Does Obama face a racial double standard?

Writing in The Nation, Tulane political scientist Melissa Harris-Perry suggests that President Obama may be suffering from "liberal electoral racism," which she defines as "the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors." After arguing that Obama's record of progressive achievements is comparable to President Clinton's, she argues that "[t]he 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent," which could be seen as "the triumph of a more subtle form of racism":

These comparisons are neither an attack on the Clinton administration nor an apology for the Obama administration. They are comparisons of two centrist Democratic presidents who faced hostile Republican majorities in the second half of their first terms, forcing a number of political compromises. One president is white. The other is black.

In 1996 President Clinton was re-elected with a coalition more robust and a general election result more favorable than his first win. His vote share among women increased from 46 to 53 percent, among blacks from 83 to 84 percent, among independents from 38 to 42 percent, and among whites from 39 to 43 percent.

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

Since 2008, there has been a disturbing accumulation of evidence that race affects how Americans view Obama. You can't understand Americans' views of Obama without considering the role of racial affect. With that said, however, there are other explanations for the differences in the support received by Obama and Clinton.

First, it's not surprising that Obama's approval numbers are relatively weak because the economy -- which plays the dominant role in presidential approval and electoral performance -- has performed worse under him than it did under Clinton. Here, for instance, is a comparison of how nonfarm employment has changed under the two presidents relative to their first month in office:

Even if Obama is not held responsible for the economic downturn he inherited, job growth since the recession ended has been weaker than it was during the comparable period in Clinton's term.

In addition, Harris-Perry cites Clinton's increased support among various groups in 1996 compared to 1992. However, much of the difference between the results is attributable to the decreased performance of Ross Perot in 1996 -- Clinton only increased his share of the two-party vote marginally between those elections (53.5% in 1992 versus 54.7% in 1996).

In addition, the decline in Obama approval among white Americans since 2009 is not strictly comparable to the change in Clinton's electoral performance between 1992 and 1996. Gallup data show that Clinton actually only averaged 44% approval among whites during the third year of his term (he reached 52% approval among whites during 1996 as the economy continued to strengthen).

It is far too early, of course, to know how race will affect Obama's performance in the general election in November 2012. It may also be true that liberals do not give Obama sufficient credit for his legislative accomplishments. But for the moment at least, I don't think we can't confidently attribute the differences between Obama's and Clinton's support among the general public to race.

[Cross-posted to HuffPost Pollster]

Comments

[Rob]

Whatever one may think of Professor Harris-Perry's thesis, one has to admire her use of the word "salvific." I certainly learned something today.

As an interesting sidenote, Professor Harris-Perry's website has as its html title "Melissa Harris-Perry: Professor | Author | African-American | Intellectual." That's the way it comes up when you do a Google search of her name. That makes two things I learned today.

[Paul Nichols]

Race, again, is too easy an answer to Obama's problems with the electorate. He comes off to many as non-presidential - as if he's forever a campaigner and not the guy who actually won the office. He's also seen as simply in over his head.

As a Republican, I wasn't a big fan of Clinton, but he NEVER seemed to be too "small" for the office or "in over his head".
Obama's campaign theme of "Change" brought alot of people in without actually defining what "change" meant. Obama is a "big-government" guy, and for alot of people, that wasn't the "Change" they had in mind.

[Matt Glassman]

I wasn't a big fan of Clinton, but he NEVER seemed to be too "small" for the office or "in over his head".

This is hard for me to believe. By summer 1994, the CW in Washington was pretty much precisely that Clinton was in over his head, and it was an opinion shared by basically all Republicans and many Democrats to boot. The narrative was more or less "small state governor who got lucky in the '92 primaries, stumbled into Washington with wide and naive eyes, couldn't get any of his policies passed, and burned bridges with his own congressional allies."

I don't think Obama has been stellar, but to me he compares incredibly favorably with Clinton's first two years.

[David in Cal]

An intriguing thesis I've seen is that race is at work, but not quite in the way Melissa Harris-Perry suggests. The idea is that race helped Obama in 2008. Evidence that such is that case is that a caucasian candidate would never have been nominated for President with such limited experience. Furthermore, twenty years of membership in a racist church would have destroyed a white candidate. The thesis is that by voting for Obama, many people were proving their own racial tolerance. Their eagerness to support a black President validated their own egos.

However, the same dynamic will no longer apply in 2012. Many voters will feel that they proved their freedom from bias in 2008, so they don't have to do it again. Race hucksters like Harris-Perry will try to get voters back into the fold by accusing them of racism, but their support for Obama in 2008 will immunize them from this sort of attack.

[bnyhan]

No question that race also helped Obama with some people in 2008, especially in the primaries.

[Paul Nichols]

This is hard for me to believe. By summer 1994, the CW in Washington was pretty much precisely that Clinton was in over his head, and it was an opinion shared by basically all Republicans and many Democrats to boot.
----------------------
Maybe it's hard to believe, but I don't remember anybody feeling that way, and I lived in Washington back then.

David in Cal is correct - race helped him in 2008. Many whites assuaged their "white guilt" by voting for a black man. Having done so, I don't think many of them would vote that way again - whether the guy is a Democrat or a Republican.

The writer misses the irony of complaining about race hurting Obama in 2012, yet missing the elephant in the room that it helped him in 2008.

What she would have us believe is that a large chunk of people who've abandoned Obama somehow became racists between 2008 & 2012.

[David in Cal]

Harris-Perry's article was fiercely criticized by liberal pundit Gene Lyons writing in the liberal Salon.com:

The professor actually wrote that. See, certain academics are prone to an odd fundamentalism of the subject of race. Because President Obama is black, under the stern gaze of professor Harris-Perry, nothing else about him matters. Not killing Osama bin Laden, not 9 percent unemployment, only blackness.

Furthermore, unless you're black, you can't possibly understand. Yada, yada, yada. This unfortunate obsession increasingly resembles a photo negative of KKK racial thought. It's useful for intimidating tenure committees staffed by Ph.D.s trained to find racist symbols in the passing clouds. Otherwise, Harris-Perry's becoming a left-wing Michele Bachmann, an attractive woman seeking fame and fortune by saying silly things on cable TV.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2011/09/28/obama_fights_republicans

[lilliek@bellsouth.net]

One work with the "hand" that he or she has been dealt. Whether it is a "bad" or "good" hand. President Obama (a fact) were dealt a "bad hand" (economy). That is a fact that cannot be changed. He has "dealt" with it and is continuing to deal with it; as others has their "heads in the sand". It makes no difference whether who the President may have been or could have been; either way, he or she would have the same "bad hand to deal. So one work with what he or she gets. Therefore, he has done "well" depending on the "support" that he has in Congress or tried "many time"to get. I say, what is going to be is going to be. However, one can be sure, no one can hold another one "back". I am living "proof"
Racism is here forever; we will deal with it wherever we see it. It will never go away and will always "raise" its "ignorant ideas". One do not have to be a Harris-Perry or a Michele Bachman; "racism is a form of ignorance including mental illness that cannot be changed or treated. Therefore, treat it with "hardcore" harness; do not ignore it but deal harsh with it. It was here in B.C. and it is continuing A.D. What else is new?
Therefore, you never stop "fighting" for what you want and believe. The "road" may be "rough" and the "trip" maybe long; but a "Winner" never "Quit" and "Quitter" never "Wins". I've been there and done that. I say, bring it on.