Hertzberg's fable about Obama's race speech

Writing in The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg novelizes Obama's race speech into the act that won him the presidency:

In his Philadelphia speech of March 18, 2008, prompted by the firestorm over his former pastor, he treated the American people as adults capable of complex thinking—as his equals, you might say. But what made that speech special, what enabled it to save his candidacy, was its analytic power. It was not defensive. It did not overcompensate. In its combination of objectivity and empathy, it persuaded Americans of all colors that he understood them. In return, they have voted to make him their President.

The reality is far more mundane:

Most voters following the events [the Wright controversy] say they will make no difference in their vote. Seventy percent say the events will make no difference in their vote. Among those who said it would, 14 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for Obama while an equal number said it makes them less likely to support him.

Nearly a quarter of Democrats say the events have made them more likely to back Obama, while a similar number of Republicans say they are now less likely to do so. Three in four independents say the events make no difference, and the remainder are nearly evenly split between those more likely to support him and those less likely to do so.

The speech may have had a small effect on Obama's poll numbers, but the data aren't clear. The primary effect of the race speech was that it ended media's nonstop coverage of the Wright controversy, which might have done significant damage to Obama's chances of winning the Democratic nomination if it had continued.

Update 11/14 10:12 AM: As Rob reminds us in comments, Wright returned to the news in late April after controversial appearances at the Detroit NAACP and the National Press Club. Obama then disavowed his comments which largely quieted the storm. At that point, however, Obama had what turned out to be an insurmountable lead.

Comments

[Rob]

My recollection is that the heavy media coverage of Wright may have slackened briefly after the Philadelphia speech but renewed apace when Wright returned from his foreign trip and made two unfortunate appearances before the Detroit NAACP and at the National Press Club. That was what prompted Obama to do that which he said in his Philadelphia speech he would not do: disavow Wright (who then joined Obama's grandmother under the bus where Obama had tossed her in the Philadelphia speech). It was Obama's jettisoning of Wright that really stopped the media obsession with Wright.

Your point about the New Yorker is of course correct. As their political commentary over the last eight years has demonstrated, they're trying to return to their great tradition of publishing fiction.

[BG]

It's the New Yorker... novelization of political analysis is allowed.

[David]

For what it's worth, I thought Obama's speech sounded terribly impressive when I listened to it. However, on re-reading it, I was less impressed with its content.

Romney made a comparable speech dealing with bigotry against Mormons. I thought that speech really did treat Americans as adults capable of complex thoughts. It also used long words and longer sentences. IMHO that speech aimed at eggheads, which is why it failed to stem the tide of anti-Mormon prejudice.

[Jinchi]

IMHO that speech aimed at eggheads, which is why it failed to stem the tide of anti-Mormon prejudice.

Are you arguing that Romney lost the Republican primary because of anti-Mormon prejudice?

My guess is that he lost the primary because he attempted to run as religious-values social conservative despite his record campaigning as a moderate in Massachusetts. It was too easy to brand him as a person who had no core convictions who would say anything to be elected.

If he'd run as a fiscal conservative with a solid knowledge of the economy he might have done better.

[David]

I agree with your points Jinchi. However, I do think he was also hurt by religious bigotry and because his speeches didn't connect with ordinary voters.

[Howard Craft]

I would not be able to say if Obama's speech changed a decisive number of votes (I think it may have, though). I would say that it made many who were Obama supporters more confident in their choice.

He addressed both race in America and faith in that speech. When speaking about race he discussed it in broad (social and historic and political) contexts. He showed that he was not guided by a sense that racism was a scourge in current day America, but he acknowledged its history and its continued existence as a real issue.

Obama also expressed that racism was (or could be) simply a general level of discomfort or suspicion that is a normal part of human nature. Some on the Right felt that it was wrong for him to say that, but common sense and experience says its true. That, to me, is the reason that only Rush Limbaugh and his followers said Obama had "thrown his grandmother under the bus".

There was no bus. There was no throwing.

With regard to Rev Wright, Obama more or less said that his faith (the higher moral values that Wright represented in his position but not necessarily in his person or in his speech) was the foundation of their continued relationship. In that regard Obama was able to cast himself as a person of Christian faith, much in line with "mainstream" voters.

It was necessary speech, and it was important. I think it was similar to Obama discussing his relationship with Bill Ayers in the final debate. It closed some issues, to a certain degree.

Rev Wright should have been thrown under the bus a long long time previous to April of 2008, IMHO. Much as I can understated Obama not denouncing him years ago I also can't understand him not denouncing him years ago.

As Brendan has said previously, it may have just been "local politics" but I think silence was inexcusable even at the price of local support. Honestly, I think Obama must have done more than just listening in silence, but that story (if it exists) hasn't been told.