Is birtherism driven by race?

Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler objects to the liberal conventional wisdom that, as the New York Times put it, "It is inconceivable that this campaign [birtherism]... would have been conducted against a white president":

We think it was a remarkable statement because somewhat similar campaigns already have been conducted against white candidates. A somewhat similar campaign was conducted in 1988 against Candidate Michael Dukakis, for instance. After that, strains of the same ethnic/nativist cards were played against Candidate Kerry in 2004.

When I noted this point in a tweet earlier today, several readers objected, arguing that attacking someone's eligibility for office is different from calling them "un-American":

It's a fair point. However, we need to be careful about the comparisons that we make in thinking about this question. As Somerby notes, Obama is different from other presidential candidates on other dimensions than race. In particular, he has a unique life story:

Let’s be clear: No one has ever been slimed in the exact same way Obama has been slimed. Reason? No other Democrat’s life story ever presented the same opportunities. Before Obama, no president or presidential candidate ever had a father from an exotic foreign country; no such candidate had ever been born in our most distant and exotic state.

For Obama's race to be the cause of the birther critique, we would need to believe that a white presidential candidate with a foreign parent who spent much of his childhood overseas would not have his eligibility for office questioned. Is this plausible? Maybe, but I don't think it's "inconceivable" that a similar attack would have been launched at a white Democrat with Obama's background.

None of this is to say, of course, that racial attitudes haven't contributed to the acceptance of the myth among the public. Sadly, there's lots of evidence that racial attitudes play an important role in people's feelings about Obama. I would imagine that the same holds true for beliefs about his birth as well.

Update 5/6 2:24 PM: As Rob points out in comments, we do have a historical comparison -- Chester A. Arthur, whose father was Irish. Here's the Associated Press:

Nearly 123 years after [Arthur's] death, doubts about his US citizenship linger, thanks to lack of documentation and a political foe’s assertion that Arthur was really born in Canada - and was therefore ineligible for the White House, where he served from 1881 to 1885.

Long before "birthers" began questioning the citizenship of President Obama, similar questions were raised about the early years of Arthur, an accidental president who ascended to the job after President James Garfield was assassinated.

“It’s an old rumor that won’t die, political slander,’’ said John Dumville, who runs Vermont’s historic sites and knows well the legend...

[T]he Arthur birthplace question came up before the Internet was around to spread such theories.

Known as Vermont’s “other president’’ - Calvin Coolidge was born in Vermont - Arthur was the son of a Baptist minister whose first assignment was this small town of 1,916 people in the heart of northern Vermont dairy country.

He was born Oct. 5, 1829, but later in life, he lied about the year. Even his gravestone lists 1830, though Arthur family bibles at the Library of Congress in Washington say 1829.

The family moved often, and by 1835 had left Vermont. Arthur went on to become a teacher, lawyer, and political operative, serving as quartermaster general for the state of New York during the Civil War and later Collector of the Port of New York, appointed by President Ulysses Grant.

The focus on his place of birth became an issue in the 1880 presidential campaign, when Arthur was tapped to be the running mate for Garfield.

According to historical accounts, Republican bosses wanted him to provide proof of his birthplace, but he never did.

Democrats, meanwhile, hired a lawyer named Arthur Hinman who sought to discredit Arthur, alleging that he was born in Dunham, Quebec, about 47 miles north of Fairfield. Hinman traveled to Vermont and Canada to research Arthur’s past, eventually concluding that Arthur was born in Canada but appropriated the birth records of a baby brother who was born in Fairfield, but died as an infant.

He later incorporated the findings into a book titled “How A British Subject Became President of the United States.’’

Arthur, who served from 1881 to 1885, never publicly addressed the allegation.

Update 5/6 2:44 PM: UNL political scientist Mike Wagner notes that being Irish in the 1880s made Arthur a racial outsider, which is true. Arthur isn't a perfect comparison (we would need a white non-ethnic candidate), but the story certainly suggests that birther-type arguments are not just the result of a candidate being black.

Update 5/6 3:32 PM: John McCain's qualifications for the presidency were also discussed as a result of him being born in the Canal Zone, though it never became a salient issue during the 2008 campaign.

[Cross-posted at HuffPost Pollster]

Comments

[Rob]

Birtherism has never haunted a president before Barack Obama? Tell that to Chester A. Arthur.

