That’s the argument that Jacob Weisberg makes in a recent piece over at Slate:
Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world’s judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn’t put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
Weisberg’s unstated insinuation, of course, is that any vote against Barack Obama, especially a vote against Barack Obama by a white person is per se racist, and any other reason that a voter comes up with for their choice is a smokescreen for the fact that they just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black man.
In today’ Wall Street Journal James Taranto exposes the fundamentally flawed logic behind Weisberg’s argument:
Weisberg is committing the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. This consists of an argument in the following form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.In this case, P is “Obama wins the presidency,” and Q is (in our simplified paraphrase) “America has overcome its legacy of racism.”
Another way of formulating Weisberg’s argument is this: Obama’s victory is a sufficient condition for America to have overcome its legacy of racism. Therefore, Obama’s victory is a necessary condition for America to have overcome its legacy of racism. This is true only if one accepts as a premise that Obama’s victory is logically equivalent to America’s having overcome its legacy of racism–a silly premise, given that Obama’s even winning the nomination was contingent on so many factors.
Are there some people out there who will reflexively vote against Barack Obama because of his race ? Yes, there probably are, but there is also a group of people out there who will vote for Barack Obama because of his race — and that includes all those liberal, white Obama supporters out there who are supporting him because of his race.
Weisberg is wrong, though, to say that anyone who opposes Obama, or at least any white person who opposes Obama, is basing their political opinion on racial prejudice. There are legitimate reasons to oppose Barack Obama that have nothing to do with his skin color and, if he loses, he still will have made history by becoming the Presidential nominee of what was once the party of slaveholders.
“Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives”
How? How does Obama getting elected magically erase prejudice from the minds of Americans? Suddenly once he’s elected all the Klansmen say, “You know, all these years I guess I really was wrong about hating blacks.”
Sounds logical to me.
Although I’m glad to read that someone besides me sees through Weisberg’s obscene insult to the democratic process, you folks are missing the more important point: Weisberg’s logic manifests the larger Liberal threat to America itself (which differs from the Republican threat to the nation). The logic used by Weisberg, and I assume it’s typical of democrats, suggests that we MUST vote for Obama in order to impress other nations and to prove we’re not racist. This is the part that I object to: being told that I HAVE to vote for a certain candidate. The gesture overall is I think very typical of true American Liberalism: paying lip service to freedom and choice, while deploying a sinister subtext of coercion, intolerance, and hatred. If many Americans are influenced by people like Weisberg, I need to start thinking about moving to Canada!
And just to give proper credit where it’s due. I heard Sen. Obama use the term “American Spirit,” I think, during his recent convention speech. If the Senator means what he says, and I have no reason to suspect he doesn’t, then Obama probably understands my fiercely independent American Spirit and my resistance to being told what to do. In fact, I wouldn’t be suprised if Obama himself would disapprove of Weisberg’s sentiments, preferring to win the election (if he does) based on merit rather than skin color.
[...] might want to talk, for example, to the columnist who said before you were elected that had you lost, it would mean that America is a racist country. You might also want to talk to Cynthia Tucker, the newspaper columnist who called people showing up [...]