to feel cheated. Consider us even from 1960. It only took 40 years, and we didn't cheat but I'll take it. As to rest of your allegations, "Baloney!"
Posted by: decal | January 27, 2008 6:51 PM
"Democrats have a record of voter fraud going back at least to 1960 when Daley stole the election for Kennedy to 2000 when they stole another from John Ashcroft"
Well I remember many stories about JFK Dad and his connections . Plus the jokes about Chicago still flow in . I had not heard about John Ashcroft losing by any fraud ?
In our state our last election was a spell binder . The Republican won the first time , then in the second recount . The third the democrat won , and the big debate was King county , which is what makes all state wide elections go to the dems here found enough votes to go for the democrat . Big controversary because it later was determined felons , dead people , and such were voting . The Judge ruled for the democrat but gave a you guys need to get your act together speech to the democrats who controled the County Auditor's office and county government . But the following court case could not prove who those dead people or whatever voted for . Legally I could say why the democrats won was legal , but wow , if I used the kind of bias that you are using Jona about the evils of the other party , I would say the democrats cheated on this one . Down in my gut , I guess I am a naive American , but I think the dems just had a lousy election oversight . And in a close election got caught on the sloppiness that always occured before .
You can't just say felons vote democrat . That is why the Jude threw the republican challenge out basically " I ussually say felons usually are elected democrats " ;0)
Close elections happen and making vote counting more of a science is important .
Posted by: Mick | January 28, 2008 1:42 PM
Thank you for commenting on this blog post. If any of you have CD of sermons that address healing around gender discrimination and racial reconciliation I would like to receive copies to post on my website www.clergyaction.com. Consider this, do you think that race and religious would become more of an issues if Republicans end up with a McCain and Huckabee ticket. Remember that even is S.C. there were some African American pastors who supported Gov. Huckabee because of his conservative views on religion. Even though Sen. Obama overwhelming won the Black vote religion wasn’t an issue because he was going against another democrat. Sen. Clinton is United Methodist and Sen. Obama is United Church of Christ, a denomination that is very liberal. How would Sen. Obama fair with someone like Gov. Huckabee on the ticket with McCain? Would religion be less of an issue if the Democratic nominee were Sen. Clinton?
Posted by: Rev. Romal Tune | January 28, 2008 10:15 PM
Rev. Tune--I always appreciate it when the contributor of the original article comes back on--if for nothing more than to say "Thanks" and a follow-up observation or question. It contributes to better dialogue. Thank you.
Your questions are interesting. Religion and race are two significant factors--through which we view the world in our culture. Yet I tend to think they are dominant. If you ran Obama against Condoleeza Rice--I do not think we would see a big migration of black voters to Condoleeza (even though her racial/religious background is closer to the mainstream of AA culture). I think someone like JC Watts, if he advocated a meaningful compassionate conservatism could peel votes off real fast.
Huckabee could as well--but it would be much slower in the shadow of George Bush; not because he is Baptist but because he has at least some heart to both break out of an ideological mode and love African Americans, Hispanics, etc. enough to argue his case to them.
In the long haul the huge mistake Democrats make is not recognizing that lower-income, less-educated, less-access communities are mostly more traditional in values. And Republicans don's see them.
a few resources if you are not aware:
www.reconcile.org
www.urbanministry.org/reconciliation
www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/48/
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 29, 2008 9:23 AM
Democrats have a record of voter fraud going back at least to 1960 when Daley stole the election for Kennedy to 2000 when they stole another from John Ashcroft.
Kennedy I've heard, but I have serious doubts about Ashcroft. I knew that Ashcroft had alienated the substantial black community in Missouri for remarks that he made that were published in a neo-Confederate magazine and having prosecuted an African-American judge who happened to be a political foe.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 29, 2008 12:28 PM
UCC-is it not considered liberal.? Part of Congregational church. Similar to United Presbeterian? Ordains and accepts women and gay-homosexuals into membership or as clergy,contrary to NT teaching? That we are to be celebate till we marry. Adultery or fornication no big deal in it? Plus view on Jesus return is? Virgin birth,Mary as per NT teaching> Compared to usual doctrine of Eastern Orthodox or most Evangelicals-Baptists? And part of National council of churches. Liberal leanings,toward inspiration of bible? Just wondering how lines up to creeds we confess as Nicene creed,apostles creed,ect> We vote for person believe best one for Pres. Not church belongs too. Ron Paul or Mitt Romney,but never Hillary clinton or John McCain-mudslinging types both. Calculating,do almost anything to get office,not refer to Barak,just feel too young-not experienced enough or tough enough to deal with these arabs and Communist types like Fidel,Hugo Chavez and Putin. Nice guy but notI speak as 61 yr. old lady,former Morman at one time(when 16 got sucked into this group. After got in,Lutheran Uncle showed me from history,bible,creeds and doctrine where was wrong. So even though he was82,this teenager see the truth. Got myself excommunicated for asking questions. And saying I believed in the apostles creed,and Martin Luther views too. Funny to get kicked out for believing in old ways. Jan N.
