Obama and ‘the Bubba Vote’
By Mumia Abu-Jamal [col. writ. 9/9/08] (c) ‘08

By now, if pundits were to be believed, Sen. Barack Obama was supposed to be coasting to an easy November win, buoyed by dramatic moments at the democratic Convention, and cruising on a comfortable lead in the polls.

But if ever there was an election season that proved that pundits couldn’t catch the ball, this is it.

For the polls are neck-and-neck dead heats between the campaigns of Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain (R- Ariz.).  If there was a post-convention bounce, it went to McCain for his surprise pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the V.P. spot.

She has energized a campaign that was seen as moribund just a few weeks ago.

There is another factor that we cannot ignore; what former GOP house majority leader, Dick Armey (R – Tex) calls ‘the Bubba vote.

In Armey’s words, “The Bubba vote is there, and it’s very real, and it is everywhere,” Armey went on to explain what he meant by  ‘the Bubba vote’; “There’s an awful lot of people in America, bless their heart, who simply are not emotionally prepared to vote for a black man.”  There it is.

If this Bubba vote has kept Obama from bouncing after a successful convention, McCain’s Palin pick has compounded this problem.

For it demonstrates that all the hue and cry over ‘experience’ was but a smokescreen for something else.  It shows us that all the clamor over ‘qualifications; was naught but pretext.

For after all is said and done, for millions of Americans, Barack Obama’s blackness has made him automatically ineligible for election.

That’s not issues; that’s not views, that’s not politics; that’s race.  Period.

And, truth be told, that’s America, at its core.

After the Democratic conventions, many Black publications gushed over the history of the nomination.  And while it’s true it’s never happened before, it’s also true that a nomination is nothing more than a means to an end.

If he loses the election, the nomination goes into the Geraldine Ferraro closet, and it will be generations before this historic opportunity returns.

And, if ‘the Bubba vote’ gets its way, he may well lose.

It reminds us of what’s called ‘the Bradley effect,’ after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley ran for Governor of California.  Bradley was leading in polls by double digits the night of the election.

By morning, he’d lost.

When Douglas Wilder ran for Governor, he led by 10 points in the polls.  His victory was just over 1% of the vote.

So, the polls are neck-and-neck.  Indeed, some show McCain leading.

What’s that tell ya, but that ‘the Bradley effect’ (or should we call it ‘the Bubba effect’?) is still at work?

–(c) ‘08 maj

[Sources: Wolf, Richard and Martha T. Moore, ” Armey predicts Obama will hit blockade of ‘Bubba’, ” USA Today, Thurs,. Sept. 4, 2008; Henry, Charles P., “Obama ‘08 – Articulate and Clean,” Black Scholar. (Spr, ‘08). p. 5.)

Equal Opportunity Supporters Paid Less

A new study shows that men who adhere to a traditional mind-set about gender roles are paid more than men who are more egalitarian. What do you think?

Renee Kaplan,
Systems Analyst
”Is this the least convoluted example of sexism they could find?”

Micah Keenan,
Stockbroker
”Good to know. Next time I’m angling for a raise, I’ll be sure to compliment my boss on her tits.”

Frank Richards,
Salvage Dealer
“I’m fine with egalitarian men earning equal pay, I just don’t think they should be allowed to marry or join the military.”

Today’s photo of the day shows Omhari Sengstacke, who was caught trying to sneak through the gates at the Obama compound with a handgun. Hopefully, this is not the start of crazy season…

Today’s video of the day is “Love That Girl” by Raphael Saadiq. If you haven’t purchased his new album, The Way I See It, order it now!!! It is hot fire!!!!

Men and Women, Capitalism and Relationships
Matthew Birkhold

Hanging out on the internet last night, I came across a piece at Model Minority (www.modelminority.blogspot.com) on women waiting around for men.  M.Dot’s piece suggests that men and women are socialized to think about relationships differently.  She argues that women are socialized to make relationships their number one priority while men are socialized to make work our number one priority.  After reading, I immediately thought about the impact that this has had on my life and how it’s connected to the history of patriarchy and capitalism.

Growing up, I watched my dad work 60 hours a week even though he didn’t have to.  40 hours a week would have provided more than enough money for survival and some recreation.  However, my pops worked more than he had to because he wanted our family to experience a particular standard of living.

While my mother, brother, sister and I were grateful for the standard of living we experienced, we also wished we spent more time with my father.  I remember asking him why he worked so much and him replying, “for my family.”  I just remember thinking it was strange that he thought was doing something for his family that we didn’t necesarraliy want.  He recently told me that he wishes he had worked less and spent more time with the family he was a part of.

Ironically, despite understanding how prioritizing work over relationships impacts people we have relationships with, I do the same thing my pops did.  I’ve told several women that my relationships with them would not take precedence over my writing, activism, teaching, and/or school.  While it’s easy to say that my priorities are only temporary, it’s much harder to live a shift in priorities.

It’s hard to shift these priorities because, as a man, the fact that it’s acceptable for me to put work before anything else provides a real convienant excuse for not doing the emotional work that healthy relationships require.  If work becomes less of a priority for me, I have to practice being more vulnerable, more patient, more kind, and more loving.  These are things I don’t always know how to do and because of this, I continue to work harder than I need to and my relationships suffer.

So how did it become common practice that men place work before everything else?  The answer can only be seen if we look at the history of patriarchy and capitalism.

When European states began to regulate the reproductive rights of women in the 16th century, they began having more kids.  Consequently they were not able to work and men had to work more.  Because men’s wages stayed the same, when women began having more kids European working families experienced incredibly high levels of poverty.

However, as profits from the trade of African slaves in the Caribbean began to appear in England and France, white male workers organized and demanded higher wages.  They got them, and as a result, the potential for white working-class women to be housewives became economically feasible.  The labor of slaves then became even more important to white housewives because the raw materials Africans mined, framed, and picked were turned into goods in European factories then marketed and sold to white women who didn’t have jobs.

Only made possible by the enslavement of Africans, white people practiced a form of patriarchy that allowed men to construct a model of masculinity that prioritized work before everything else.  Women then stayed home and cared for people thus developing a set of relationship skills that many men haven’t developed.  After the end of legal slavery and the racist origins of capitalist patriarchy had become invisible, freed black folks were also expected to practice this patriarchal standard.

Matt Birkhold is a Binghamton, NY based writer and educator.  He can be reached at birkhold(at)gmail(dot)com.