What did I say about racism?

Hey Folks,

If you’ve been wondering, as I have, how the Columbus Dispatch would come down on the Ohio goober-natorial race, today its decision was made clear. They’ll be endorsing Blackwell.

Glen Sheller, editorial page editor, made it clear today in one of his rare (read “important”) columns, acting as John the Baptist to the Wolfe family’s Jesus.

In an essay that borders on, or demonstrates, racism – you can decide for yourself – Sheller lays out – albeit between the lines – the Dispatch’s election strategy.

He admits what everyone knows, “a Democratic governor is likely to be more sympathetic to minority demands for [what he calls] government favors [and others call “full citizenship].”

He also reveals the paper’s analysis: “In many elections pitting a black candidate against a white one, the question is whether a majority-white electorate will vote for a black candidate. In this one, the major question is how many blacks will vote for the black candidate. With the chance to elect a governor who looks like them…”

So, since significant numbers of white Republicans aren’t buying Blackwell – whether for his half-baked business/education proposals, his religious zealotry, or because of their own racism - the R’s are forced to look to Blacks to save their ass.

But Republicans can’t sell Blackwell to Blacks on the basis of self-interest – Sheller admits as much. So what’s a desperate editorialist to do?

Play the race card.

Demonize the Civil Rights movement, Jesse Jackson, affirmative action, integration, Black pride, Black colleges, and the "race card"; and go so far as to imply that Dr. King – who is unable now to speak for himself – would rather have Jackson supporting a candidate who will harm Blacks simply because the candidate is Black and “looks like them.”

Pretty sad.

So, Folks, if Las Vegas will take your bet, put all your money on the Dispatch endorsing Blackwell. It’s a done deal.

- Uke Man


Jackson’s jilting of Blackwell brings an unusual juxtaposition to Ohio politics
Monday, September 25, 2006
GLENN SHELLER
(my comments in red)

The modern civil-rights movement has been a roller coaster. It has risen, fallen, turned inside-out and doubled back on itself repeatedly. It has achieved great successes and spawned any number of contradictions, often tying itself and the nation in knots (yeah, but the White nation provided the rope and the jusification).

One decade, black leaders have demanded equality; the next, preferences. At one time, busing for racial balance was imperative; now we’re told, minorities are better served by neighborhood schools.

Once, rubbing elbows with white classmates was expected to improve blacks’ academic performance, but a few years later, this idea is seen as condescending to blacks.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that ensuring racial diversity on college campuses is an interest so compelling that universities deserve a loophole in anti-discrimination law that allows them to give minority applicants an edge in admissions. Yet even as universities handed out these preferences, students segregated themselves in dormitories, cafeterias and ethnically-based campus associations.

And don’t even mention the compelling interest in diversity when the topic is historically black colleges. These institutions, it is said, are vital because they supply black students with a kind of validation and confidence that is hard for them to find on those integrated campuses where diversity is so compelling.

By now, Americans are so used to — or intellectually paralyzed by such ideological pretzel-twisting ( just because Sheller and others can't understand - or choose to not understand - these supposed contradictions, doesn't make them contradictions; instead it reflects, at best, stupidity and, at worst, self-serving racism) that many didn’t even notice what is perhaps the oddest inversion yet: A major black civil-rights leader is actively campaigning against the first black to ever have a shot at the Ohio governor’s mansion.

That happened right here in Columbus last Monday, when the Rev. Jesse Jackson convened a summit at the King Arts Complex to create a coalition, ostensibly to increase voter turnout and protect us all from attempts to suppress our vote (not that ANYTHING like that could happen in Ohio).

Not that Jackson was naive enough to come right out and say who he supports for Ohio governor. He’s probably well aware that certain other folks whose names are preceded by the Rev. have been accused of violating the federal tax code by demonstrating a preference for one of the gubernatorial candidates, specifically, the black one.

Jackson is for the other candidate, who isn’t black, but he doesn’t want to say so. Instead, he said Ohioans should vote based on ethics, not on ethnicity. "You’ve got to choose leaders based on priorities and public policy," he said. "We’re not arguing race; we’re arguing direction."

That’s quite a statement from a guy whose career has been built on playing the race card. And it’s a historic moment in civil-rights history, when a protégé of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. campaigns to prevent a black candidate from achieving political power. (yeah, supporting a good Black candidate is "playing the race card" and opposing a bad Black candidate is "playing the race card" - spoken like a good White man!)

Of course, Jackson embraces colorblindness only because he knows that a Democratic governor is likely to be more sympathetic to minority demands for government favors than a Republican one, even a black one.

For Jackson, colorblindness is not a principle that one should live and defend, it is a mere political tactic, as temporary as any other. But no surprise there; he has always been an opportunist (but Republicans and the Dispatch - on the other hand - DO live on and defend colorblindedness - that's why Blacks have it made in central Ohio).

Jackson’s statement is fascinating for another reason. In many elections pitting a black candidate against a white one, the question is whether a majority-white electorate will vote for a black candidate. In this one, the major question is how many blacks will vote for the black candidate (Sheller, fails to explain why the Whites can't elect Blackwell). With the chance to elect a governor who looks like them, how many blacks will abandon their traditional allegiance to the Democratic Party? He might have added "Please, please, please, please!!!!!"

This has been a worry for Democrats since J. Kenneth Blackwell entered the governor’s race. Jackson can blather on about vote-stealing conspiracies all day, but his real purpose in Ohio is to keep black voters from defecting to Blackwell (and what is Sheller's real purpose?) . That Jackson and Democrats feel the need to do this indicates a refreshing and encouraging change in the usual racial dynamics.

So, even if for the wrong reasons, Jackson is, in this instance, on the side of the angels. He is calling on Ohio voters to be colorblind, to vote for a political candidate based on his ideas, not the melanin content of his skin. This is the part designed to rebut any charges of racist content - i.e. "Oh, yeah!!! We're just saying all this because - unlike Rev. Jackson - WE really aren't racist in any way and NEVER play the "race card."

Amen, brother Jackson. Amen, brother Sheller.

Glenn Sheller is editorial page editor of The Dispatch.
gsheller@dispatch.com

- Uke Man