[David in Cal]

The myth that any criticism of President Obama or of his policies is driven by racism now has a name: the "racer myth". See: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/05/05/truthers-birthers-deathers-got-nothing-on-racers/ This link connects to examples where people who criticized Obama or who disagreed with his policies were called racists.

Here's another example from yestoday's paper from noted columnist, Leonard Pitts.
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/05/2851734/commentary-presidenting-while.html

Note that Pitts' column supplies no grounds at all for his accusation. Like other myth-believers, Pitts somehow just knows that Obama's critics are racists.

What should be done about the "racers"? IMHO, like other purveyors of incendiary myths, they should be shamed and shunned.

[David in Cal]

Some comments above attacked Somerby's examples as inapt, but none of them provided evidence for the original charge that birthers are driven by racism. E.g., the NY Times supported their view by writing, "It is inconceivable that...." That's the kind argument one makes when he has no facts to support his position. Another version that I recall from college was, "Even a freshman knows that...." Then, there's the ever-popular, "Obviously...."

Like other myth believers, racers have turned the burden of proof around in their minds. Their belief is the default. They see no need to prove their position. They might consider changing their minds if someone could disprove their belief, and if the disproof were absolutely flawless.

[daniel rotter]

"This link connects to examples where people who criticized Obama or who disagreed about his policies were called racists."

Except the author doesn't actually GIVE any examples "where people who criticized Obama or who disagreed about his policies were called racists." He/she ("the PJ Tattler" obviously doesn't give any indication of the gender of the author) just gives "racer" responses to conservative policy positions, but doesn't give any specifics of anyone actually uttering said responses.

[daniel rotter]

As for David's assessment of the Pitt's column: "...Pitts somehow just knows that Obama's critics are racists."

Uh, no, Pitt's indicates that he believes that Obama's critics WHO ARE BIRTHERS are racists. You can certainly take issue with that, but that's certainly not the same thing as tarring ALL Obama's critics with the "racist" brush. You (David) either deliberately mischaracterized Pitts' column to make it appear that his position/argument was more extreme and wide-reaching than it actually was, or, (at least in regards to this specific column), you have poor reading comprehension. I hope it's the latter.

[Rob]

Daniel, in the PJ Tattler article, you need to click on the boldface words to go to the links. If you do that, you'll find the article is as specific as anyone could wish.

[daniel rotter]

Whoops, you're right, Rob. Thanks. My apologies to David.

I wonder if "PJ Tattler" and Tony Katz (or anyone else at Pajamas Media, for that matter) believe that the "racer" label/characterization should be applied in the reverse partisan and ideological direction as well (ex: Glenn "Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people" Beck). Nah, to the PJ crowd, playing the race card is probably only a bad thing when a liberal/Democrat is doing the playing.

[daniel rotter]

I actually meant "...to the PM (Pajamas Media)" crowd..." in my last comment.

[Fred A Milton]

It's probably been a year since I stopped by here, and back then Brendan had been clinically kicking birthers for a solid year.

The reasons why the birthers I have talked to questioned Obama's birthplace fall mainly into two groups:

1) The members of one group disagree with Obama's statist, profligate and redistributionist policies, they resent the complete lack of job accountability or qualifying experience in his pre-Presidential life, and they think he, personally, is a hyperpartisan, hypocritical, closed-minded narcissist. They hoped the birth issue would undermine his political influence, which they saw and still see as poisonous. This group is the larger of the two.

2) Members of the other group think every president, including Obama, must, if asked, prove his natural-born citizenship by showing his official long-form birth certificate. They see it as a constitutional requirement, not a choice. They did not understand why Obama refused to release his certificate, so his refusal made them suspicious. His recent release relieved their concern.

There is crossover between the groups. Racism is not a component of either group. Each group is made up of members from every racial group.

The less clear issues are these:

A) Why did Obama refuse to release his long-form certificate for so long?

B) Why did Obama supporters like Brendan, Leonard Pitts, and the MSNBC crew spend so much time and effort talking about birthers?

Maybe the answers to questions A and B are the same.

[Fred A Milton]

In a different context, Brendan would deride any claim sporting the inadequate factual underpinning of the risable "birthers = racists" assertion.

Spin-analyst, analyze thyself.