Opinion: Redefining the Colour Chart to Win an Election

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

It's a safe assumption that anyone that has been following the U.S. election process over the past 18 months would have to be blind not to have considered the effect that "race", or perceptions of it, have played.

From the beginning of the primary season, there were whispers (at first) that this election had the potential to be a water-shed moment in U.S. history. Black, White, Latino, women, elderly, young, veterans (of war and politics), newcomers, and professional actors were all represented in the vast array of candidates engaged in the double battle for party representative and eventual presidential candidate. As the number of participants began to be whittled away, each party and the pundits began to concentrate on the "base voters" that were needed to secure the nomination.

Republicans were concerned about the Religious Right, veterans, and increasing the youth vote. Democrats zeroed in on female voters, the middle class, and racial minorities. Suddenly the November election became less about issues and more about getting out a specific vote.

Republicans resolved their issues in a dramatic shift from the needs of the religious base to those interested in securing the U.S., and the world, from continued terrorism. The Democrats took a few more months to decide between a female "insider" and a previously (in terms of national politics) newcomer who is also black. In the end, Sen. Clinton was deemed too "untrustworthy" to clinch the nomination; September will reveal whether she has fully accepted this loss.

I remember considering writing a commentary in May about the three main candidates. It was to be entitled, "The unseated Queen, the Priest with no vocation, and the retired Warrior." I had hoped to express my views on what had been happening through the use of satirical fiction, but realized that sometimes perceived truth can be the strangest fiction of all. Now that Sen. Clinton has been "dethroned", the U.S. electorate is left with Sen. McCain, an elderly "maverick" white man, and Sen. Obama, a young "rock star" black man. I naïvely thought that race would become less of an issue as these two contenders began to discuss the very pressing issues facing the U.S.: e.g., the failing economy, illegal immigration, complete ineptness in many federal and state agencies, rising crime in some areas, the continued plight of the working (and not working) poor, ending / resolving the wars in the Middle East.

I was wrong. It appears that the colour of the candidates epidermis is far more important than any of the niggling issues that I mentioned. From ongoing coverage of using the N-word, to polling blacks and whites as to which candidate they will vote for (based on the candidates race), to parsing and picking at comments from Rev. Jackson, to re-energizing the Republican youth (viewed as primarily white), to discussing all of these "important" issues on The View, morning cables news, and radio programs ... not a stone seems to have been left unturned. Yep ... it's not about who will begin to solve / resolve the many crises that are facing the U.S. (and by extension the West); it's a 21st century rehash of the "Race Wars" that have plagued every society known to man.

I can hear the cherry-pickers now, "What would you know about race? You're a white, middle-class, young(ish) man." I'll let you in on a little secret. I may pass for white, but having Gypsy, Jewish and Mongolian heritage makes me as non-white as the next guy. My sibling got a mix of genes that gives her the appearance of being Asian—which, combined with dyslexia, led to an unfortunate and incorrect childhood diagnosis of Down's Syndrome.

I can assure you that I've been the subject of every "ism" except one—I've yet to experience age-ism. There isn't even a minority label to adequately describe my mutt-hood.

My original question was whether the current "race crisis" in this election is inherent to the election process or has it been massaged into it's current front-runner status. I am leaning towards the latter influence. Here's how I got there.

CNN just finished the broadcast of a documentary special named, "Black in America", which has been in production for the past year. I'm certain that had there not been a black man running for the office of U.S. President, that the special would have been less intense in it's coverage. I'm also fairly certain that had Gov. Richardson been higher in the rankings, as the primaries ended, that they would have cobbled together a piece on being Latino. Alternately, although McCain won the Republican nomination, there has been no "in-depth" coverage of the life of the elderly in the U.S.. It's difficult to predict whether there would have been coverage of being Mormon had Romney won the vote. Oddly enough, even though they each represent a significant population in the U.S., no in-depth reporting has been deemed necessary.

Prior to Obama and McCain winning their respective nominations, when surrogates from either campaign inserted foot A into opening B, the other would somehow match the idiocy in a strange game of tic-tac-toe, as if played by morons. Obama had Rev. Wright; then came Hagee for McCain. Obama was found to have lobbyists; McCain had to get rid of his own. Tit, tat, ping, pong, serve, lobby .... on it went, while the issues had to tread water just to stay afloat.

Now we have two—assuming that Queen Hil doesn't cave into pressure to take the nomination to the convention. Obama makes a whirl wind fact-finding visit of the Middle East and Europe, he's greeted as a dignitary (well above his current station as U.S. senator), his congressional colleagues are ignored, and the world press explodes in exultation that a black man may soon become president of the U.S.. Although he's careful not to try and appear arrogant and presumptive, the pundits all agree that his fact-finding trip is also about "looking Presidential". I must have missed the part where he became U.S. President. Sen. McCain has spent most of this past week—according to the pundits—unsuccessfully attacking Obama from across the Atlantic Ocean. Their considered advice is that he should have concentrated on his "core issues" and securing "his base".

What? That sounded almost like advice to McCain to begin addressing the needs of his constituents. Nope.

What that apparently means is that black and white voters need to constantly answer polls as to which candidate they prefer based on a number of factors: trustworthiness, ability to be Commander in Chief, specifics (yet to be revealed) on the economy, etc. What this doesn't mean is polling all the other U.S. citizens that don't strictly identify with either black or white voters, i.e., Latinos, Jews, Asians, non Religious Right, Independents, moderates. As they don't conveniently fit into the ever-important polling results, they are ignored. They also happen to be many of the groups that were represented during the primary process.

For those of you keeping score .... my estimation is that the ignored group represents the majority of U.S. citizens.

Ahhh ..... but you see, they aren't newsworthy. They're hard to pigeon hole so they might skew the results. They tend to vote with their head, so in absence of issues, they just might not vote for either party. They don't just live in the "battle states", they live in every community in every state, they are the true swing vote.

They also realize that when you turn out the lights, it's almost impossible to discern another person's colour. Perhaps the media should learn from this and start working by candle light.