Posted by: Jan Naugle | January 29, 2008 10:39 PM
I am 'signing off' activity on blog. I decided the structure of the whole thing (or lack thereof) just makes it inherently non-productive (i.e. for me).
I would gladly commit with 20 Christian brothers and sisters from a range of views to hammer out a productive dialogue. But there is more structure to a street corner verbal brawl than there is here.
My suggestion to Sojo would be to keep one open line of discussion up at all times for those who wish the present format. But for most of the articles, to design a richer, and moderated format. e.g. Jim Wallis posts article and at close of post outlines three questions he has interest in hearing a response to. Then Sojo requests one or two of its contributors to make a response within 24 hrs. Anyone else could comment but would be restricted to the topic at hand. Within 48 hrs. Jim Wallis would revist conversation with an additional reflection/clarification/question.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 30, 2008 12:10 AM
That is too bad Mr Justice . A few may follow . Even when I diSSAGREED , YOUR TREND OF THOUGHT WAS BASED IN Bibical understanding . Not race basd politics, political idealogy , one of the few folks I repected the content of their views .
I always thought it was based upon your experience and our savior .
Go with Love
Posted by: Mick | January 30, 2008 2:28 AM
"Democrats have a record of voter fraud going back at least to 1960 when Daley stole the election for Kennedy ..."
No, Daley only stole Illinois for Kennedy. Even if Kennedy had not "won" Illinois, he would have won the election because he still would have had enough electoral votes.
Posted by: I and I | January 30, 2008 11:42 AM
Rev. Tune and others, I would appreciate reading any reactions to Shelby Steele's new book "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win." I was hoping perhaps an article could be posted reflecting on or critiquing this book. I finished it a few weeks ago and, while I often don't agree with Steele on political issues, I felt he really had something to say with this book. As a white male, it made me examine my own white guilt and to recognize that many of us are excited about a viable black man running for President because we desire some absolution for our country's history of racism. And that Obama affirms our repentance for racism rather than challenging us as individuals to "prove" that we are not racist.
I hope others here will read this book. I don't agree with many things that Steele has written elsewhere (about affirmative action, for example, which he opposes and I support), but this book jolted my mind and changed my thinking.
Having said that, unlike Steele, I do believe Obama can win, and I hope he does.
(PS. I also just read a book called "Running on Race" by Jeremy Mayer about the role of race in Presidential elections from 1960-2000. It sets some context for the role of race in this year's campaigns and is important for understanding some of Bill Clinton's anger of late. But read the Obama book first!)
Posted by: I and I | January 30, 2008 11:56 AM
As a white male, it made me examine my own white guilt and to recognize that many of us are excited about a viable black man running for President because we desire some absolution for our country's history of racism. And that Obama affirms our repentance for racism rather than challenging us as individuals to "prove" that we are not racist.
I've read excepts from Steele's book, and one thing he apparently glosses over is that Obama isn't "African-American" in the classic sense; remember, he grew up fairly privileged and shielded from what most black Americans would call the reality of American racism. That is what some people meant that he was "not black [enough]." And also note that many conservatives, arguably the most racist, still won't vote for him anyway (consider the source of the e-mail about his alleged Muslim background).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 30, 2008 12:57 PM
Thank you for the recommended readings. I'll be sure to pick them up. As always, I appreciate the dialogue and feedback. The blogging thing is new to me. Jim Wallis has been asking to do it for while and this was my first shot. Hopefully I'll get better as we go along. I think that healthy dialogue on the issue of race and healing is always a good thing. We've come a long way and I believe that if all of us (me included) strive to be honest with ourselves and each other, we can help a lot of other people on the journey towards equality, fairness and justice.
Posted by: Rev. Romal Tune | January 31, 2008 6:05 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?