The United States: Post-Racial?

The sincerity in which former president Jimmy Carter spoke last week about the detestable persistence of racist sentiment in “a large sector of the country” has created a political problem for President Barack Obama and has provoked an intense debate about the state of racial relations in the country.

Strictly speaking, before Carter’s interview it was already being discussed in political circles that there were old racist echoes in South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst. The day before the interview in which Carter expressed his concerns about the theme, I myself wrote an article where I adopted a similar position to the former president’s, albeit less extensive and with a different argument.

I criticized Wilson for his lack of respect for the office, and I recalled his political background. However, I omitted suspiciously racist facts and words. For example, how do you understand this sector of the opposition that deceptively suggests that the president is not a citizen by birth and that he was born in Kenya, if not as an attempt to discredit his presidency? For what reason are there people who carry protest caricatures of the president which offensively emphasize the color of his skin and paint him as a witch doctor? What other meaning can one give as an explanation for Rusty DePass, a Republican activist from the same state as Wilson, when he declared that the gorilla that escaped from the zoo was nothing more than the first lady’s ancestor?

Despite the evidence cited, I believe that the number of Americans who believe in the superiority of the white race is not as extensive as Carter seems to suggest. I am convinced that the country is advancing toward a post-racial era and that the majority of its citizens demand the enforcement of laws that prohibit racial discrimination in the workplace, home, schools, and who hope that civil, human, and political rights of racial minorities are respected.

The spokesman of the White House has said that the president does not think that the criticism from his project’s opponents “is based on the color of his skin.” Agreed, however, given the historic evolution of racial relations in his country and the successful strategy that Obama has used throughout his political career, the official statement by the presidential press is predictable.

Obama won the presidency because he convinced the majority of Americans that the country is living in a post-racial reality and that he is capable of governing for all. The revelation is transcendental because it puts an expiration date on the 1960’s affirmative action policies, which were implemented to provide equal opportunities for all.

Like all good things, however, affirmative action has also led to excesses, for example, the demand for special benefits for minorities. This can portray minorities as victims of an oppressive society and, in turn, demonize whites, who are seen as the oppressors. Thus, minority politicians are locked in a convenient, albeit undesirable, “ghettoization,” which allows them to win elections in primarily minority districts, but prevents them from triumphing when an electorate is not racially homogeneous and judges them too heavily based on their race or ethnicity. When Obama decides to compete politically, he does so knowing that the path blazed by candidates like Jesse Jackson or activists like Al Sharpton does not lead to the White House.

Today, although a section of the public asks him to participate in the debate on the state of race relations, it seems unlikely that, from the presidency, Obama will change his discourse. On the other hand, I think that nothing or no one can force a racist to modify his abominable manner of seeing things. The state has already created laws against discrimination. Racial relations have improved and the only thing that we can insist on now is that the state punishes those who infringe upon those laws.